short and simple, autocracy involves the ideology of altruism as a component for its people, doesnt mean it leads to a fascist state such as the nazis... and altruism is not a disease, it how people manipulate it to be one. boom bam DONE! btw im against altruism in reality
Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, (Latin for "reduction to" and "argument to" and dog Latin for "Hitler" respectively) is an ad hominem or ad misericordiam argument whereby an opponent's view is compared to a view that would be held by Adolph Hitler or the Nazi Party. It is a fallacy of irrelevance, in which a conclusion is suggested based solely on something's or someone's origin rather than its current meaning.
False Argument from Analogy is a special type of inductive argument, whereby invented similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has yet to be observed.
Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence — essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.
A fallacy is incorrect argumentation in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness.
An appeal to fear (also called argumentum ad metum or argumentum in terrorem) is a fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for an idea by using deception and propaganda in attempts to increase fear and prejudice toward a competitor. The appeal to fear is common in marketing and politics.
well hitlers brand of "altruism" works with a society of white people, and he was addressing his soldiers. sign up for america's army, and you will see the worst side of altruism and illogical decisions. hitler saved germany from communism and the currency collapse and raised up the country to the worlds greatest power in a mere 15 years. also the holocaust never happened. but enter in some niggers and parasites, and allow them to flourish, and the whole thing eats itself like a cancer (america)
Reason fascists/nazis are positioned on right is because they are 'top down' ideologies. Whereas communists are as intended 'bottom up' ideologues. The fact they both have propensity for killing anyone or anything that doesn't fit their narrow viewpoint does not necessarily blur the distinction. Even if nazis have 'socialist' in their name - it doesn't mean they were socialist.
The comment by @richwarth ignores a lesson of the video: you've been lied to when told that Nazism and Fascism are on the right of the political spectrum. They key determinant of left-vs.-right is degree of political force exerted by government upon its citizens. The Nazis regimented their citizens to a wretched extent: economically, culturally, socially, politically -- even if the realm of life and death. USSR and post-WWII China differed on local-vs.-national control, yet were both communist.
I.e. Altruism is indeed the basis of fascism. Instead of living creatively, altruists want to infect the whole world with their self-less, destructive behavior. The whole world is infected by their propaganda. If you don't want to give meaning to your life, you are becoming my problem, a chain at the end of my leg. To harm oneself IS to harm another...
"Altruism is a code of ethics which hold the welfare of others as the standard of 'good', and self-sacrifice as the only moral action. The unstated premise of the doctrine of altruism is that all relationships among men involve sacrifice. This leaves one with the false choice between maliciously exploiting the other person (forcing them to be sacrificed) or being 'moral' and offering oneself up as the sacrificial victim." - Jeff Landauer and Joseph Rowlands.
Without the trait of altruism our species wouldn't exist and you wouldn't even be here to share your incoherent view of it. Groups with an optimal prevalence of altruism generally out-compete those with none. Invoking in-group altruism (especially in situations of group conflict) commonly accentuates this competitive advantage. Hence altruism's perpetuation. Furthermore appealing to altruism at a time of conflict does not imply that altruism was in any way the underlying cause of said conflict.
You say you are in favor of altruism, @REALITY2point0? How much unchosen sacrificing are you going to put up with before you realize that you are consigning yourself to a cesspool of forever being throttled and ordered about? Or: is it that you've already decided that you are the one who is going to come out ahead on the sacrifices of others?
@DavidPHayesVideo nowhere did I indicate that I was "in favor of altruism" I simply provided a concision as to its evolutionary provenance, its perpetuation and the reasons underlying its invocation in the context of conflict. READ it AGAIN. The problem here evidenced is that you appear to lack the requisite intellectual rigor to navigate the nuance of the topic. Instead you are reduced to a puerile "in favor" or "not in favor" caricature of it. I'm done here. In future: THINK HARDER please !!!
My response was a general one aimed at an attitude common among those who express the thoughts therein. Yes, @REALITY2point0, I could have focused elsewhere, say on your stating that "an optimal prevalence of altruism generally out-competes," asking why you say "generally," showing the implication that altruism always give this result, asking what other factors are the significant ones. If you have "intellectual rigor" and understand nuance, you know that correlation does not indicate causation.
Also, by equating Communism with fascism. Not only does this serve to smear Communism but also serves to trivialize the unique horrors of the holocaust. The Nazis had attempted to wipe out entire peoples off the face of the earth.
Fascists are the last line of defence of the capitalist class. Fascism is when the capitalist class mobilizes the unemployed and middle class to completely decimate the working class. No trade unions, no nothing. It is capitalist rule at its purest.
Communism deserves to be equated with Nazis regarding massive planned deaths; anyone who thinks the Nazis' holocaust unique doesn't know of the Soviet Communists' attempt to wipe out entire peoples. This is documented history. An excellent documentary covering this is "The Soviet Story," excerpted on YouTube as "The Soviet Story-1/6" by williamwang10
As I've written on prior comments, in judging political ideologies, consider the extent of government control. Nazism and communism were alike.
@DavidPHayesVideo * If you are talking about Stalin and Mao they did kill a lot of people. But they never tried to eliminate entire peoples like the Nazis did.
@DavidPHayesVideo As for Lenin and Trotsky, the October Revolution was on November 7 (according to the Gregorian calendar) from early 1918 to 1922 there was the Russian Civil. The Soviet Union was fighting for its life. The people being killed were people fighting on the other side in a war. The people being censored were people agitating for the overthrow of the Soviet Union. A bureaucracy heading by J.V. Stalin usurped power in 1923-24.
@Trotsky0518 The reason Stalinist bureaucracy came to power is because workers' revolution failed to spread internationally. It was not inevitable. The Soviet Union faced hostile Imperialist encirclement and the Russian Civil War (which ravaged the country) as well as the failure of revolutions in Germany, Italy, Finland and Hungary. Russia prior to the revolution was backwards as well. This all led to scarcity which led to the rise of the Stalinist bureaucracy.
Scarcity of food in the Soviet Union at its start is owing to farmers unwilling to grow what they could not keep. Scarcity continued in that country for decades. Stalin was selling food to Nazi Germany even as Russians starved. This last fact is covered in "The Soviet Story" in a portion later than what is covered in the clip I put under my Favorites; nonetheless, this part of "The Soviet Story" is also viewable on YouTube.
The movie I link to in my Favorites discusses mass killing by the Soviets in the 1930s. The Soviet Union was by then formed and without your excuse of fighting for your existence. Your comment sidesteps that the events under discussion take place a decade later than what you write here. Did you not see the "Soviet Story" video?
The movie's credibility is questionable at best. I think I heard Jewish groups on CBC claiming that this director was a holocaust denier. The director may not be a Nazi but but stands halfway between trivializing the holocaust and denying that the Nazis were responsible.
The movie "The Soviet Story" starts with footage of exterminated Jews in Nazi Germany, and returns occasionally to them. Obviously, you didn't even start watching the clip I directed you to, as otherwise you wouldn't repeat such a ridiculous claim as that a movie which shows film of the holocaust was made by a holocaust denier.(!!) You seem to use this hearsay as an excuse not to both with the evidence presented in the film, including recent interviews with now-elderly people who were there.
It should be noted that while businesses hated Communism they loved the Fascists. There was a huge amount of investment by capitalists in Nazi Germany. Companies like IBM, Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, BMW, Mercedes, Coca Cola, Fox and Disney.
You bring up Ford making investments in Nazi Germany, but ignore that Ford (the same company) built a car factory in 1920s Russia. You could hardly say that Ford preferred one form of controlling government over another when they invested in both!! Ford wasn't alone. Other large companies may have thereafter built in Russia had not the Russians confiscated the factories rather than abide by their agreements. (See books "East Minus West Equals Zero" and "The Black Book of Communism.")
It should be noted that while businesses hated Communism they loved the Fascists. There was a huge amount of investment by capitalists in Nazi Germany. Companies like IBM, Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, BMW, Mercedes, Coca Cola, Fox and Disney.
Second response to @Trotsky0518: In writing the first response, YouTube wouldn't let me post a direct link to their own video named above, but the part of URL after YouTube.com is watch?v=3ns1CvTfDEQ
Once you've watched this part of "The Soviet Story," you'll have no justification for claiming again that the Soviet Communists didn't practice horrific human-extermination policies, let alone that the Soviet Communists didn't target huge populations within their borders.
@DavidPHayesVideo As far as the allegation the Communist tried to eradicate entire peoples. I suggest you provide some concrete empirical evidence. If not they I suggest you repudiate such remarks. Referring me to a youtube video doesn't count as evidence.
The evidence presented in the documentary I referred you to -- the old film, the newspaper pieces, the archival documents, the testimony of people who were there, and other contents of "The Soviet Story" -- does count as evidence.
The video recommended in my two prior responses has now been added to my "Favorites." You will find "The Soviet Story-1/6" on the main page of the DavidPHayesVideo channel.
Why is that Fascist Mussolini was a former socialist?
The reason they put it on the right is because during the early 20th century being a nationalist was seen as right wing. While communists and other socialists held similiar views to Hitler, they were internationalists, the sense that the working man has no country. They wanted a collective based on class, Hitler wanted a collective based on nationality.
Well there is NO evidence that altruism leads to the holocaust. This really is a false analogy. Just because Hitler said he was an altruist doesn't mean that he actually is. Let alone that there is some sort inherent connection between the two. A good idea of someone un-altruistic would be a psychopath. Is this the type of person you want on a pedestal?
The ideal person does not demand sacrifices of others just as he does not sacrifice himself. Such a person is not a psychopath but rather the kind of person we should all strive to be and hope to meet: a person who when he is not self-sufficient engages in voluntary trades with others.
@DavidPHayesVideo Ayn Rand who espoused similar views to your own was a big admirer of the serial killer Rick Williams. In fact her heroes in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead were modelled after him.
