I admit that it's not that easy to explain what corporatism (in the early 20th century sense) was. If I understand it correctly, it was supposed to be an alternative both to communism and *capitalism*. There's an lengthy article on this subject on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Anyway, I can't see how USA's Republican Party could be considered as corporatist. Corporatism was supposed to be a form of planned economy... I don't know that much about American internal politics, but I can't picture Republicans being in favour of such form of economy.

From the page you sited

every time the Republicans lead with 'lets ask the industry what it thinks' that is corporatism. Because in a reasl free market economy 'the industry' would be an inconcievable thing to be asking anything, being comprised of hundreds to thousands of individuals and companies who are producing and delivering similar products. While they pay lip service to the free market the republicans are all to hapy to rescue banks and ensure the special interests from each industry keep their pockets well lined.

Okay, but that's not what the historical corporatism (including the corporatism advocated by the fascists) was about. So, you cannot accuse the Republicans of beings fascists - their attitude toward capitalism was quite different. It may be confusing, as both of these attitudes happen to be referred to as "corporatism" - but they are not the same thing.

Can't accuse Republicans of being Facists? Yes and no.
No: You can always accuse somebody or some group of anything. Language is not constrained by truth. At the same time modern republican Politics, aside from teh exact details of teh economic model being proposed, do bear a remarkably strong resemblance to Facism.
Yes: Facism was ultimately a unique theory of government that was a part of the times and culture that it arose and ultimately died in. To that degree facism simply does not exist on the planet anymore, and it's economic model was teh most fragile aspect of the theory.

That being said I think it is 100% accurate to say that republicans bear more resemblance to facists than any other large political group in America today, most especially compared to the Democrats. This probably has a lot to do with why the party keeps threatening to fracture (Reform Party, Tea Party...)

To be clear, I get you feel this is true, but simply repeating because they believe it doesn't actually make it true. You're saying that it is true, and you're saying they must have felt that way because it doesn't make sense otherwise from what you understand about people or groups. However, that is not all that convincing as a response to the question about what makes you feel they thought it a good act, or that they were unable to determine right from wrong.

Well, it is my question. If my question isn't being answered, I don't even understand how I'm missing the point. I think I would be the authority of determining the point of my own question.

However, I do concede that the reason the question isn't being answered is because the question isn't clear or being understood.

I don't believe that everyone has the same morals as me. Why do you feel that I think everyone thinks the way I do?

I get the concept that people have done acts and felt them good. In this case you appeal to the Israelites for listening to God for why they did their actions.

However, I do not believe that Nazi's appealed to God as their reason. Though if you gave further support as to stating God told Nazi's to kill women, children, grandparents, etc, then that would answer my question as to how they could not determine right from wrong.

Though in the end, I do get you're trying to use history to show support to the idea, but simply stating that because one group show reasons to ignore right from wrong, that it means all groups now have a reason.

To repeat, while one group might have had support for unable to determine right from wrong, that doesn't automatically translate that all other groups are able to do so as well.

In other words, while we can assume they had reasons, no one is actually showing that the Nazi's did have position that left them unable to determine right from wrong.

Assuming, and repeating that position of assumption doesn't seem convincing to end the questioning of how the Nazi's felt they were good acts.

We're talking about a massive group of people here. Different individuals will have different reasons for their actions. I don't think you'll find just one reason. Also remember the majority of people were not aware of the true depravity of the concentration camps either. The idea of a concentration camp, putting everyone of one group in one place, wasn't morally repugnant at all. We did it here in the U.S. and I don't hear people asking how our grandparents could have failed to tell good from evil. But the actual processes within the camps were shielded from the public.

Part of the issue here is in the question itself "I don't understand how they could fail to see what was right and wrong." whereas from their perspective they couldn't understand how anyone could support Jews dominating the economy and undermining the white race, unless they were jewish themselves of course. Each believes their own perspective is objectively true, and that what is right is apparent, without the need to appeal to authority.

I agree the general public were shielded from plenty of the nastiness.

What I think is that there were plenty of people who were aware, and chose to continue the evil knowing it was evil. For whatever reasons they had, there were plenty of people who chose to do acts that were not good, and knew they were not good acts, but did so anyway.

People chose to do harmful acts all the time, and are aware of them not being good acts.

Look at people who kill their spouse, or cheat on their spouse, or beat their children, or rape children. They know the acts are wrong, and do so anyway.

