|
NorthernGent -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/9/2008 1:19:44 PM)
|
In reply to one or two points:
Where the argument amounts to: "Conservatism and Socialism mean different things to different people", yes, of course they do; but this doesn't equate to the non-existence of fundamentals that underpin both political philosophies. If these fundamentals do not exist, then why should anyone identify as a liberal, conservative, socialist etc as it would be a waste of good time.
Where the argument amounts to: "Conservatism and Socialism have evolved", yes, of course they have; everything evolves: knowledge, ideas, language, institutions, politics. Evolution does not negate fundamentals, though. You may or may not draw a parallel between modern day English conservatives and German conservatives of that age. In today's England, rural areas are overwhelmingly conservative, as is the army and supporters of a strong defence. Hitler was a massive fan of rural life and the army. This in no way settles the argument one way or the other, but the cities form the bedrock of Liberalism and a strong defence is well down the list of liberal priorities, and it was then. The point here is that Conservatism may have evolved, but it hasn't changed wholesale.
An understanding of German Conservatism would be useful, here. Germany was not the commercial nation that England was. In England, commerce was held on an equal footing with the arts; in Germany, the arts were placed above commerce. The point here is that German Conservatism tended to be inward looking and doused in romanticism. In reply to Marc, Neitzsche was the ultimate "do-it-yourself conservative", and he absolutely despised commercialisation.
Let's recap on a few pertinent points:
1) Hitler was heavily invested in cultural Nationalism.
2) Martin Heidegger was the philosophical spokesman of the Nazi Party.
3) Hitler led the Munich Putsch with assorted conservative pals from the army and monarchist tradition.
4) Hitler's intellectual influences were right wingers (e.g. Neitzsche, Wagner, Heidegger, Ludendorff) and those he mistakenly believed to be right wing (e.g . Darwin).
5) Hitler deemed socialists to be partly responsible for Germany's defeat in WW1.
All points lead conservative.
The key point is this: Hitler was an opportunist and laboured somewhere around average intelligence, so of course he was going to end up with a theory that made little sense and of course he would attempt to appeal to all people. His end, however, is very clearly defined and was a feature from start to finish: racial supremacy. I'd hazard a guess that this nationalist sentiment will feature nowhere in left-wing or centre-ground politics, but will feature on the extreme fringes of Conservatism.
|
|
|
|