If you bothered to read what Ayn Rand wrote for "The Little Street" (published in "Journals of Ayn Rand"), you would see that Ayn Rand merely contemplated what kind of person William Hickman (Rick Williams was 1990s) was. This is far from saying that she modeled her fiction heroes after him.
@Trotsky0518, I've never deleted anyone's comments or blocked anyone from posting, but if you don't start getting your information straight before posting, I reserve the right to do that to you.
@Trotsky0518 Far as being "self-sufficient" and altruism being a "lack of self-sufficiency" and no one making sacrifices anyone else. This sounds a lot like Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is the basis of Nazism and eugenics. It should be noted that Charles Darwin DID NOT endorse social Darwinism.
Also, economic socialism means the workers control the means of production. In Nazi Germany, there was a ruling elite. The Nazis are notorious for appropriating and twisting terms. Hitler hated Communism and Capitalism equally. He took on some leftist ideals, but as a whole you can't claim that nationalism, militarism, racism, and homophobia are leftist policies in today's political context. Therefore, Nazism is a far-right ideology from the standpoint of today's world.
@arendr: The definition of altruism is treated through film clips (neither from German sources) and in narration. The term altruism originates with philosopher Comte and his influence upon pre-Nazi German intellectuals is a subject of the book shown as "Recommended Reading" in the video. If your confusion owes to subsequent changes in word usage, you failed to pay attention to the part of the video mentioning this.
@DavidPHayesVideo: Yes, I watched your asinine video. My point was that the Nazis appropriated the term "altruism" to rile the Germans up into a perverted nationalism. What they were promoting was not true altruism. A true altruist would never participate in crimes against humanity, because it goes against the very definition of the word. Claiming a change in definition also undermines your own argument because you are then ranting against an outdated definition as if it were still relevant.
@sammykaine, didn't you notice that the Nazis carried out what they discussed? "Mein Kampf" (published seven years before the takeover) openly discusses Hitler's desire to kill Jews. More importantly: ask yourself what it means that the German public voted in Nazism, the Nazi leaders having stated their beliefs -- how steeped in the same intellectual underpinnings must the German citizenry have been that they failed to grasp, or ignored or overlooked, the monstrosity surrounding them?
@DavidPHayesVideo Actually no, Hitler does not talk about killing Jews in Mein Kampf, except for a reference to the events of WWI. He certainly doesn't talk about the death camps, since the concept wasn't formulated until November 29, 1941. The Nazis were the first Holocaust deniers.
Most people are willing to work for a greater good. This is a good thing. Sometimes, bad people lie to them, and turn this good instinct to bad purposes. That does not make the instinct a bad thing.
@sammykaine: The Nazis killed Jews by firing squad long before there were death camps. These firing squads killed large numbers at one time. Your attempt was to claim a later start date by dodging the earlier methods of killing, but it does not work.
@DavidPHayesVideo No, my point was that the Nazis were liars and propagandists, and we should ignore what they claim to be their motives. Instead, we should look at what they did. You said Mein Kampf lays out the Nazi plan for killing the Jews. No it does not. Even if it did, the fact Hitler was honest about his intentions once, is not an argument for believing him on other occassions.
@DavidPHayesVideo The Final Solution is not mentioned in Mein Kampf, so he was correct, but this has nothing to do with your flawed argument. Hitler was not a true altruist. You're trying to justify institutionalized greed.
Pragmatism and mass media made part of political proposals mostly in modern era... Hitler (and not only him) in some messages, as today, was not to be trusted. On another way, they were altruistic only for caucasians... Another criteria is not leave critics on the liberal coutries at this time... The English empire was responsible for a massacre on India, and the US still hasnt garantee civil rights for african-americans... On another words... altruism was only for humans (caucasians)
This is another thing that brings to mind this quote: There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
This is idiotic. Hitler was a fascist and fascism is in no way altruistic. In fact, he had more in common with Rand than altruists in that he wanted to consolidate power so that only his version of exceptional people had it. Humanity is a collaborative project and without altruism we would never had evolved as a society beyond hunter-gatherers and even they wouldn't have succeeded without working for the greater good. We're a tribal species. That's why we value teamwork and self-sacrifice.
@fuldamobil: Have you thought past your off-base similarity to how people would live under the two systems? With Ayn Rand, each individual is free, whether to withdraw or profit from his honest labor, religion his own choice. Under Hitler, all citizens were bound together, business and religion were state matters. The exceptional minds fled Nazi Germany, often owing to religious ancestry; Nazis didn't respect achievement but advanced people on group membership. Cold-blooded murder resulted.
@DavidPHayesVideo My point was that under either system people would live the same. Technocracy or fascist state, you get the same result, a small ruling class. The same minds would flee Rand's system because there's no room for failure, there's no science unless it yields a profit, and there's definitely no religion.
Under Rand's system there is no centralized agency for technology; government would serve only police, court, and defense functions. If a particular worker fails to pass muster with one employer, he goes to an employer who appreciates him. How does a "ruling class" fit into that? It's under socialism-communism that a worker with one failure on his record can be barred for life from returning to his chosen work.
@DavidPHayesVideo You make Rand sound more and more fascist with each argument. The ruling class is the employer, or producer and your underclass is the people Rand called parasites. In her system there is no movement between the two, just lateral movement like you describe. That's a fascist state, I never mentioned socialism. The fact is our society is way too big with way too many greedy people for Rand's ideas to work. Without altruism, America would collapse.
@fuldamobil, You have totally been brainwashed. The ruling class is the employer? Wait a minute! Under Rand's philosophy there is nothing stopping you from being/becoming that employer. Those who CHOOSE to work for you is between them and yourself. No one is forced to do anything. You are also free to set your own prices, but guess what, set them too high you lose business, too low you lose profit. Consumers are free to buy or walk away. A transaction serves both EQUALLY!
@1776jeffersonian Maybe on paper there's nothing stopping an employee from becoming the employer, but put it into practice and you'll see how greed, corruption and selfishness will keep the classes further and further apart. Jefferson would agree with me.
@fuldamobil, If greed makes people more wealthy then please show me the way to the promised land somebody; teach me how to be greedy. But in truth, I could be the greediest person on the planet right now, and let's just pretend that I am the greediest person, how is that going to increase my wealth by one cent. Please try to answer that. Also, the gap you are referring--you would rather the poor be poorer than the rich be richer, just so long as that gap is diminished; think serious about that.
@1776jeffersonian I didn't say greed leads to wealth, I said greed leads to corruption. And, an unregulated, libertarian society and economy encourages greed. Which is bad.
@fuldamobil, By the way dude, I could be the most absolutely biggest most GREEDIEST person on the planet and it WILL NOT increase my net worth one cent. Do you realize that many of those whom you call greedy actually had to do something to CREATE (unless you are referring to Q.E.#s 1,2,3,4,etc..) that wealth. The next time you hear that someone made $X-amount, just ask yourself, why did the rest of the shareholders agree to pay said person $X-amount? Why? They trusted in him to make them $!
@fuldamobil , Please respond with some rational debate and maybe you'll teach me something, seriously, I'm open -minded. If you ever get the chance read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. It will take LITERALLY months to read (the audible version is 50 hours straight without any interuptions). He wrote the book when he was in exile in Vienna, running from the altruists (i.e., Nazis), ha!
Also check out this rap video here on Youtube: Hayek vs. Keynes (parts 1 and two). Hayek won the Nobel 1940s
@1776jeffersonian The Nazis were not really altruists. Just like they weren't really socialists. They used the term altruism deceptively. True altruism is part of human nature. Christ taught altruism. If you do not feel altruistic toward your fellow man, you are a sociopath. Like Hitler.
@fuldamobil, do you not see the difference between free choices and conscripted ones? A life of being ordered around is that of fascism and socialism (thus the purpose of mentioning them in tandem). America has been practicing altruism (in government giveaways, etc.), and the possibility of this leading to collapse is now in most days' news. Parasites are those who don't produce, which is different from lower class. Before citing Rand again, why not read what she said, not inaccurate summaries.
@DavidPHayesVideo Sure it looks great on paper, but I'm talking about what happens when you actually practice Rand's policies. They do not translate to the real world and many of her followers, including Greenspan, eventually realized this. I've read Rand. I loved her when I was younger, but then as I entered the real world, I understood how silly and immature her beliefs were. Communism looks great on paper, too. There is an awful lot of ground between it and Rand and that's where we belong.
@fuldamobil, Hitler believed fiercely in INDIVIDUALISM like Rand, right? So, if Rand's followers "consolidated power" as a "collective" (which is a major oxymoron in itself) how would they rule? Being that they are staunch individualists, what types of laws would they implement to increase individual freedom? How would socialists, commies, and collectivists function within a Randian society? Did Imperial Japan value self-sacrifice? Suicide=Altruism. Answer ALL these ?'s and you get an A.
@1776jeffersonian No, Hitler did not believe in individualism despite what he may have written. He believed in the Aryan Nation which was anything but individualist. Just like the Nazis, it doesn't matter what Rand followers say, what matters is what would happen if their system was put into place. You would see power and wealth consolidated among a few people. Opportunity would go away. Suicide is not the same kind of self-sacrifice as altruism. Taxes so children can go to school isn't suicide.
We just went through 8 years of being ruled by a far right -quasi-dictator who claimed to be a Christian altruist.(Just as Hitler did) Once he got the vote of the evangelical right, he used them like toilet paper. He did nothing for them on the abortion issue, in fact abortions went UP under Bush. He granted himself more powers than any other President in our history. He killed Habeas Corpus and Magna Carta and made us debt slaves to Communist China. Yet you have the nerve to post this shit?
MrTruthAddict: There is nothing in the video about Pres. Bush (43), but if you assume that had there been, Bush would have been given a pass for misuse of government, you are wrong. The lessons of history come through when events are evaluated by their underlying philosophic causes, not by the labels misleadingly accorded to the leaders at the forefront. (The video goes into this. Didn't you notice?) Lately, the United States under both major political parties has forsaken its Constitution.