I think the Nazi's chose to do evil acts, and knew they were acts that were not good acts.
This message was last edited by the player at 19:01, Sun 12 Dec 2010.

Didn't mean to imply that they did.

My example was meant to show that people can/have/do convince themselves that genocide is not just okay, but good in some cases.  And also to try to put yourself in a position where you might be able to see the other side of the situation.  You seem comfortable saying the Israelites were good when they committed genocide in the OT (correct me if I'm wrong on that), even though others feel it's wrong.  Other people saying it's wrong/evil/etc. doesn't affect your view of its rightness or wrongness, I'm guessing.  Similarly for the nazis.  They had convinced themselves that what they were doing was at least necessary, or perhaps even good, and other people telling them otherwise wasn't changing their minds much.  Just as you probably have trouble relating to the people of Jericho, or Sodom, or Gomorrah, or the Midianites, the nazis struggled to relate to the jews as see them as fully human, worthy of rights and humane treatment.  Just as you (again, correct me if I'm wrong) view the people of sodom and gommorah as so depraved and evil as to deserve the treatment they received, the nazis felt the same way about the jews.  Does that make a bit more sense?

Or, if you want another example, consider Martin Luther.  Again, someone you might find it easier to relate to than the nazis.  He too was very prejudiced against jews, having written some very disturbing works ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O..._Jews_and_Their_Lies ) that many feel had a large influence on the nazis.

Part of the message of the holocaust is that when people who can tell right from wrong stand by and let evil happen, horrible atrocities can occur.  But another part of the message is that people can commit acts of horrible evil while believing themselves to be doing what's right.  Both of these lessons are important, and ignoring either of them increases the chance that society will end up repeating the same mistakes, in my opinion.  The holocaust couldn't have happened without the zealots, and it would have been far more difficult to happen if the apathetic had spoken up.


Okay, you're saying/implying that all nazi's felt what they were doing was wrong.  I've given an example of one group feeling it was right to commit genocide (OT israelites).  Can you tell me why you think the nazis (or at least some of them) could not have also rationalized the actions of their government (or themselves) as well?


Nor are you showing the reason that they all could.  Since we can't actually see inside their heads, we're sort of at an impasse.  You're saying it's impossible that they felt they were in the right, we're saying that it's possible (and using another group as an example to show that its possible).  Where do you think we can go from this point that would satisfy one side or the other?

If it helps, I can certainly agree that some (perhaps even many) people in germany thought that what the nazis were doing was wrong.  Can you make a similar concession and agree that at least some nazis had convinced themselves that what they were doing was right?  Or do reject the possibility altogether?  If so, why?


Nor does repeating the question seem convincing that they felt they were in the wrong.  Can you perhaps be a bit more specific as to what you're looking for?  What kind of answer would convince you?  Right now it's not very clear to me what kind of answer you're looking for.

Lets put it this way- take the feelings you have about Nazis. Teh outrage, teh revilement, that belief they knew that what they were doing ws evil and they chose to do it anyways.
Now overlay that belief with a fairly typical german Nazi party memmber- not privy to party secrets, probably joined the party simply because they were in power, and he wanted to do buiness in germany. Still colaberting with the Nazis though, dues paying member and reasonably loyal to the party.
Now take those feelings and pretend you felt that way about Jews instead of Nazis.
That is how they came to believe they were doing the right thing.
I'm not saying outrage against one is not more appropriate than the other, simply that that is the perspective and emotion involved.
And before you say 'sure but look at everything the Nazis did and the jews were just being persecuted.' look again from their persepctive.
They believed Jews poisoned wells. Why would the Jews do that? Why would teh Nazi's gas Jews? The point is they believed it was the case, though evidence today suggests otherwise.
The Jews controlled the economy- a long standoing tradition ofnot allowing Gentiles to charge interest led to jewish domination of a banking system which was seen as a large part of the cause of the global depression that Germany was suffering through.
And of course the Jews killed Jesus. this had been part of at least unofficial Christian Doctrine since the begining of the middle ages.
They were the Archetypal black hat villains of their time, and the Nazis went after them.

People do ask that, though.  I think the way we treated japanese americans during WWII is sad part of US history.  Not as bad as the nazis, true, but still something to look back on with shame.

But it's an isolated example, and even an isolated example doesn't mean we should accept the assumption that all uses of such acts are not good acts.

