The Nazi Party was based on pragmatism, not ideological purity.

[JVS]

Whenever I am doing work that involves fascism, one of the annoyances is that of establishing what fascist doctrine is. Especially difficult is the establishment of what German fascism, or Nazi-ism is, ideologically speaking. This is further complicated by the fact that in the post WWII environment, even remaining fascist regimes such a Franco's decided to remain largely silent on the issue. The best source of information on fascist ideology comes from the Italians, who having been under fascism for a longer period, had managed to flesh out some theoretical underpinnings. To this day, I would advise anyone who wanted to know what fascism was about to consult the works of Mario Palmieri and Alfredo Rocco. They are a good place to find the ideology explained in from the perspective of its proponents, which I believe is essential for trying to grasp an understanding of any ideology. For the Nazis this is much more difficult, and this is not only because they were in power for a shorter period of time. One of the reasons that philosophical underpinnings do not exist is because the party leadership (i.e Hitler) actively sought to stifle the development of a political philosophy. In fact, if one reads about the Bamberg Conference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamberg_Conference , one sees the promotion of a pragmatic principle called the Führerprinzip, an exercise of pure party discipline with no regard for ideology, over ideological squabbling promoted by ideologues in the Northern part of Germany. From this article,

"Soon after Hitler was banned from public speaking in Bavaria on 9 March 1925,<7> he appointed Gregor Strasser to develop the party in the north. Strasser, a hard-working and gregarious pharmacist of forceful personality who read Homer in the original for relaxation, had exceptional organizational talents and dramatically increased the number of Nazi cells within the north.
Strasser was more idealistic than Hitler and took the notion of "socialist" in the party name with some degree of seriousness. The Communists were a larger factor in the more industrialized north, and Strasser was sensitive to the appeal that "socialism" had to those dissatisfied workers who were tempted by the red flag.<8> He also apparently felt that the Munich clique was ruled by lesser men, and he chafed under their leadership in Hitler's absence.
Strasser was more radical than Hitler on the issue of adherence to the "legal and constitutional" method of obtaining political power through the Weimar Constitution's electoral processes. He had been the SA leader in Lower Bavaria before the Beer Hall Putsch and was not convinced that Hitler's repudiation of force, violence and putsch as a path to political power was correct.
Most serious, perhaps, was the attitude of the northern faction to the party's Twenty-Five Point Programme, which indisputably was intellectually confused and often half-baked. Considering the circumstances in which it was written, it is hard to imagine that it could be otherwise. To Strasser and Goebbels, men with intellectual and ideological bents, warped as those were by scandalous anti-Semitism, the absence of intellectual rigor was a serious defect."

Now before we have people pipe up that there was nothing socialist about the NSDAP, I would point out that if you simplify Socialism to the view that society's fundamental division is economic class and history is the struggle of those classes, one could replace class with ethnicity and have a pretty accurate view of fascist sociology and historiography. Anyway, the northerners wanted something a bit more meaty on the ideological level. Hitler's response was to make clear to them that the party was his, he had control, and he expected complete obedience from each party member to his superiors. Is this really ideological purity? No. Instead it is a pragmatic exertion of party discipline to ensure that the party function as efficiently as possible and not get bogged down in issues of ideology. Such made the party easily wieldable in Hitler's hands so that whenever circumstances required a compromise on a position or with a group outside of the party, his hands were free to make it. By placing total authority with the leader, the leader is no longer bound to follow principles of the party when they prove inconvenient.

[asthmaticeog]

1. You know who else had a pretty accurate view of fascist sociology and historiography? Hitler.

[JVS]

5. After Bamberg, yes. He essentially made himself the infallible arbiter, but he was a noob when...

he joined the movement and really didn't restrict himself with issues of doctrine in the setting of policies.

[msongs]

2. all those dead people will be glad to hear they died because of pragmatism, not ideology nt

[readmoreoften]

8. But the "pragmatists" who claim a pogram or gulag lurks in every instance of ethical commitment

won't be so happy. What justifies all the craven capitulation and corruption if political courage doesn't immediately lead to totalitarian disaster?

[izquierdista]

3. Even the name was pragmatic

They saw that people liked what the Socialists had to offer so they came out with a new and improved brand, National Socialism.

[JVS]

4. Basically it's a crib. "Making ideology sucks, let's substitute Volksgemeinschaft for Proletariat...

and roll with it."

[Recursion]

27. Eh. Both movements agreed with Hegel

Maybe I'm being too technical, but it strikes me that any movement based in Hegelianism is definitively "idealistic".