Only a fucking idiot takes a known psychopath at his word. The word 'socialism' was used in the name of the party in order to dupe the working class into voting for the psychopath. Once in power, he did nothing at all to help the working class. In fact he rounded up communists and socialists and gassed them. My wife was born in Germany. I know what her family went through, and your idiotic Glenn Beck version of history has nothing to do with reality. You should be ashamed of this post.
MrTruthAddict: If your comment about your wife's experiences in Germany is meant to suggest that someone closer to the events would not evaluate the facts as I do, that comment is misguided: German thinkers are scarcely in lockstep with each other. If the mention of the extermination of communists was meant to be a surprise, it can't be: it's well-reported that the Nazis battled German Communists in 1932 (for votes) and later. Glenn Beck's views are on the other side of what this video argues.
As I see it, altruism is the means to achieve an end. If you sacrifice your self-interests towards a larger goal (larger because you are in concert with a larger number of persons). If that goal is "evil" as it was in the Third Reich, then naturally altruism looks bad. But human society has traditionally functioned on a combination of altruism and self-interest since our hunter-gatherer or herder origins. Basic anthropology.
Why does this remark relate military service to altruism in the way that it does? There's nothing in the video about what those in the military believe is the ideology that their service represents. Voluntary military personnel enter the armed forces agreeing to obey the orders of their leaders. Where altruism infects the goals, it is at the highest level. (Where military personnel didn't volunteer to serve, it's ridiculous even to second-guess what they think they're doing it for.)
Altriusm is as much the basis for nazism as a small mustache is. Of course a dictatorial political leader would claim to be an altruist. Don't let that convince you that altruism is a bad thing nor let it convince you that must be altruistic. This is your freedom, your personal choice.
@Dunam This argument is misuse of finding causation from correlation. The mustache is a correlation, but the use of altruism to herd the people is a direct cause and shows how the masses can be easily duped into any insane ideology like Nazism because Hitler is imposing that, like altruism states, they individual must sacrifice them-self for a 'greater good.' The problem is, who's greater good? The one that manages the herd can and often does do so for murderous means.
@Herv3 This argument is also an illicit negative – when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise. i.e. altruism = bad therefore narcissism = good.
The pronunciation of Nazis used in the video is a standard one used by Americans during the WWII years. This can be ascertained through American movies of the period and from newsreels and radio broadcasts. The term Nazi is short for "National Socialism," and in that the "National" part is pronounced "NATT-shun-al," pronouncing the "Na--" part of "Nazi" as "NATT" follows.
If @SirPwn4lot contends that Christ is too unlike Hitler to be compared to Hitler in the context of Hitler provoking war, consider this quote of Jesus: "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Gospel of Matthew 10:34).
@SirPwn4lot claims about Hitler that "his policies were not socialist." You think not? Socialism as a system cannot be practiced but by regimenting the citizens even as private property is allowed. The Nazi rule of Germany even during the peacetime years were ...
years of tremendous regimentation of the public. Don't be misled by the profits that were permitted to be made by government-selected businesses: even they were under tight control, their futures dependent on the whims of government, the purposes set by the state.
In labeling someone as actually socialist or as mistakenly identified as socialist, consider the factual bases and ideology underlying nature of the system.
Lol, Hitler also praised Christ in his speeches, and used the title of socialism to get the workers on his side, even though his policies were not socialist.
If you want to get the public on your side... do you say you're going to war in blind interest of the welfare of others (Iraq War comes to mind?) or do you say you're going in for self interest?
The video shows that some academics have distorted the terminology. (See the portion where animation illustrates a correction to a mistaken continuum).
@DavidPHayesVideo Only a complete idiot buys your Glenn Beck revisionism on Nazi Germany. Here's a message from my German in-laws... Eat shit you far right wing pig!
1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others ( opposed to egoism).
2. Animal Behavior . behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.
The Nazis intentionally misrepresented altruism, like they intentionally misrepresented patriotism.
@ProbableFiction's definitions do not include the one given by the person who coined the term. It is that definition which is given first in the video. The later definitions are represented in the video by the American film clips and the new commentary surrounding them. Both sets are acknowledged in the video, and commentary therein relates how the original definition set the foundation for Nazi ideology. Note in this regard Hitler's use of the term in a clip from "Triumph of the Will."
@DavidPHayesVideo You're talking about moralistic altruism. The definitions aforementioned don't postdate Comte's "Catéchisme Positiviste", particularly ethological altruism, though the use of "altrusim" to term them does.
In any regard, moralistic altruism, like patriotism, was a tool purposely misused by the Nazis to influence societal support. It's been done by many governments. I don't support moralistic altruism, but I'm not naive enough to believe that it's the basis of Nazism.
@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxy1: Are you sure you know what altruism is? The meaning of the term is covered in the first minute of the video. Did you even watch the video?
There's no correlation between altruism and Nazism. Nazism was based on ethnocentrism and nationalism. It's extreme rightism! However, altruism doesn't discriminate.
@grecobactrian: to be focused on ethnic and national aspects of persons is to be focused on collective aspects. Collectivism is the orientation of the far left. If you think that ethnocentrism is an aspect of being on the political right, you don't understand what is meant by the political right. (The charts in the video deal with this subject.)
This video is mischaracterizes history, misrepresents Hitler's speech. There is actually nothing in the speech that talks about altriusm, but lots about subservance to extreme group-oriented servitude nationalism.
The maltreatment of minorities is exactly due to the absense of altriusm and empathy.
The word "socialism" has only been roundly demagogued in the US and long after that time period. Hitler was clearly anti-left and did not understand "social" in your terms.
Altruism is a moral code, and as such (and to the extent it is practiced), it becomes the basis of all actions taken by the adherents of that moral code. If the moral code is rejected and another taken up in its place, it ceases to influence (i.e., control) those who'd adhered to it previously.
Education is different: virtually all types of societies and schools of morality value education. As for Hitler, when he talks about education, he is pressuring for agreement, not understanding.
@DavidPHayesVideo That doesn't answer my question. Your argument, if I understood it, was 'Hitler used the word 'altruism' in his speech, encouraging the Nazis to be altruistic therefore that was the basis of Nazism.' Your reflections on the moral nature of altruism may be interesting, but they're not evidence for your claim that altruism is the basis for Nazism. If all you've got is 'Hitler used the word' then that also supports the claim that education is the basis for Nazism.
@SisyphusRedeemed This point is answered in the video: pay attention to the passage about assuaging groups by catering to their prejudices. Not stated in words, but implicit in the context, is the manipulating of the German population made to operating the extermination camps. Nazi Germany was made up of sacrifice upon sacrifice. The mass of the population (the "Aryans") were expected to sacrifice for the "glory" of the race, the soldiers sacrificed for their fuhrer's debased ideals, more ...
@SisyphusRedeemed [continuing prior response:] ... family function was by Nazi plan sacrificed to Nazi Youth membership and even to Nazi breeding programs designed to enlarge a master race by Nazis choosing others' mates. No one need say how non-Aryans were made to sacrifice. Religious freedom was sacrificed even in majority faiths.
The video shows Hitler demanding sacrifice; the generation he addresses would be his soldiers when the world war was at its height. Freedom died for them.
@DavidPHayesVideo I'm sorry, I don't mean to be pedantic here, but I really don't think you've made your case. You say that Hitler demanded sacrifice. This is true. So did Churchill, so did Roosevelt, so has every leader in military history. I don't see why you're singling out altruism here. Why not patriotism? Why not emotions? Why not power? Why not duty? Why not will? All of these things are being evoked here at least as much as altruism. This seems like confirmation bias.
@SisyphusRedeemed, you have again failed to treat altruism as its adherents' life-encompassing moral code and thus not as a philosophy that controls all aspects of life at all times in those who accept altruism. When Winston Churchill implored his countrymen to accept privations, those limitations were to be only for the duration of the war. For Hitler's flock, sacrifice occurred at all times, during war and during peace. Before Nazi Germany entered WWII, Aryan Germans were living lives ...
@DavidPHayesVideo "you have again failed to treat altruism as its adherents' life-encompassing moral code and thus not as a philosophy that controls all aspects of life at all times in those who accept altruism."
Wait, what? You've given no evidence that anyone, Nazis or otherwise, views altruism as a 'life-encompassing moral code', as opposed to, say, one virtue among many. But even if the Nazi's did, then shouldn't we say the foundation of Nazism is monomaniacal fanaticism?
@DavidPHayesVideo Altruism is perfectly fine, on your account, provided it's kept in perspective, and not taken to be a 'life-encompassing moral code that controls all aspects of life at all times.' But it's the extremism that's dangerous here, not the (alleged) altruism. Practically any idea that's treated as a 'life-encompassing moral code that controls all aspects of life at all times' can lead to disaster.
@SisyphusRedeemed Altruism IS the extreme. There is no spectrum of "being less selfless" to being "more selfless" selflessness is unquantifiable. The extent to which a human being ignores it's own values and feedback mechanisms is the extent to which it will suffer and ignore that which is around him. Altruism IS colloquially a moral argument and doesn't exist for obvious reasons.
...of dawn-to-night regimentation, German Jews were being killed by firing squad.
@SisyphusRedeemed, you don't need me to tell you the difference between Churchill and Hitler. A moment's reflection would have told you what I stated in the previous part of my response to you of today. The "Altruism: the Basis of Nazism" video draws out the implications and implementations of altruism beyond what's in the Hitler speech shown therein.
@SisyphusRedeemed, when you continue to ask questions answered in the video or answerable by simple reflection on your part (and/or by obvious mental connections), I come to doubt your sincerity in asking the questions. If I decide that your queries are merely your execution of a gigantic put-on, I'll stop answering what may well not be truly the "questions" that the form your responses take make them appear to be.
