6 ms·

I'd rather not have a manual for starting a neo-nazi race war archived to be honest

• not_a_cop75 7y ago
  How about a Communist manifesto or other authoritarian literature? Why are we only really concerned about one type of authoritarian?
  • food_eater 7y ago
    It's currently in-vogue to be scared of and hate nazi's. For some reason though that sentiment never took root against communists. It's almost like that type of political ideology took root in american institutions thus paving the way for this new narrative to take hold that communism is good and facism is bad.
    • tracker1 7y ago
      And people completely forget history... there were several popular variants of totalitarian socialism in europe. Russia in particular had civil-war like conflicts between the main 3 factions (iirc, red, green, white) and facism was definitely in the mix, but after WWII fell out and for some weird reason no longer considered socialist. After WWII, there were definite anti-communist movements, though McCarthyism took things way too far. You cannot combat ideas with censorship, they'll fester.
      • dragonwriter 7y ago
        Fascism was pretty much never considered socialist by much of anyone outside of the Nazi flavor trying to coopt the label, and the American Right engaging in revisionism in the last couple decades.
        • mirimir 7y ago
          Well, it's "socialist" in the sense that the society (OK, the state, but whatever) matters far more than the individual. But I do agree that they used the term to confuse people. Amusing factoid: Hitler honed his public speaking skills while working as a government mole in the socialist party.
          • dragonwriter 7y ago
            > Well, it's "socialist" in the sense that the society (OK, the state, but whatever) matters far more than the individual. It's corporatist, but not socialist (you can probably make an argument that non-libertarian socialism is also corporatist, but not vice versa.) But, yeah, the cult of manichean capitalism tends to use “socialism” as the generic label for “opposed to capitalism”.
            • mirimir 7y ago
              Good point. Corporatist, in that the state is basically a "bundle" (fasces, from which we also get fascia) of corporations.
              • dragonwriter 7y ago
                Corporatism actually refers to the government, businesses, unions, church, and other institutions (the exact institutions included varying between forms of corporatism) working together as parts of a body; it is not derived from the use of “corporation” for a business entity.
                • mirimir 7y ago
                  Ah, thanks.
            • deleted 7y ago
              [deleted]
        • vidarh 7y ago
          Notably the NSDAP originally was early on a total hodgepodge of ideological strands mostly united by nationalism. Some of those included left-wing economic views. Hitler systematically targeted those groups, and most were excluded or left long before the NSDAP got any influence. Hitler eventually had the last remaining "left wing" faction of the NSDAP (the Strasserists) arrested and/or murdered - this purge was a large part of the purpose of the Night of the Long Knives. But even the Strasserists, despite wanting to borrow some left wing economic policies were staunchly ultranationalist and anti-socialist.
        • tracker1 7y ago
          Hasn't most of the "American Right" distanced themselves from the white-nationalist/neo-nazi organizations as well as the Left? It bugs me that the associations are constantly made, but the groups themselves don't actually align with, get support from, or considered part of the American Right outside of straw-man narratives putting them together.
          • dragonwriter 7y ago
            > Hasn't most of the "American Right" distanced themselves from the white-nationalist/neo-nazi organizations as well as the Left? Maybe, but I was referencing that the notion of a substantive association between Nazis/fascists and socialism (or the left more generally) was never taken seriously by any significant group until the last couple of years, where the American Right decided that their existing pejorative labels were losing their sting and they needed to label everything they disagreed with “fascism” and seriously try to sell the connections; Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism was a notable point in this trend.