[Faygo Kid]

6. The Nazi Party was based on Adolf Hitler. Without him, it would have gone by the wayside.

I take issue with those who base the Nazis' power on ideology. It was all about Hitler. Without him, they would have been one of a hundred marginalized parties in the 1920s that would have disappeared.

He was all about Power, and he made it happen. Socialist, Fascist, Capitalist - didn't matter. Whatever put power in the hands of the Fuehrer, that was what the Nazi Party was all about.

I commend the book, "Explaining Hitler," to those who wish to explore this issue. One of the finest books I have ever read, and worth your time.

[backscatter712]

9. Fascism does not have a coherent ideology.

It's not like socialism where you can crack open Karl Marx's writings and see analysis of class struggle and get quotes like "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Agree or disagree with Marx's writings, but he at least had a halfway coherent structure to his ideology.

Ever read Mein Kampf? There's no structure to it. It consists of a series of rants that Hitler dictated to one of his flunkies while he was in prison after the failed Munich Putsch and had nothing else to occupy the time. It's not coherent, in its native German, it isn't even grammatically correct - some have compared the writing to Sarah Palin's nonsense. I've only read bits of the English, and to me, it reminded me of Ann Coulter - hateful screeds, broad-brush attacks, black-and-white thinking, nonsensical streams of consciousness blabbering.

The secret of fascism is that it isn't really based on ideology. It's based on emotion. Specifically, fascism rides on anger, hate, resentment, fear. Any ideology it claims to have is tacked on as an afterthought, and usually, they make it up as they go. That's what makes it a kind of politics that draws corporatists - they can manipulate angry people easily and take the reins. It's also an ideal nesting ground for liars - the types who'll claim to be all for the people, and the workers, and so on, then once they have the levers of power, they use them solely to enrich themselves and torment their enemies.

That's my take on fascism, anyways.

[JVS]

11. Italian Fascism does have a kind of coherence, but Hitler wasn't a fan.

If you read Palmieri and Rocco you will understand a coherent (albeit wrong in my opinion) ideology. You will see points of disagreement between the two, but generally you'll see what their vision of society is and what they root it in.

[Faygo Kid]

12. Very thoughtful. Have you read "Explaining Hitler?"

Given your analysis, and thoughtful consideration of these issues, I hope you will read it, if you have not yet done so.

You will find it compelling.

[backscatter712]

17. Haven't read it yet, but the book definitely sounds interesting.

I just plowed through The Eliminationists myself - also very good.

[readmoreoften]

13. That's why the OP suggests that one read the writing of the Italian Fascists if you want to

understand fascism. There are ideological underpinnings to fascism, as there are to capitalism, but I would definitely agree that both are more subject to the vicissitudes of emotion than communism, which strives to be rational (whether or not it achieves it.)

[Boojatta]

18. "There are ideological underpinnings to fascism, as there are to capitalism"

What are some of examples of important documents describing the ideological underpinnings to capitalism that were written and published before capitalism existed or during the earliest phase of capitalism?

[readmoreoften]

19. Where is the law that says an ideological system needs to be written down before it occurs?

Both capitalism and communism predate the notion of "ideological systems" themselves.

[Boojatta]

20. Where does Protestantism fit in the time line?

Did it begin before capitalism began or does it fall between the start of capitalism and the notion of an "ideological system"?

(I presume that there was no great moment in the history of ideas when the notion of an "ideological system" was used by some unknown genius to develop the notion of "ideological systems".)

[Yo_Mama]

7. Pragmatism?

No, no. There was nothing pragmatic about it. It was sheer lunacy founded on extreme racism and a sense of paranoid grievance.

Wikipedia's definition: "Pragmatism is the philosophy of considering practical consequences or real effects to be vital components of meaning and truth."

There was just about nothing in Nazi ideology that was based on meaning and truth. It was a farrago of murderous nonsense from the beginning.

Look, if I said my goal was to flap my arms, use them as wings and fly above the earth so that the assembled multitudes would understand my vast superiority and obey my brilliant commands to kill or subordinate everyone I didn't like, that would be about as pragmatic as the Nazis. Taking putatively realistic steps to achieve my goal - such as working with weights to develop my arm muscles - would not make my plans "pragmatic".

The Fuehrerprinzip wasn't pragmatic either. I have never yet met the person who is right all the time. Societies that allow dissent and are pretty open do far better. The same for political parties.

[readmoreoften]

10. Wikipedias definitions shouldn't be parsed literally.

Pragmatism is doing whatever it takes to achieve a political goal without regard for ideas. In some instances the end goal isn't even an "idea" but the political dominance of one person or group. The Nazis were indeed pragmatic and allied themselves with whoever best suited their end goal.

[bvar22]

29. Hmmm. A lot like "Centrism" in the Democratic Party.

!