@DackBev That's DavidPHayesVideo's claim (and yours too, apparently), but neither of you have provided any evidence for that claim. You've just made an assertion, and DPHV just showed a speech in which Hitler used the word. But if that counts as evidence, then it also counts as evidence in support of the claim that education is to blame, since Hitler used that word, too.
I have people tell me that it is altruism when we have Americans who willingly serve in the military. It is not. The difference is that they gain something from serving for their country. They gain something knowing that they fought to protect, defend and enshrine liberty. The Nazis died for Hitler, it was not for a cause, they died so that they may serve their fuhrer.
It seems that you are not arguing about the determinants of nazism but rather promoting objectivism. Your use of the holocaust to promote your philosophical opinions is rather shameful as well as being purposefully deceptive as it implies that helping others will lead to genocide.
Using the Holocaust to promote the protections of individuals rights and property is a fantastic and important thing.
Altruism is the heart of Christianity and Islam as well, and Christianity has already killed Jews in the millions, and if Islam is given the chance, they would do the same tomorrow.
The problem with altruism is when altruistic individuals out of frustration, start demanding others to be altruistic, because it is simply not fair that they bear the burden alone.
So this video shows you have a deplorably bad understanding of human nature and are incapable of reading a dictionary and read from right to left since you failed to grasp that Nazis put Nationalism before Socialism.
Which is what Hitler was preaching in that speech.
I question your qualifications to say that academics and historians have it wrong when they place Nazism on the right.
Nationalism is rather collectivist thinking, it is not unreasonable to put it on the right. Also, Nazi is intended to be a socialistic party, and fascist economics place property as being private, but individuals who own it have no right to it; it all must be for the good of the country.
@Ebdomos Nationalism is is concern only for your own kind/nation, invariably it appeals to those in privilege wanting to keep what they have. Hence, why it goes to the Right.
A quick review of history will show you the "socialist" ideals of Nazi party never happened, rather they were dangled as the rewards the people would reap for supporting the party and the lack of them the reason to hate the unionists, jews, catholics, etc.
Basically Hitler was a liar and a manipulator. A shock I know.
I beg your pardon, I meant to say that it is not unreasonable to put it on the left. Nationalism depends on its context, and collectivism in small or large scale is still leftist thinking, and so it is not unreasonable to place it left. If only the privileged benefit, then that is a sign of a cast system, not a free market. Suggesting that Nazi socialism never happened is potentially arguing that socialistic ideals are unrealistic.
Regardless, the point is that under libertarian or
@Ebdomos Well if you want to claim that any measure of collectivism equates to leftist thinking then there are no rightists.
Adolf Hitler used the exact same strategy as many, many tyrants before him did. He promised his people all the benefits of the left, with all the security of the right, if they would only follow him unquestioningly and fight the enemies of this great ideal.
He didn't actually deliver these benefits or this security, but he had the sales pitch they wanted to hear.
There is that issue of loose definitions, but it is addressed in authoritarianism and libertarianism, as they serve as the up and down of the left and right.
Adolf certainly appealed, but I think it is fair to say that he exploited the popularity of socialism, anti semitism, and anti catholicism, all which can find a source in Lutheranism, and the first two in Christianity in general. Kant as well was an anti-semite, and an apologist for altruism, and he is an influence of Marx.
Altruism demands self sacrifice for the sake of others. That's exactly what nazism was about : the individual is nothing and must sacrifice oneself for the benefit of the german people as a whole.
Altruism has been used by many people...BUT with semantically twisted meanings. The Nazi citizenry didn't portray "altruism" for there country, they were promised prosperity...that's why they adhered to the Nazi propoganda, plus, they were brainwashed.
Btw, Altruism increases the fitness of the society. Altruism isn't self sacrifise, b/c the entire group benefits in the long run, THUS, NOT self sacrifise if you benefit.
Darvas for some reason I receive your response to me but I don't see it here. You wrote that if altruism isn't self sacrifise how do distinguish between altruism and profitable trading?
Huh? Who's defintion of altruism are u going by, Ayn Rand?
Any definition: selfless concern for the welfare of others, moral obligation to benefit others...
If you are better off after performing an altruistic deed you are not being selfless, you are buying benefits from others. If altruism doesn't involve self sacrifice(trading a higher value for a lesser value), then what's the difference between being altruistic and pursuing self interest?
Altruism is the philosophy that forgets about the virtue of prudency. It makes one get out "doing good" to others, but never stops for a second to think if what's being accomplished is really good or wanted. It's a tyranny of sorts.
Nazism is not far (philosophically) from Nazism. Regardless of what the intent was as the systems were devised, the fact remains that both systems were brutal in practice. I reject the notion that the originators of communism were unaware that the system would be enforced by violence, including murder. It doesn't take much brain to foresee that there would be many dissenters, and resolved dissenters can only be triumphed over by overwhelming, overpowering, vanquishing them--ongoing violence.
i agree, Marx didnt really think much on the outcome of the revolutions ,they didnt bring communism to the ussr and other gov'ts but a state-capitalist tolitatrian system
@DHBBCD "Regardless of what the intent was as the systems were devised,"
The intentions weren't really all that different, you're giving erniesalvaje too much credit. The intention of BOTH ideas was to subjugate the individual under the authority of the collective.
They're absolutely the same ideologies. Read Marx. There are totalitarism and genocide, quite clear to see. Hitler gave credit to bolcheviks for starting his work, read "Hitler Ma Dit". I don't remember the author, sorry; but surely he is one of Hitler closest advisors. Nazism is an abreviation to National-SOCIALISM. When Germany starts to compass the World, they lost the "National" shade and became Internationalist, as any other comunist.
@erniesalvaje "communism wasnt intended to bring upon tyranny.
theres a saying absolute power corrupts absolutely"
So you're saying that communism wasn't intended to bring upon tyranny, but it WAS intended to bring upon absolute power? That's a contradiction in terms.
logical fallacy: Reductio ad Hitlerum. Nice try though, try harder next time
robair9911 1 month ago
short and simple, autocracy involves the ideology of altruism as a component for its people, doesnt mean it leads to a fascist state such as the nazis... and altruism is not a disease, it how people manipulate it to be one. boom bam DONE! btw im against altruism in reality
incrediblyawesomeguy 1 month ago
(3)
Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, (Latin for "reduction to" and "argument to" and dog Latin for "Hitler" respectively) is an ad hominem or ad misericordiam argument whereby an opponent's view is compared to a view that would be held by Adolph Hitler or the Nazi Party. It is a fallacy of irrelevance, in which a conclusion is suggested based solely on something's or someone's origin rather than its current meaning.
drankin2112 1 month ago
(2)
False Argument from Analogy is a special type of inductive argument, whereby invented similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has yet to be observed.
Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence — essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.
drankin2112 1 month ago
(1)
A fallacy is incorrect argumentation in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness.
An appeal to fear (also called argumentum ad metum or argumentum in terrorem) is a fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for an idea by using deception and propaganda in attempts to increase fear and prejudice toward a competitor. The appeal to fear is common in marketing and politics.
drankin2112 1 month ago
well hitlers brand of "altruism" works with a society of white people, and he was addressing his soldiers. sign up for america's army, and you will see the worst side of altruism and illogical decisions. hitler saved germany from communism and the currency collapse and raised up the country to the worlds greatest power in a mere 15 years. also the holocaust never happened. but enter in some niggers and parasites, and allow them to flourish, and the whole thing eats itself like a cancer (america)
iTROLL9000 2 months ago
Reason fascists/nazis are positioned on right is because they are 'top down' ideologies. Whereas communists are as intended 'bottom up' ideologues. The fact they both have propensity for killing anyone or anything that doesn't fit their narrow viewpoint does not necessarily blur the distinction. Even if nazis have 'socialist' in their name - it doesn't mean they were socialist.
richwarth 3 months ago
The comment by @richwarth ignores a lesson of the video: you've been lied to when told that Nazism and Fascism are on the right of the political spectrum. They key determinant of left-vs.-right is degree of political force exerted by government upon its citizens. The Nazis regimented their citizens to a wretched extent: economically, culturally, socially, politically -- even if the realm of life and death. USSR and post-WWII China differed on local-vs.-national control, yet were both communist.
DavidPHayesVideo 3 months ago
I.e. Altruism is indeed the basis of fascism. Instead of living creatively, altruists want to infect the whole world with their self-less, destructive behavior. The whole world is infected by their propaganda. If you don't want to give meaning to your life, you are becoming my problem, a chain at the end of my leg. To harm oneself IS to harm another...
BeyondDogmaTV 4 months ago
"Altruism is a code of ethics which hold the welfare of others as the standard of 'good', and self-sacrifice as the only moral action. The unstated premise of the doctrine of altruism is that all relationships among men involve sacrifice. This leaves one with the false choice between maliciously exploiting the other person (forcing them to be sacrificed) or being 'moral' and offering oneself up as the sacrificial victim." - Jeff Landauer and Joseph Rowlands.
BeyondDogmaTV 4 months ago
You may be surprised to hear that just about everything we've been told about the Nazis is false.
northroad1 4 months ago
Without the trait of altruism our species wouldn't exist and you wouldn't even be here to share your incoherent view of it. Groups with an optimal prevalence of altruism generally out-compete those with none. Invoking in-group altruism (especially in situations of group conflict) commonly accentuates this competitive advantage. Hence altruism's perpetuation. Furthermore appealing to altruism at a time of conflict does not imply that altruism was in any way the underlying cause of said conflict.
REALITY2point0 6 months ago
You say you are in favor of altruism, @REALITY2point0? How much unchosen sacrificing are you going to put up with before you realize that you are consigning yourself to a cesspool of forever being throttled and ordered about? Or: is it that you've already decided that you are the one who is going to come out ahead on the sacrifices of others?