    • krapp 7y ago
      > It's currently in-vogue to be scared of and hate nazi's. For some reason though that sentiment never took root against communists. It did, there was plenty of paranoia and hatred of communists during the Cold War days, we just never fought an actual war against communists (edit: except in Vietnam and Korea, I forgot that for some reason...) Of course, a lot of that Red Scare stuff was just a thin coat of patriotic paint over anti-semitism and anti-gay bigotry, but I digress. Also, it's not in-vogue to hate Nazis. Everyone other than Nazis has hated Nazis consistently ever since Nazis were a thing. What is in-vogue, however, is to be a nazi (little n, colloquial meaning, because I know sometimes people like to be pedantic) amongst the American right and alt-right, as the current American President's election has coincided with a revival of right-wing populism and white supremacist identity politics. No, I am not calling Trump a nazi nor am I calling all Trump supporters nazis so they can stop clutching their pearls ... that white supremacists decided to turn the populist movement that brought him into power into a narrative of racial identity and purity has been well documented, and it actually depends little whether Trump has sympathy for them, or is just their dark horse. And that is why America is currently concerned about nazis (little n) and not communists. Because the nazis (little n) managed to meme a President into office, and the communists did not. >It's almost like that type of political ideology took root in american institutions thus paving the way for this new narrative to take hold that communism is good and facism is bad. There is no such "new narrative." Communism has never been trusted in the US, and fascism has always been "bad."
      • gwright 7y ago
        > What is in-vogue, however, is to be a nazi (little n, colloquial meaning, because I know sometimes people like to be pedantic) amongst the American right and alt-right, as the current American President's election has coincided with a revival of right-wing populism and white supremacist identity politics. Can I offer a different perspective? A vocal minority on the left likes to assert that everyone on the right is a bunch of nazis but that doesn't make it true nor does it make it "in-vogue". If you move past that broad group ("the right") and just consider the more vocal/visible/strident right-wing activists, they are almost all promoting western civ cultural values, which is not the same thing as "white-supremacy" but irks the multi-cultural crowd quite a bit as it requires making value judgements on other cultures and ideologies (which is not the same thing as making a value judgement on other races or people with particular skin colors). I think the visibility/growth of this group is more of a reaction to the identity politics, multi-culturalism, and intersectionality ideas of the left than to Trump's election. And if you move past both of those groups to the remaining folks who are indeed advocating for some sort of race or blood based supremacy theory you are talking about a insignificantly small group that has no support anywhere, certainly isn't in-vogue, isn't being "revived" in any substantial way, and mainly serves as the bogeyman that the left uses to smear anyone who disagrees with them.
    • dragonwriter 7y ago
      > It's currently in-vogue to be scared of and hate nazi's. For some reason though that sentiment never took root against communists. Er, what now? It really took root against communists (and socialists), even those of both of the those groups that weren't Leninists, in the US almost immediately after the Russian Revolution and only started to fade a bit after the fall of the Soviet Union 70+ years later, and even now a full century later it has significant, though less, pull in the US.
      • mirimir 7y ago
        Indeed. Remember the McCarthy hearings?
  • vidarh 7y ago
    I'm curious which specific paragraphs of the Communist Manifesto is it you consider authoritarian? It's a very short text, and only chapter 2 really makes any argument of what Marx and Engels saw as the goal of communist movements, so I presume it must be something in chapter 2 you consider authoritarian. There are certainly plenty of things in there that implies too much concentration in the power of the state (e.g. monopoly on communication and banking) for someone of more liberal or libertarian (whether left or right) bent if one considers a modern interpretation of the state. Which is why even many Marxists, especially libertarians, look to works like Marx writings on the Paris Commune for more specific details.
    • not_a_cop75 7y ago
      As it's still utilized to justify mass genocide by the state of its own citizens, and has happened multiple times and in greater numbers, let's just count this as the more dangerous book.
      • vidarh 7y ago
        Which part exactly is it that is used to justify genocide? And how? This response suggests to me it is quite likely you haven't read it.
        • not_a_cop75 7y ago
          Playboy seldom ever directly suggests the exploitation of women, and yet somehow people who enjoy exploiting women read it. Perhaps someone is not so adept at reading between the lines. Just a guess.
          • vidarh 7y ago
            Ok, so which paragraphs is it we should read what between the lines from,then?
• DuskStar 7y ago
  You mean you don't want to be able to point at what an organization used to post and perhaps now wants to hide?