[JVS]

14. What is the Führerprinizip but pragmatism.

Basically it was saying "STFU and do what your boss tells you, we have a country to get control of and we don't have the luxury of discussing how we should reshape society" And when I put boss in there, I don't just mean Hitler. The principle applied to immediate superiors so that at every level of the party hierarchy people were expected to obey their immediate boss without regard as to "how does this further the interests of the German people/ Aryan Race/ whatever you want to call it?" It's

[FLAprogressive]

15. "pragmatism" is a favorite word of the DLC/Third Way.

[readmoreoften]

16. Excellent post JVS. One minor bone to pick (which you later clarify)

"Now before we have people pipe up that there was nothing socialist about the NSDAP, I would point out that if you simplify Socialism to the view that society's fundamental division is economic class and history is the struggle of those classes, one could replace class with ethnicity and have a pretty accurate view of fascist sociology and historiography."

There is indeed nothing "socialist" about fascism. The struggle of an economic class trying to gain freedom and a dominant ethnicity trying to assert supremacy are a wholly different projects. There is nothing in communist ideology that wants to purge the bourgeoisie *as living beings*; it instead wants to reintegrate them into society as equals, not born-betters. The mindless collapse of the two concepts (pushed in part due to Nazism's theft of the word as a crude power grab, in part due to Stalin's violent paranoic insanity) is extremely dangerous and has, in part, allowed unchecked capitalism to run riot the world over.

The answer you give re: Hitler, in my opinion, points to a critically necessary decoupling of Hitler and Stalin under the dubious concept of "totalitarianism" (as 21st century capitalist 'democracy' continues to prove itself to be a pretty violent, "total" system itself...)

Nazism, as Italian Fascism, as Stalinism, as the Bush Era, as the ascendancy of the DLC, as the Reagan Era, as Venezuela under Chavez, as the Obama presidency are all political sequences that need to be analyzed, not dismissed as the evidence of "pure evil" or "pure good" immanating from a population.

[Boojatta]

21. "theft of the word as a crude power grab"

How about Lenin's theft of the word "socialist"?

[JVS]

22. Since Lenin adopted the elimination of the bourgeoisie as a matter of both theory and practice,,,

and socialism had been directed at that goal for nearly 70 years before Lenin's revolution, I find that difficult to classify as theft of the word. Socialism was grounded in the principle of the proletariat discarding the bourgeoisie analogously with capitalism's elimination of the feudal aristocracy. Where's the disconnect between that and Lenin?

[Boojatta]

24. How do you determine that any ism (such as "socialism")

had been directed at a particular goal for 70 years?

[JVS]

25. By reading.

[Boojatta]

26. When do you think capitalism and communism first existed?

What would you read to determine whether or not capitalism, in its early phases, was directed at a particular goal?

[cali]

23. great post

though I think it's just as accurate to say (and you did actually say it) that the Nazi party was based on absolute fealty to one man.

[ThomWV]

28. I think you have misread the history of the Nazi Party and misunderstand Fascism

While I'd agree that Nazi policy was in no sense a cohesively consistent national policy I would not agree that it was in any way pragmatic. In fact its no part of Nazi policy can be though of as based on earlier successful use or expediency. Fascism, the melding of industry and government into a unified force as defined by Mussolini is probably about as present in modern day Japan than it was in pre-war Germany but we don't call Japan a fascist state.

[Bucky]

41. Thank you. Perfectly said

They were ideologues to the marrow. The fanatical love of the Fuhrer that doomed German civilization to near total ruin in 12 years was not a demonstration of pragmatism. The invasion of Russia, the extermination of millions of middle class tax payers--including many draft-age adult males--in the middle of a global war, and the radical indoctrination of the nation's students were not rooted in figuring out the most practical way of getting things done. It was a fanatical ideology to the core.

[JVS]

46. You're considering the period after the establishment of the dictatorship, and in particular the war

My OP is about pre-regime (i.e. still under the constraints of a multi-party parliamentary system) conditions, as should be clear by the references to the pre-election events. Besides, even after the election, I don't think that it's possible to say that a man can be an ideology. A man can supercede any ideology, though.

[HamdenRice]

30. "And therefore all pragmatists are Nazis" -- Jeez, doesn't anyone know logic of converse, inverse, ?

and contrapositive?

All Nazis breathed air.

Therefore everyone who breaths air is a Nazi.

QED

[JVS]

31. This thread was a response to a thread that accused all the "purists" of Nazi-like behavior

I posted it here, because I figured the inflammatory nature of the other OP would get it locked. The goal was nothing but a refutation of that person's claim. However if "pragmatists" want to view themselves as Nazi's that's their business.