I do understand, I wanted to focus that an assumption didn't answer the question asked.

Actually, I consider it a non issue. I'm only comfortable in saying what was said by one group does not mean it is the same for all groups.

I actually maintain that no one thought it good. I do agree that there are people who felt justified in doing those acts.

I'm not lost here. I get the idea that people feel they will do a variety of acts, even if they are bad acts. I do not feel people need to state the acts are good before they will do them. Some people has stated that all people will do acts tat they consider good, or will at least justify them as good acts, else they would not do them. I think that seems rather untrue as a point to begin with.

I have no problem in stating that people do bad acts, and are aware they are bad acts.

Agreed, but I don't have any dispute in justifying one's action. We allow bad things to happen all the time. (And know they are bad) We kill people all the time. (It's called policing, and war) We know good innocent people are killed in doing these actions. But we don't call killing people a good act.



Okay, you're saying/implying that all nazi's felt what they were doing was wrong.  I've given an example of one group feeling it was right to commit genocide (OT israelites).  Can you tell me why you think the nazis (or at least some of them) could not have also rationalized the actions of their government (or themselves) as well?  </quote> I want to be clear here, I'm not saying Nazi's had no reasons for what they did. I'm saying they knew they were not good acts, and did them anyway.

I can give plenty of reasons for rationalization, such as preventing resistance, create fear and confusion, hold power easier without as many to oppose them, etc.

But I'm not stating that Nazi's could not have reasons for their actions. I'm stating they knew the acts were not good, and did them anyways.

I think one assumption here is reasonable. That the Nazi's were aware of people and that a right to life is reasonable. Considering we're talking about that these people were born and raised in a country where laws protecting such rights were known, and supported previously, it seems reasonable to assume that murder was already considered negative.

It also seems reasonable that these people had grandmothers, wives, and children, and would not want them killed, or tortured or raped, it seems reasonable that they could understand the concept that other people they went after would not want this done to them either.

I think it reasonable that the Nazi's were aware of right and wrong considering that these ideas were already known for thousands of years.

I do reject the possibility that a non delusional person could not be aware that killing others is a act that is good. My reasoning is based on that the concept of murder and right to life was known and accepted before the Nazi's existed as a group.

I only repeat it because people keep saying they had a reason, and when I point out I'm asking for that reason, they repeat that there must be.

  I'm looking for people to support their assumption I guess.

Actually any answer. For example, simply stating that you remember talking to a person who told you they heard that Nazi's used torture and brainwashing to convince people that non perfect people actually liked being killed, and that you got extra points in Heaven for doing so.

Now while it would lead to more questions, it would at least show some support for why you might feel that it was a good act to the Nazi's, and why they couldn't tell right from wrong.\

But I think you'd have to agree with me at this point, no one has presented any reason to support why the Nazi's thought the actions were good and unable to determine right from wrong.

I do think we can agree that people presented reasons why we should assume they had reasons to do such acts, and even felt it was for a purpose, but that's not what I asked, and I stated as such.

Ok. I don't have an issue with understanding they they have an opposing view. I don't consider killing a Nazi a good act. I understand in the War they killed lots of Nazi's but that doesn't make it a good act.

Okay, maybe this is the point that holding us up.  You say they felt justified (which to mean means they thought their actions were just), but that they didn't feel they were good.  If we changed the statement to "some nazis thought killing the jews was justifiable" would we come to agreement?  I can agree with that statement, and won't quibble over the difference between "good" and "justifiable" if you're happy with it.


I can agree that they don't need to feel the act is good before doing them.  In some cases, however, I think people do feel things that I think are evil are good.  People don't always agree on what's right or wrong.  Can you agree with that?


Some times, yes.  But I think if you're saying that's true in all cases (ie, that anytime they do something I think is evil, that they also think it's evil) then you'll need to back that up, because it simply doesn't look like that's the case to me.


Some people certainly do.  People sometimes celebrate after someone receives the death penalty, or an enemy is killed, etc.  Imagine if they find Osama bin Laden and kill him.  Do you really think no one will say it's a good thing that he's been killed?  I'm sure many people would say it was.  Or ask people if they think it's good that Hitler was killed.  I think you'll find plenty of people who feel it is a good thing.  Ask yourself if you think it was a good thing that Abraham was willing to kill Isaac, for example.  Sometimes people really do seem to feel that killing is a good thing.