• apostacy 7y ago
  Who gets to decide who is a neo-nazi though? I've heard Jordan Peterson and Steven Pinker called neo-nazis. Maybe you're a neo-nazi. Since neo-nazis always deny being neo-nazis, then your denials are further proof that you are a neo-nazi. B&
  • krapp 7y ago
    I've never understood why people make this argument, or what they think it proves. Yes, the term "neo-nazi" is sometimes misapplied. That misapplication doesn't mean that neo-nazis don't exist, or that the term has no meaning. If the term didn't have an established, commonly agreed upon meaning that referred to a specific ideology and movement in the real world, then there would be no reason to quibble about its misuse, because calling someone a neo-nazi would be as meaningless as calling them a flarndingle.
    • apostacy 7y ago
      But people aren't usually quibbling about it's misuse. They are objecting to unjust censorship, regardless of whether someone is called a neo-nazi or a flarndingle. If someone was being harassed and censored because they were accused of being a flarndingle, I would have a problem with that. If corporate America were calling for mass censorship of "flarndingle" literature, I would be opposed to that. I would not like being called a flarndingle if I knew it would mean that I would be censored. It does not matter that flarndingle is a meaningless word. The term neo-nazi is actually quite abstract. For many younger people and activists, it has just become a synonym for "person I do not agree with". It has become a catch-all insult that can be applied to anyone. There is nobody who that insult won't stick to. You can be a Jewish academic with controversial opinions about society and have "anti-fascist" activists target you for being a neo-nazi. So, obviously we can't ban anyone that is called a neo-nazi.
    • afiori 7y ago
      My observation here is that it is not used as a representation of someone's ideas but as an insult. The same way that the right call liberal capitalist "commies" as an insult.
  • 7y ago
• ppseafield 7y ago
  I think it's worth discussing this comment instead of downvoting it. There was a lot of controversy around the copyright expiration of Mein Kampf in Germany a few years ago. The Bavarian government owned the copyright and refused to allow it to be printed. When the copyright expired, annotated versions were released, putting the book in context. There are certain disadvantages that not printing had: making the book more mysterious and taboo, and leaving the text to stand on its own when it was acquired (thus having no space for rebuttals, historical comments, etc.). Personally I lean toward keeping these kinds of things but annotating them and providing ample context - the equivalent of a study on history or a museum exhibit. Maybe we as a species can learn from our mistakes. It's not like forgetting these texts will prevent the same conditions that created the rise of fascism and genocide.
  • joe_the_user 7y ago
    I think it's worth discussing this comment instead of downvoting it. Fortunately, we can do both. Despite being nearly white, you can read the comment by highlighting it and it is still high the page, so it can be discussed. Seems like a model of how strongly oppositions should be treated.
  • lacampbell 7y ago
    I never understood the big deal about Mein Kampf. It's incredibly dull. If the premise is you're worried about people becoming Nazis, then his speeches are what you ought to be worried about. He rose to popularity through his speeches, not writing.
    • mirimir 7y ago
      For example, "Triumph Of The Will".[0] 0) https://archive.org/details/TriumphOfTheWillgermanTriumphDesWillens https://archive.org/details/TriumphOfTheWillgermanTriumphDes...
      • pdkl95 7y ago
        "Triumph of the Will and the Cinematic Language of Propaganda" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ1Qm1Z_D7w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ1Qm1Z_D7w The propaganda was incredibly successful. To this day "Triumph of the Will" continues to be used as a reference point for the mental construct of the Nazi regime. The modern understanding of the Nazis is deeply informed by a propaganda film produced by the Nazis for the explicit purpose of creating that mental construct. "Triumph of the Will"'s endless lines of soldiers marching in formation is exactly the image they wanted you to think of when you thought of them.
• refurb 7y ago
  This argument is the same used by authoritarian countries like China. They don’t say criticism of the govt is prohibited, they say that it’s necessary for the security of state. Doesn’t everyone want a secure state?
  • claudiawerner 7y ago
    It is only superficially the same argument, which is to say, if you ignore the qualitative content of the two matters; the fact that they both reduce to opinion is irrelevant, since society is built upon general consensus on particular opinions rather than general principles everywhere. Just as not every action is alike (and we prohibit the expression of some actions), not all speech is alike (and, just as with action, we may decide to prohibit its expression).