DavidPHayesVideo 6 months ago
@DavidPHayesVideo nowhere did I indicate that I was "in favor of altruism" I simply provided a concision as to its evolutionary provenance, its perpetuation and the reasons underlying its invocation in the context of conflict. READ it AGAIN. The problem here evidenced is that you appear to lack the requisite intellectual rigor to navigate the nuance of the topic. Instead you are reduced to a puerile "in favor" or "not in favor" caricature of it. I'm done here. In future: THINK HARDER please !!!
REALITY2point0 6 months ago
My response was a general one aimed at an attitude common among those who express the thoughts therein. Yes, @REALITY2point0, I could have focused elsewhere, say on your stating that "an optimal prevalence of altruism generally out-competes," asking why you say "generally," showing the implication that altruism always give this result, asking what other factors are the significant ones. If you have "intellectual rigor" and understand nuance, you know that correlation does not indicate causation.
DavidPHayesVideo 6 months ago
Also, by equating Communism with fascism. Not only does this serve to smear Communism but also serves to trivialize the unique horrors of the holocaust. The Nazis had attempted to wipe out entire peoples off the face of the earth.
Fascists are the last line of defence of the capitalist class. Fascism is when the capitalist class mobilizes the unemployed and middle class to completely decimate the working class. No trade unions, no nothing. It is capitalist rule at its purest.
Trotsky0518 7 months ago
Communism deserves to be equated with Nazis regarding massive planned deaths; anyone who thinks the Nazis' holocaust unique doesn't know of the Soviet Communists' attempt to wipe out entire peoples. This is documented history. An excellent documentary covering this is "The Soviet Story," excerpted on YouTube as "The Soviet Story-1/6" by williamwang10
As I've written on prior comments, in judging political ideologies, consider the extent of government control. Nazism and communism were alike.
DavidPHayesVideo 6 months ago
@DavidPHayesVideo * If you are talking about Stalin and Mao they did kill a lot of people. But they never tried to eliminate entire peoples like the Nazis did.
Trotsky0518 6 months ago
@DavidPHayesVideo As for Lenin and Trotsky, the October Revolution was on November 7 (according to the Gregorian calendar) from early 1918 to 1922 there was the Russian Civil. The Soviet Union was fighting for its life. The people being killed were people fighting on the other side in a war. The people being censored were people agitating for the overthrow of the Soviet Union. A bureaucracy heading by J.V. Stalin usurped power in 1923-24.
Trotsky0518 6 months ago
@Trotsky0518 The reason Stalinist bureaucracy came to power is because workers' revolution failed to spread internationally. It was not inevitable. The Soviet Union faced hostile Imperialist encirclement and the Russian Civil War (which ravaged the country) as well as the failure of revolutions in Germany, Italy, Finland and Hungary. Russia prior to the revolution was backwards as well. This all led to scarcity which led to the rise of the Stalinist bureaucracy.
Trotsky0518 6 months ago
Scarcity of food in the Soviet Union at its start is owing to farmers unwilling to grow what they could not keep. Scarcity continued in that country for decades. Stalin was selling food to Nazi Germany even as Russians starved. This last fact is covered in "The Soviet Story" in a portion later than what is covered in the clip I put under my Favorites; nonetheless, this part of "The Soviet Story" is also viewable on YouTube.
DavidPHayesVideo 6 months ago
The movie I link to in my Favorites discusses mass killing by the Soviets in the 1930s. The Soviet Union was by then formed and without your excuse of fighting for your existence. Your comment sidesteps that the events under discussion take place a decade later than what you write here. Did you not see the "Soviet Story" video?
DavidPHayesVideo 6 months ago
The movie's credibility is questionable at best. I think I heard Jewish groups on CBC claiming that this director was a holocaust denier. The director may not be a Nazi but but stands halfway between trivializing the holocaust and denying that the Nazis were responsible.
Trotsky0518 6 months ago
The movie "The Soviet Story" starts with footage of exterminated Jews in Nazi Germany, and returns occasionally to them. Obviously, you didn't even start watching the clip I directed you to, as otherwise you wouldn't repeat such a ridiculous claim as that a movie which shows film of the holocaust was made by a holocaust denier.(!!) You seem to use this hearsay as an excuse not to both with the evidence presented in the film, including recent interviews with now-elderly people who were there.
DavidPHayesVideo 6 months ago
It should be noted that while businesses hated Communism they loved the Fascists. There was a huge amount of investment by capitalists in Nazi Germany. Companies like IBM, Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, BMW, Mercedes, Coca Cola, Fox and Disney.
Trotsky0518 6 months ago
@Trotsky0518 The movie The Corporation talks about this.
Trotsky0518 6 months ago
You bring up Ford making investments in Nazi Germany, but ignore that Ford (the same company) built a car factory in 1920s Russia. You could hardly say that Ford preferred one form of controlling government over another when they invested in both!! Ford wasn't alone. Other large companies may have thereafter built in Russia had not the Russians confiscated the factories rather than abide by their agreements. (See books "East Minus West Equals Zero" and "The Black Book of Communism.")
DavidPHayesVideo 6 months ago
It should be noted that while businesses hated Communism they loved the Fascists. There was a huge amount of investment by capitalists in Nazi Germany. Companies like IBM, Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, BMW, Mercedes, Coca Cola, Fox and Disney.
Trotsky0518 6 months ago
Second response to @Trotsky0518: In writing the first response, YouTube wouldn't let me post a direct link to their own video named above, but the part of URL after YouTube.com is watch?v=3ns1CvTfDEQ
Once you've watched this part of "The Soviet Story," you'll have no justification for claiming again that the Soviet Communists didn't practice horrific human-extermination policies, let alone that the Soviet Communists didn't target huge populations within their borders.
DavidPHayesVideo 6 months ago
@DavidPHayesVideo As far as the allegation the Communist tried to eradicate entire peoples. I suggest you provide some concrete empirical evidence. If not they I suggest you repudiate such remarks. Referring me to a youtube video doesn't count as evidence.
Trotsky0518 6 months ago
The evidence presented in the documentary I referred you to -- the old film, the newspaper pieces, the archival documents, the testimony of people who were there, and other contents of "The Soviet Story" -- does count as evidence.
DavidPHayesVideo 6 months ago
@DavidPHayesVideo Apparently the director has been accused by quite a few people, including the New York Times,of fabrication, falsification etc.
Trotsky0518 6 months ago
The video recommended in my two prior responses has now been added to my "Favorites." You will find "The Soviet Story-1/6" on the main page of the DavidPHayesVideo channel.
DavidPHayesVideo 6 months ago
@Trotsky0518
Why is that Fascist Mussolini was a former socialist?
The reason they put it on the right is because during the early 20th century being a nationalist was seen as right wing. While communists and other socialists held similiar views to Hitler, they were internationalists, the sense that the working man has no country. They wanted a collective based on class, Hitler wanted a collective based on nationality.
Soundatron 6 months ago
Well there is NO evidence that altruism leads to the holocaust. This really is a false analogy. Just because Hitler said he was an altruist doesn't mean that he actually is. Let alone that there is some sort inherent connection between the two. A good idea of someone un-altruistic would be a psychopath. Is this the type of person you want on a pedestal?
Trotsky0518 7 months ago
The ideal person does not demand sacrifices of others just as he does not sacrifice himself. Such a person is not a psychopath but rather the kind of person we should all strive to be and hope to meet: a person who when he is not self-sufficient engages in voluntary trades with others.
DavidPHayesVideo 6 months ago
@DavidPHayesVideo Ayn Rand who espoused similar views to your own was a big admirer of the serial killer Rick Williams. In fact her heroes in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead were modelled after him.
A recommend the following by MaoistRebelNews2:
* Ayn Rand admired serial killer Rick Williams
* Ayn Rand was a Sociopath
Trotsky0518 6 months ago
If you bothered to read what Ayn Rand wrote for "The Little Street" (published in "Journals of Ayn Rand"), you would see that Ayn Rand merely contemplated what kind of person William Hickman (Rick Williams was 1990s) was. This is far from saying that she modeled her fiction heroes after him.
@Trotsky0518, I've never deleted anyone's comments or blocked anyone from posting, but if you don't start getting your information straight before posting, I reserve the right to do that to you.
DavidPHayesVideo 6 months ago
@Trotsky0518 Far as being "self-sufficient" and altruism being a "lack of self-sufficiency" and no one making sacrifices anyone else. This sounds a lot like Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is the basis of Nazism and eugenics. It should be noted that Charles Darwin DID NOT endorse social Darwinism.
Trotsky0518 6 months ago
Didn't John F. Kennedy say: "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."
karlmall 7 months ago 2
al·tru·ism/ˈaltroo,izəm/Noun
1. The belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
2. Behavior of an animal that benefits another at its own expense.
dodgermutt 8 months ago
Also, economic socialism means the workers control the means of production. In Nazi Germany, there was a ruling elite. The Nazis are notorious for appropriating and twisting terms. Hitler hated Communism and Capitalism equally. He took on some leftist ideals, but as a whole you can't claim that nationalism, militarism, racism, and homophobia are leftist policies in today's political context. Therefore, Nazism is a far-right ideology from the standpoint of today's world.
arendr 9 months ago 2
Apparently you don't know the difference between Altruism and Nationalism.
arendr 9 months ago 2
@arendr: The definition of altruism is treated through film clips (neither from German sources) and in narration. The term altruism originates with philosopher Comte and his influence upon pre-Nazi German intellectuals is a subject of the book shown as "Recommended Reading" in the video. If your confusion owes to subsequent changes in word usage, you failed to pay attention to the part of the video mentioning this.
