Comment on What are your opinions on National Socialism? by saarnok

Parent Post: What are your opinions on National Socialism?

saarnok · 5/1/2025, 7:25:03 PM · permalink

In Nazi Germany we have perhaps the ONLY example of a system custom made to enrich the 'elite' where at least for a few years the inevitable corruption was kept in check to some degree.  
  
Insincerity, whatever else can be said, does not appear to be something Hitler suffered from, and, wonder of wonders, he seems to have had a few people around him dedicated to carrying out his vision.  
  
One might speculate as to whether this seeming lack of corruption, at least on the scale we should normally expect in a situation like this, owes anything to the purging of Jews from his government.  
  
But, bear in mind, he didn't merely purge Jews, but communists, at least certain Catholics along with other groups who's loyalty was, if not in opposition to, certainly not in alignment with his starry eyed vision for the future.  
  
In so doing, unlike what happened with the Soviet Union, he removed precisely the sort of radicals who would decide he'd violated *their* vision of the future; people who's loyalty was to an ephemeral "people of the world", wanting to establish their own place in history and, perhaps miraculously purging or suppressing the inevitable grifters ever ready to take advantage.  
  
There have been examples of "socialist" societies which thrived, at least inside of non-socialist nations. Precisely 100% of those societies were bound together by a religious conviction which , firstly superseded their daily concerns, secondly replaced those concerns with concern for the collective, and finally, purged those who didn't measure up to the collective's expectation.  
  
I feel I should recommend: "Heaven on Earth: The Rise, Fall, and Afterlife of Socialism" by Muravchik. Although I've only read the book, I believe there's also some sort of film by the same name.  
  
Socialism, regardless of how it's packaged, with what conviction it's initially entered into appears to be simply a system that can only result in "the elite" taking advantage of everyone else without any possibility of reversing course.  
  
Socialism always boils down to "grabism" as people determine they have the ability to grab whatever is available without any attendant obligation to provide anything at all.  
  
The "National Socialism" of Nazi Germany provided what I'm sure was a temporary rally for most of the population to work toward improving their own nation, expecting to benefit personally from that improvement, and then seeing that improvement in their own and their children's lives. This rally was probably prolonged by the opposition from the rest of the world, giving the German people a second rallying point to bolster the first.  
  
Part of the great tragedy of WWII might actually be the fact that Nazi Germany was not allowed to fail without opposition. Instead they were pummeled into submission, demonstrating to some that Nazi reforms were actually long term solutions to existential societal problems. But, we should not forget that the other, even greater tragedy might be that Nazi Germany was not allowed to succeed; to prove that these seemingly simplistic reforms are actually the solution we've all been hoping for.  
  
Unlike various other flavors of collectivism, adherents to Nazism need not retreat to the so tired refrain that their pie-in-the-sky version of collectivism "has never been tried".  
  
The only form of government that has ever succeeded over any long term in effecting sustained improvement for the conditions of the governed is the one that allows people to work out their own difficulties with little government intervention.  
  
My inclination to support something like "National Socialism" is tempered by the fact that I realize a good measure of my reflex to support it is based on how I imagine such a system benefiting myself or people I care about, and not so much based on a sober analysis of the facts.

1 bump

Signature