[HamdenRice]

32. And therefore Nelson Mandela is a fascist

The OP states, "it is a pragmatic exertion of party discipline."

You might want to read the text of Nelson Mandela's speech in Cape Town on his release from prison. He knew that the ANC was fractured into various factions, while the government was much stronger. The government was trying to use negotiations to splinter him off from parts of the ANC.

For that reason, in his first public speech, after he greeted various factions of the liberation struggle, he very consciously stated as almost the first substantive line of the speech, "I am a disciplined member of the African National Congress."

Party discipline in the face of vicious opposition makes you a fascist.

QED

[JVS]

33. That's your inference, not mine. Have fun denouncing everyone

[HamdenRice]

34. "denouncing everyone"? I'm not denouncing. I'm objecting to blanket denunciation of pragmatists

and progressives who ask for party discipline. The blanket denunciation is in the OP.

[JVS]

35. You're the one who called Mandela a fascist

Or were you putting words in my mouth? If so, stop it.

[HamdenRice]

36. Uh, I was being ironic

By the logic of your argument:

The Nazis called for pragmatic party discipline.

Nelson Mandela called for pragmatic party discipline.

Therefore Nelson Mandela is a Nazi.

The entire OP is based on not understanding the difference between converse, inverse and contra-positive in logical arguments.

[JVS]

37. Now you're attributing an argument to me that I didn't make.

That's your argument (and a poor one) not mine.

[HamdenRice]

38. I was attributing a style of logical reasoning, not the specific argument

If a, then B.

Assume that's a logical premise.

If you are Nazi, you are pragmatic.
If you are Nazi, you advocate party discipline

The question is, what can you conclude assuming the premise is true.

You are assuming the converse is true, but converses are not necessarily true:

If you are pragmatic, you are a Nazi.
If you advocate party discipline, you are a Nazi.

These may be true, but are not necessarily true.

The only thing you can conclude from, "If A, then B" is the contra-positive:

"If not B, then not A."

"If you are not pragmatic, you are not a Nazi."

DUers make this mistake all the time. It's like most people didn't take 7th grade math and the logic of proofs.

[JVS]

39. "If you are not pragmatic, you are not a Nazi." is exactly what I am providing info to conclude

And I'm right. Or more pointedly "Quit calling people Nazi because they don't like the party selling out to the right" which should be obvious

[HamdenRice]

43. As Emily Litella would say, "never mind"

if that's what you meant. It certainly doesn't come through in your OP, however.

[JVS]

44. What would be the point of writing in a manner that does not lead the reader up to the precipice...

of committing an error through logical fallacy? That would be no fun at all.

[ThomWV]

42. I don't think you have to go that far

I think a better starting point is the meaning of both pragmatism and fascism. I don't deny the author a number of points made in the piece but they didn't do much to support either a claim of pragmatism or fascism in the Nazi Party.

To claim pragmatism one would have to say that the Nazis based their current program on proven successes with the aim of German advancement. Rather than call Nazi German pragmatic it would be a lot more accurate to call it neo-religious sect; with a willing public idolizing - indeed worshiping - an all powerful demigod. In short they did not do things because of track record of success, they did things at the decree of a leader. So much for the pragmatism argument.

As for the fascism, sure there was that. The term came from Italy, and Hitler's compatriot Mussolini, who was the first to meld the interests of Government and industry into a single force presumed to benefit the people. In fact in Italy there is evidence (probably exaggerated) that some things did improve. Mussolini 'made the trains run on time'. However neither of them was much more fascist than the United States today and neither surpassed present-day Japan when it comes to that unholy marriage.

So yes, I agree with you that if the argument is to go forward then it suffers a fatal and elementary flaw in logic. My point is that because of flawed definitions there is no argument to consider in the first place.

[leftofthedial]

40. indeed

raw power for power's sake is evil.

[anigbrowl]

45. Godwin fail in thread title.

[JVS]

47. It's not a godwin fail to mention nazis in a thread about nazis

[anigbrowl]

48. Silly me, I thought it was meant to be a thread about the evils of pragmatism.

sorry, but even a casual reading of history will establish that Nazism had a strong ideological bent, based on:

the claimed genetic superiority of Aryan people
the claimed moral inferiority of Jewish people, and also those of other races
the claimed right of so-called superior people to abrogate land and resources to their own ends
the claimed spiritual impulse towards a monolithic and absolute leadership/social model
the idea of the state as the ultimate expression of genetic heritage

...and so on. 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' by William Shrirer is generally regarded as the best non-academic guide to the theory and practice of Nazism and Hitler's attempts to develop it into a kind of religion.

Your basic thesis (that Nazism and pragmatism are equivalent) is total bunk. Hitler was not a technocrat.