DavidPHayesVideo 9 months ago
@DavidPHayesVideo: Yes, I watched your asinine video. My point was that the Nazis appropriated the term "altruism" to rile the Germans up into a perverted nationalism. What they were promoting was not true altruism. A true altruist would never participate in crimes against humanity, because it goes against the very definition of the word. Claiming a change in definition also undermines your own argument because you are then ranting against an outdated definition as if it were still relevant.
arendr 9 months ago
So, you're telling us we should believe the Nazis when they tell us what their motives were?
sammykaine 9 months ago 3
@sammykaine, didn't you notice that the Nazis carried out what they discussed? "Mein Kampf" (published seven years before the takeover) openly discusses Hitler's desire to kill Jews. More importantly: ask yourself what it means that the German public voted in Nazism, the Nazi leaders having stated their beliefs -- how steeped in the same intellectual underpinnings must the German citizenry have been that they failed to grasp, or ignored or overlooked, the monstrosity surrounding them?
DavidPHayesVideo 9 months ago
@DavidPHayesVideo Actually no, Hitler does not talk about killing Jews in Mein Kampf, except for a reference to the events of WWI. He certainly doesn't talk about the death camps, since the concept wasn't formulated until November 29, 1941. The Nazis were the first Holocaust deniers.
Most people are willing to work for a greater good. This is a good thing. Sometimes, bad people lie to them, and turn this good instinct to bad purposes. That does not make the instinct a bad thing.
sammykaine 8 months ago 2
@sammykaine: The Nazis killed Jews by firing squad long before there were death camps. These firing squads killed large numbers at one time. Your attempt was to claim a later start date by dodging the earlier methods of killing, but it does not work.
DavidPHayesVideo 8 months ago
@DavidPHayesVideo No, my point was that the Nazis were liars and propagandists, and we should ignore what they claim to be their motives. Instead, we should look at what they did. You said Mein Kampf lays out the Nazi plan for killing the Jews. No it does not. Even if it did, the fact Hitler was honest about his intentions once, is not an argument for believing him on other occassions.
sammykaine 8 months ago 2
@DavidPHayesVideo I don't think that this is relevant to sammykaine's point. I think his point is quite good and well intact.
Trotsky0518 7 months ago 2
@DavidPHayesVideo The Final Solution is not mentioned in Mein Kampf, so he was correct, but this has nothing to do with your flawed argument. Hitler was not a true altruist. You're trying to justify institutionalized greed.
fuldamobil 7 months ago
Pragmatism and mass media made part of political proposals mostly in modern era... Hitler (and not only him) in some messages, as today, was not to be trusted. On another way, they were altruistic only for caucasians... Another criteria is not leave critics on the liberal coutries at this time... The English empire was responsible for a massacre on India, and the US still hasnt garantee civil rights for african-americans... On another words... altruism was only for humans (caucasians)
danielf17 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is another thing that brings to mind this quote: There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
fuldamobil 9 months ago
This is idiotic. Hitler was a fascist and fascism is in no way altruistic. In fact, he had more in common with Rand than altruists in that he wanted to consolidate power so that only his version of exceptional people had it. Humanity is a collaborative project and without altruism we would never had evolved as a society beyond hunter-gatherers and even they wouldn't have succeeded without working for the greater good. We're a tribal species. That's why we value teamwork and self-sacrifice.
fuldamobil 9 months ago
@fuldamobil: Have you thought past your off-base similarity to how people would live under the two systems? With Ayn Rand, each individual is free, whether to withdraw or profit from his honest labor, religion his own choice. Under Hitler, all citizens were bound together, business and religion were state matters. The exceptional minds fled Nazi Germany, often owing to religious ancestry; Nazis didn't respect achievement but advanced people on group membership. Cold-blooded murder resulted.
DavidPHayesVideo 9 months ago
@DavidPHayesVideo My point was that under either system people would live the same. Technocracy or fascist state, you get the same result, a small ruling class. The same minds would flee Rand's system because there's no room for failure, there's no science unless it yields a profit, and there's definitely no religion.
fuldamobil 9 months ago
Under Rand's system there is no centralized agency for technology; government would serve only police, court, and defense functions. If a particular worker fails to pass muster with one employer, he goes to an employer who appreciates him. How does a "ruling class" fit into that? It's under socialism-communism that a worker with one failure on his record can be barred for life from returning to his chosen work.
DavidPHayesVideo 9 months ago
@DavidPHayesVideo You make Rand sound more and more fascist with each argument. The ruling class is the employer, or producer and your underclass is the people Rand called parasites. In her system there is no movement between the two, just lateral movement like you describe. That's a fascist state, I never mentioned socialism. The fact is our society is way too big with way too many greedy people for Rand's ideas to work. Without altruism, America would collapse.
fuldamobil 9 months ago
@fuldamobil, You have totally been brainwashed. The ruling class is the employer? Wait a minute! Under Rand's philosophy there is nothing stopping you from being/becoming that employer. Those who CHOOSE to work for you is between them and yourself. No one is forced to do anything. You are also free to set your own prices, but guess what, set them too high you lose business, too low you lose profit. Consumers are free to buy or walk away. A transaction serves both EQUALLY!
1776jeffersonian 9 months ago
@1776jeffersonian Maybe on paper there's nothing stopping an employee from becoming the employer, but put it into practice and you'll see how greed, corruption and selfishness will keep the classes further and further apart. Jefferson would agree with me.
fuldamobil 9 months ago
@fuldamobil, If greed makes people more wealthy then please show me the way to the promised land somebody; teach me how to be greedy. But in truth, I could be the greediest person on the planet right now, and let's just pretend that I am the greediest person, how is that going to increase my wealth by one cent. Please try to answer that. Also, the gap you are referring--you would rather the poor be poorer than the rich be richer, just so long as that gap is diminished; think serious about that.
1776jeffersonian 7 months ago
@1776jeffersonian I didn't say greed leads to wealth, I said greed leads to corruption. And, an unregulated, libertarian society and economy encourages greed. Which is bad.
fuldamobil 7 months ago
@fuldamobil, By the way dude, I could be the most absolutely biggest most GREEDIEST person on the planet and it WILL NOT increase my net worth one cent. Do you realize that many of those whom you call greedy actually had to do something to CREATE (unless you are referring to Q.E.#s 1,2,3,4,etc..) that wealth. The next time you hear that someone made $X-amount, just ask yourself, why did the rest of the shareholders agree to pay said person $X-amount? Why? They trusted in him to make them $!
1776jeffersonian 9 months ago
@fuldamobil , Please respond with some rational debate and maybe you'll teach me something, seriously, I'm open -minded. If you ever get the chance read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. It will take LITERALLY months to read (the audible version is 50 hours straight without any interuptions). He wrote the book when he was in exile in Vienna, running from the altruists (i.e., Nazis), ha!
Also check out this rap video here on Youtube: Hayek vs. Keynes (parts 1 and two). Hayek won the Nobel 1940s
1776jeffersonian 9 months ago
@1776jeffersonian The Nazis were not really altruists. Just like they weren't really socialists. They used the term altruism deceptively. True altruism is part of human nature. Christ taught altruism. If you do not feel altruistic toward your fellow man, you are a sociopath. Like Hitler.
fuldamobil 7 months ago
@fuldamobil, do you not see the difference between free choices and conscripted ones? A life of being ordered around is that of fascism and socialism (thus the purpose of mentioning them in tandem). America has been practicing altruism (in government giveaways, etc.), and the possibility of this leading to collapse is now in most days' news. Parasites are those who don't produce, which is different from lower class. Before citing Rand again, why not read what she said, not inaccurate summaries.
DavidPHayesVideo 9 months ago
@DavidPHayesVideo Sure it looks great on paper, but I'm talking about what happens when you actually practice Rand's policies. They do not translate to the real world and many of her followers, including Greenspan, eventually realized this. I've read Rand. I loved her when I was younger, but then as I entered the real world, I understood how silly and immature her beliefs were. Communism looks great on paper, too. There is an awful lot of ground between it and Rand and that's where we belong.
fuldamobil 9 months ago
@fuldamobil, Hitler believed fiercely in INDIVIDUALISM like Rand, right? So, if Rand's followers "consolidated power" as a "collective" (which is a major oxymoron in itself) how would they rule? Being that they are staunch individualists, what types of laws would they implement to increase individual freedom? How would socialists, commies, and collectivists function within a Randian society? Did Imperial Japan value self-sacrifice? Suicide=Altruism. Answer ALL these ?'s and you get an A.
1776jeffersonian 7 months ago
@1776jeffersonian No, Hitler did not believe in individualism despite what he may have written. He believed in the Aryan Nation which was anything but individualist. Just like the Nazis, it doesn't matter what Rand followers say, what matters is what would happen if their system was put into place. You would see power and wealth consolidated among a few people. Opportunity would go away. Suicide is not the same kind of self-sacrifice as altruism. Taxes so children can go to school isn't suicide.
fuldamobil 7 months ago
We just went through 8 years of being ruled by a far right -quasi-dictator who claimed to be a Christian altruist.(Just as Hitler did) Once he got the vote of the evangelical right, he used them like toilet paper. He did nothing for them on the abortion issue, in fact abortions went UP under Bush. He granted himself more powers than any other President in our history. He killed Habeas Corpus and Magna Carta and made us debt slaves to Communist China. Yet you have the nerve to post this shit?
MrTruthAddict 10 months ago
MrTruthAddict: There is nothing in the video about Pres. Bush (43), but if you assume that had there been, Bush would have been given a pass for misuse of government, you are wrong. The lessons of history come through when events are evaluated by their underlying philosophic causes, not by the labels misleadingly accorded to the leaders at the forefront. (The video goes into this. Didn't you notice?) Lately, the United States under both major political parties has forsaken its Constitution.
DavidPHayesVideo 10 months ago
Only a fucking idiot takes a known psychopath at his word. The word 'socialism' was used in the name of the party in order to dupe the working class into voting for the psychopath. Once in power, he did nothing at all to help the working class. In fact he rounded up communists and socialists and gassed them. My wife was born in Germany. I know what her family went through, and your idiotic Glenn Beck version of history has nothing to do with reality. You should be ashamed of this post.
MrTruthAddict 10 months ago
MrTruthAddict: If your comment about your wife's experiences in Germany is meant to suggest that someone closer to the events would not evaluate the facts as I do, that comment is misguided: German thinkers are scarcely in lockstep with each other. If the mention of the extermination of communists was meant to be a surprise, it can't be: it's well-reported that the Nazis battled German Communists in 1932 (for votes) and later. Glenn Beck's views are on the other side of what this video argues.
DavidPHayesVideo 10 months ago
The Red Chinese are going to take over becase Americans take shit like this seriously. The letter 'a' in German is pronouced 'ah', like fatherlahnd.
JarJar88forever 10 months ago
As I see it, altruism is the means to achieve an end. If you sacrifice your self-interests towards a larger goal (larger because you are in concert with a larger number of persons). If that goal is "evil" as it was in the Third Reich, then naturally altruism looks bad. But human society has traditionally functioned on a combination of altruism and self-interest since our hunter-gatherer or herder origins. Basic anthropology.
agalligani 10 months ago
Why does this remark relate military service to altruism in the way that it does? There's nothing in the video about what those in the military believe is the ideology that their service represents. Voluntary military personnel enter the armed forces agreeing to obey the orders of their leaders. Where altruism infects the goals, it is at the highest level. (Where military personnel didn't volunteer to serve, it's ridiculous even to second-guess what they think they're doing it for.)
DavidPHayesVideo 11 months ago
you really believe hitler mean what he said rofl....
dude that's not what altruism is.
serving in the military thinking you're doing it for your country isn't altruism
...
MrBigEnchilada 11 months ago
a great video! thanks :))
OGthegame 11 months ago
Altriusm is as much the basis for nazism as a small mustache is. Of course a dictatorial political leader would claim to be an altruist. Don't let that convince you that altruism is a bad thing nor let it convince you that must be altruistic. This is your freedom, your personal choice.
Dunam 1 year ago 4
@Dunam Great comment.
bittercottoncandy 11 months ago
@Dunam This argument is misuse of finding causation from correlation. The mustache is a correlation, but the use of altruism to herd the people is a direct cause and shows how the masses can be easily duped into any insane ideology like Nazism because Hitler is imposing that, like altruism states, they individual must sacrifice them-self for a 'greater good.' The problem is, who's greater good? The one that manages the herd can and often does do so for murderous means.
Herv3 4 months ago
Comment removed
drankin2112 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Herv3 This argument is also an illicit negative – when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise. i.e. altruism = bad therefore narcissism = good.
drankin2112 1 month ago
WTF?
"Nat-zees"?
It's "Not-zees"
If you are going to make a video about the subject at least gain a basic understanding of the pronunciation of the subject matter.
PrepSurvivor 1 year ago
The pronunciation of Nazis used in the video is a standard one used by Americans during the WWII years. This can be ascertained through American movies of the period and from newsreels and radio broadcasts. The term Nazi is short for "National Socialism," and in that the "National" part is pronounced "NATT-shun-al," pronouncing the "Na--" part of "Nazi" as "NATT" follows.
DavidPHayesVideo 11 months ago
If @SirPwn4lot contends that Christ is too unlike Hitler to be compared to Hitler in the context of Hitler provoking war, consider this quote of Jesus: "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Gospel of Matthew 10:34).
@SirPwn4lot claims about Hitler that "his policies were not socialist." You think not? Socialism as a system cannot be practiced but by regimenting the citizens even as private property is allowed. The Nazi rule of Germany even during the peacetime years were ...
DavidPHayesVideo 1 year ago
[Continuation of response:]
years of tremendous regimentation of the public. Don't be misled by the profits that were permitted to be made by government-selected businesses: even they were under tight control, their futures dependent on the whims of government, the purposes set by the state.
In labeling someone as actually socialist or as mistakenly identified as socialist, consider the factual bases and ideology underlying nature of the system.
DavidPHayesVideo 1 year ago
Lol, Hitler also praised Christ in his speeches, and used the title of socialism to get the workers on his side, even though his policies were not socialist.
If you want to get the public on your side... do you say you're going to war in blind interest of the welfare of others (Iraq War comes to mind?) or do you say you're going in for self interest?
SirPwn4lot 1 year ago
[Response to @SirPwn4lot part 3:]
The video shows that some academics have distorted the terminology. (See the portion where animation illustrates a correction to a mistaken continuum).
DavidPHayesVideo 1 year ago
@DavidPHayesVideo Only a complete idiot buys your Glenn Beck revisionism on Nazi Germany. Here's a message from my German in-laws... Eat shit you far right wing pig!
MrTruthAddict 10 months ago
al·tru·ism /ˈæltruˌɪzəm/ [al-troo-iz-uhm]
–noun
1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others ( opposed to egoism).
2. Animal Behavior . behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.
The Nazis intentionally misrepresented altruism, like they intentionally misrepresented patriotism.
ProbableFiction 1 year ago
@ProbableFiction's definitions do not include the one given by the person who coined the term. It is that definition which is given first in the video. The later definitions are represented in the video by the American film clips and the new commentary surrounding them. Both sets are acknowledged in the video, and commentary therein relates how the original definition set the foundation for Nazi ideology. Note in this regard Hitler's use of the term in a clip from "Triumph of the Will."
DavidPHayesVideo 1 year ago
@DavidPHayesVideo You're talking about moralistic altruism. The definitions aforementioned don't postdate Comte's "Catéchisme Positiviste", particularly ethological altruism, though the use of "altrusim" to term them does.
In any regard, moralistic altruism, like patriotism, was a tool purposely misused by the Nazis to influence societal support. It's been done by many governments. I don't support moralistic altruism, but I'm not naive enough to believe that it's the basis of Nazism.
ProbableFiction 1 year ago
Thank you David, for this video.
artzest 1 year ago
Such a bias view on so many levels.
mattersofsize 1 year ago
And which levels would they be?
bweazel 1 year ago
Anyone else noticed "there is no cake"?
MartenThuren 1 year ago
@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxy1: Are you sure you know what altruism is? The meaning of the term is covered in the first minute of the video. Did you even watch the video?
DavidPHayesVideo 1 year ago
There's no correlation between altruism and Nazism. Nazism was based on ethnocentrism and nationalism. It's extreme rightism! However, altruism doesn't discriminate.
grecobactrian 1 year ago
@grecobactrian: to be focused on ethnic and national aspects of persons is to be focused on collective aspects. Collectivism is the orientation of the far left. If you think that ethnocentrism is an aspect of being on the political right, you don't understand what is meant by the political right. (The charts in the video deal with this subject.)
DavidPHayesVideo 1 year ago
This video is mischaracterizes history, misrepresents Hitler's speech. There is actually nothing in the speech that talks about altriusm, but lots about subservance to extreme group-oriented servitude nationalism.
The maltreatment of minorities is exactly due to the absense of altriusm and empathy.
The word "socialism" has only been roundly demagogued in the US and long after that time period. Hitler was clearly anti-left and did not understand "social" in your terms.
socrates856 1 year ago
Hitler also says we should educate ourselves in that clip. Why isn't education the basis of Nazism?
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
Altruism is a moral code, and as such (and to the extent it is practiced), it becomes the basis of all actions taken by the adherents of that moral code. If the moral code is rejected and another taken up in its place, it ceases to influence (i.e., control) those who'd adhered to it previously.
Education is different: virtually all types of societies and schools of morality value education. As for Hitler, when he talks about education, he is pressuring for agreement, not understanding.
DavidPHayesVideo 1 year ago
@DavidPHayesVideo That doesn't answer my question. Your argument, if I understood it, was 'Hitler used the word 'altruism' in his speech, encouraging the Nazis to be altruistic therefore that was the basis of Nazism.' Your reflections on the moral nature of altruism may be interesting, but they're not evidence for your claim that altruism is the basis for Nazism. If all you've got is 'Hitler used the word' then that also supports the claim that education is the basis for Nazism.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed This point is answered in the video: pay attention to the passage about assuaging groups by catering to their prejudices. Not stated in words, but implicit in the context, is the manipulating of the German population made to operating the extermination camps. Nazi Germany was made up of sacrifice upon sacrifice. The mass of the population (the "Aryans") were expected to sacrifice for the "glory" of the race, the soldiers sacrificed for their fuhrer's debased ideals, more ...
DavidPHayesVideo 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed [continuing prior response:] ... family function was by Nazi plan sacrificed to Nazi Youth membership and even to Nazi breeding programs designed to enlarge a master race by Nazis choosing others' mates. No one need say how non-Aryans were made to sacrifice. Religious freedom was sacrificed even in majority faiths.
The video shows Hitler demanding sacrifice; the generation he addresses would be his soldiers when the world war was at its height. Freedom died for them.
DavidPHayesVideo 1 year ago
@DavidPHayesVideo I'm sorry, I don't mean to be pedantic here, but I really don't think you've made your case. You say that Hitler demanded sacrifice. This is true. So did Churchill, so did Roosevelt, so has every leader in military history. I don't see why you're singling out altruism here. Why not patriotism? Why not emotions? Why not power? Why not duty? Why not will? All of these things are being evoked here at least as much as altruism. This seems like confirmation bias.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed, you have again failed to treat altruism as its adherents' life-encompassing moral code and thus not as a philosophy that controls all aspects of life at all times in those who accept altruism. When Winston Churchill implored his countrymen to accept privations, those limitations were to be only for the duration of the war. For Hitler's flock, sacrifice occurred at all times, during war and during peace. Before Nazi Germany entered WWII, Aryan Germans were living lives ...
DavidPHayesVideo 1 year ago
@DavidPHayesVideo "you have again failed to treat altruism as its adherents' life-encompassing moral code and thus not as a philosophy that controls all aspects of life at all times in those who accept altruism."
Wait, what? You've given no evidence that anyone, Nazis or otherwise, views altruism as a 'life-encompassing moral code', as opposed to, say, one virtue among many. But even if the Nazi's did, then shouldn't we say the foundation of Nazism is monomaniacal fanaticism?
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@DavidPHayesVideo Altruism is perfectly fine, on your account, provided it's kept in perspective, and not taken to be a 'life-encompassing moral code that controls all aspects of life at all times.' But it's the extremism that's dangerous here, not the (alleged) altruism. Practically any idea that's treated as a 'life-encompassing moral code that controls all aspects of life at all times' can lead to disaster.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Altruism IS the extreme. There is no spectrum of "being less selfless" to being "more selfless" selflessness is unquantifiable. The extent to which a human being ignores it's own values and feedback mechanisms is the extent to which it will suffer and ignore that which is around him. Altruism IS colloquially a moral argument and doesn't exist for obvious reasons.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
[response part #2:]
...of dawn-to-night regimentation, German Jews were being killed by firing squad.
@SisyphusRedeemed, you don't need me to tell you the difference between Churchill and Hitler. A moment's reflection would have told you what I stated in the previous part of my response to you of today. The "Altruism: the Basis of Nazism" video draws out the implications and implementations of altruism beyond what's in the Hitler speech shown therein.
DavidPHayesVideo 1 year ago
[response part #3:]
@SisyphusRedeemed, when you continue to ask questions answered in the video or answerable by simple reflection on your part (and/or by obvious mental connections), I come to doubt your sincerity in asking the questions. If I decide that your queries are merely your execution of a gigantic put-on, I'll stop answering what may well not be truly the "questions" that the form your responses take make them appear to be.
DavidPHayesVideo 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Because education never hurt anyone. Altruism has.
DackBev 1 year ago
@DackBev That's DavidPHayesVideo's claim (and yours too, apparently), but neither of you have provided any evidence for that claim. You've just made an assertion, and DPHV just showed a speech in which Hitler used the word. But if that counts as evidence, then it also counts as evidence in support of the claim that education is to blame, since Hitler used that word, too.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
You need to throw in corporatism in the class with socialism, communism, and nazism. Many people confuse corporatism with capitalism.
adriansrfr 1 year ago
Altruism: Sacriface for others. Yes, it goes very well with Nazism.
Good info Ebdomos, very helpful.
alanoasiss 1 year ago
I have people tell me that it is altruism when we have Americans who willingly serve in the military. It is not. The difference is that they gain something from serving for their country. They gain something knowing that they fought to protect, defend and enshrine liberty. The Nazis died for Hitler, it was not for a cause, they died so that they may serve their fuhrer.
Ipetratz 1 year ago 8
It seems that you are not arguing about the determinants of nazism but rather promoting objectivism. Your use of the holocaust to promote your philosophical opinions is rather shameful as well as being purposefully deceptive as it implies that helping others will lead to genocide.
chief294 1 year ago
@chief294
Using the Holocaust to promote the protections of individuals rights and property is a fantastic and important thing.
Altruism is the heart of Christianity and Islam as well, and Christianity has already killed Jews in the millions, and if Islam is given the chance, they would do the same tomorrow.
The problem with altruism is when altruistic individuals out of frustration, start demanding others to be altruistic, because it is simply not fair that they bear the burden alone.
Ebdomos 1 year ago
everyone should see this
voteDRNO 1 year ago
great vid!!!!
7Highlander 1 year ago 2
history is written by the victor!
kowalityjesus 1 year ago
You're beyond silly Mr Godwin.
crud4 1 year ago
So this video shows you have a deplorably bad understanding of human nature and are incapable of reading a dictionary and read from right to left since you failed to grasp that Nazis put Nationalism before Socialism.
Which is what Hitler was preaching in that speech.
I question your qualifications to say that academics and historians have it wrong when they place Nazism on the right.
Jkarabella 1 year ago
@Jkarabella
Nationalism is rather collectivist thinking, it is not unreasonable to put it on the right. Also, Nazi is intended to be a socialistic party, and fascist economics place property as being private, but individuals who own it have no right to it; it all must be for the good of the country.
Ebdomos 1 year ago
@Ebdomos Nationalism is is concern only for your own kind/nation, invariably it appeals to those in privilege wanting to keep what they have. Hence, why it goes to the Right.
A quick review of history will show you the "socialist" ideals of Nazi party never happened, rather they were dangled as the rewards the people would reap for supporting the party and the lack of them the reason to hate the unionists, jews, catholics, etc.
Basically Hitler was a liar and a manipulator. A shock I know.
Jkarabella 1 year ago
@Jkarabella
I beg your pardon, I meant to say that it is not unreasonable to put it on the left. Nationalism depends on its context, and collectivism in small or large scale is still leftist thinking, and so it is not unreasonable to place it left. If only the privileged benefit, then that is a sign of a cast system, not a free market. Suggesting that Nazi socialism never happened is potentially arguing that socialistic ideals are unrealistic.
Regardless, the point is that under libertarian or
Ebdomos 1 year ago
@Ebdomos Well if you want to claim that any measure of collectivism equates to leftist thinking then there are no rightists.
Adolf Hitler used the exact same strategy as many, many tyrants before him did. He promised his people all the benefits of the left, with all the security of the right, if they would only follow him unquestioningly and fight the enemies of this great ideal.
He didn't actually deliver these benefits or this security, but he had the sales pitch they wanted to hear.
Jkarabella 1 year ago
@Jkarabella
There is that issue of loose definitions, but it is addressed in authoritarianism and libertarianism, as they serve as the up and down of the left and right.
Adolf certainly appealed, but I think it is fair to say that he exploited the popularity of socialism, anti semitism, and anti catholicism, all which can find a source in Lutheranism, and the first two in Christianity in general. Kant as well was an anti-semite, and an apologist for altruism, and he is an influence of Marx.
Ebdomos 1 year ago
Good video. You should make some more like this.
Beethovens7th 1 year ago
Talk about taking the word "altruism" out of context.
Similarly, with this line of thinking "WAR is PEACE" and "SLAVERY is FREEDOM."
blaziermissy 1 year ago
Altruism demands self sacrifice for the sake of others. That's exactly what nazism was about : the individual is nothing and must sacrifice oneself for the benefit of the german people as a whole.
Darvas73 1 year ago
Altruism has been used by many people...BUT with semantically twisted meanings. The Nazi citizenry didn't portray "altruism" for there country, they were promised prosperity...that's why they adhered to the Nazi propoganda, plus, they were brainwashed.
Btw, Altruism increases the fitness of the society. Altruism isn't self sacrifise, b/c the entire group benefits in the long run, THUS, NOT self sacrifise if you benefit.
blaziermissy 1 year ago
THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST.
—NSDAP Program, Point 24, 1920
If altruism isn't self sacrifice, how do you distinguish between altruistic deeds and profitable trading?
Darvas73 1 year ago
Darvas for some reason I receive your response to me but I don't see it here. You wrote that if altruism isn't self sacrifise how do distinguish between altruism and profitable trading?
Huh? Who's defintion of altruism are u going by, Ayn Rand?
blaziermissy 1 year ago
Any definition: selfless concern for the welfare of others, moral obligation to benefit others...
If you are better off after performing an altruistic deed you are not being selfless, you are buying benefits from others. If altruism doesn't involve self sacrifice(trading a higher value for a lesser value), then what's the difference between being altruistic and pursuing self interest?
Darvas73 1 year ago
Altruism taken too far is Anti-Individualism
hence communism & fascism (very similar)
walter0bz 1 year ago
Altruism is the philosophy that forgets about the virtue of prudency. It makes one get out "doing good" to others, but never stops for a second to think if what's being accomplished is really good or wanted. It's a tyranny of sorts.
billingrateS 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the reason communism is far away from nazism is becouse philosophycally speaking communism wasnt intended to bring upon tyranny.
theres a saying absolute power corrupts absolutely
erniesalvaje 2 years ago
Nazism is not far (philosophically) from Nazism. Regardless of what the intent was as the systems were devised, the fact remains that both systems were brutal in practice. I reject the notion that the originators of communism were unaware that the system would be enforced by violence, including murder. It doesn't take much brain to foresee that there would be many dissenters, and resolved dissenters can only be triumphed over by overwhelming, overpowering, vanquishing them--ongoing violence.
DHBBCD 2 years ago
i agree, Marx didnt really think much on the outcome of the revolutions ,they didnt bring communism to the ussr and other gov'ts but a state-capitalist tolitatrian system
erniesalvaje 2 years ago
@erniesalvaje probably because Marx thought like an escantologist
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
@DHBBCD Right, because Nazism is the exact same as Nazism. ::)
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DHBBCD "Regardless of what the intent was as the systems were devised,"
The intentions weren't really all that different, you're giving erniesalvaje too much credit. The intention of BOTH ideas was to subjugate the individual under the authority of the collective.
Beethovens7th 1 year ago 2
@Beethovens7th I don't know what tosser decided to mark these comments as spam.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
They're absolutely the same ideologies. Read Marx. There are totalitarism and genocide, quite clear to see. Hitler gave credit to bolcheviks for starting his work, read "Hitler Ma Dit". I don't remember the author, sorry; but surely he is one of Hitler closest advisors. Nazism is an abreviation to National-SOCIALISM. When Germany starts to compass the World, they lost the "National" shade and became Internationalist, as any other comunist.
billingrateS 2 years ago 2
Hitler M'a Dit - Hermann Rauschning.
Imprescindible.
billingrateS 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@erniesalvaje "communism wasnt intended to bring upon tyranny.
theres a saying absolute power corrupts absolutely"
So you're saying that communism wasn't intended to bring upon tyranny, but it WAS intended to bring upon absolute power? That's a contradiction in terms.
Beethovens7th 1 year ago 2