I agree that sometimes people do things that they consider to be necessary evils, and even sometimes do things they know are wrong and then rationalize after the fact.  But you seem to be going one step further, and saying that's always the case, and that's where I'm not convinced.  Sometimes it really does seem like people believe in the crazy ideas they claim to have.


Some of them, sure.  But what is your evidence that all of them felt that way?


Can the same be said of Moses, when he ordered the slaughter of women and children in the OT?  Did he know what he was doing was wrong, and do it anyway, or did he actually believe it was the right thing to do?


Again, same question as above.  Does the same apply to the OT Israelites?


And likewise for Moses and Israelites?


Okay, do you reject the possibility that Moses thought it was good to order the slaughter of women and children in the OT then?  Or that Abraham didn't feel it was the right thing to do to kill Isaac?


Okay, so if someone brings up a quote of a Nazi claiming it was good to kill jews, would that be what you're looking for?


Actually, I've seen people give quite a few reasons. There seems to be a disagreement over whether they're "justifications" or "reason to think it's right," but at the moment I'm a little fuzzy on what you see as the significant difference between them.
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:26, Sun 12 Dec 2010.

Actually, I think this is a hold up. Justified does not mean good. I think we should resume this conversation once we know the difference between being good and justifying.


Are you now stating that because people can justify their actions, they are now doing good? Also note, justify, and just are not the same thing.

I don't think saying they attempted to be justified means that people are also doing good. Why do you feel that is holding up our ideas of agreement on this? From my perspective Tycho, I am thinking you're throwing a red herring into the argument.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:47, Sun 12 Dec 2010.

Okay, cool, that's a bit of progress.  We've found something that's causing us to talk past each other a bit.  I agree, lets get the definitions sorted in everyone's mind before we go on.


No, not quite.  I'm saying that if people feel their actions are justified then they think they're doing good.  I think the nazis' actions were evil.  The fact that felt they were justified doesn't make the acts not evil.  Rather, it means some of the nazis thought they weren't evil.


Okay, what do you feel is the difference?  To me "justify" means to make a case for an action being just.  If something is described as "justified" to me, that implies to me that the person speaking feels the action was just.  Sounds like that's not what you mean when you're using the term, so perhaps that what's causing the disagreement?  What do you mean when you use the words?


I agree, and hope I didn't come off as saying otherwise.  What I'm trying to say is not that they were doing good, but that they thought they were doing good.  That's a very important distinction, and if I hadn't made that clear in what I've typed so far, I very much apologize.

To be very clear about what I'm saying:  its possible for people to think they're doing right while they're doing wrong.  The fact that they think they're doing right doesn't make them right.  Similarly, the fact that they're doing evil doesn't necessarily mean they think they're doing evil.


Because it sounds like we're using the same terms (eg, justified, good) but meaning slightly different things when we use them.  That's the kind of thing that often leads to disagreements, because you might agree with what I mean but disagree what you think I've said because we're not on quite the same page as to what all the terms mean.  That may not be the only cause of the disagreement, but it seems like a likely candidate for at least part of it.  You said something along the lines of "the nazis felt their actions were justified," which is more or less all I'm trying to argue here (at least under my understanding of the word justified).  If you agree with that, then we may not be in a much disagreement as we think.

If you feel it's off track, though, feel free to push on with the questions I asked in my last post instead, I suppose.

To be clear, I think you are being somewhat difficult. It went so way off track that you started to suggest that the reason we're at a disagreement is because justify and them thinking themselves good are the confusion.

Justify or justified in the context was to simply explain why they did such an action, and clearly was not a requirement to have their actions now become a good act from their view. I have stated opposite that several times now, so that cannot be the hold up.

Tycho, I feel that you sometimes take up your debates for simply the sake of arguing. You're implying things and stating that my argument is something else. You're asking me what kind of answer I'm looking for, and stating you do not understand my question somehow.

I don't get the problem. Other people have argued that one would not do an evil act, or an act that is wrong if they knew it was wrong, and therefore any act they do must be good in their view.

I'm asking for them to back that up in this case, with the example given of the Nazi forces.

You don't believe killing a Nazi is good, but you can at least understand why someone else might feel that, correct?
And if someone had a camp outside your city where tey rounded up Nazis and killed them, how would you feel about it? Especially if the TV and radio and newspaper made it sound like they were rounding up the Hitlers and the Himmels and never refered to teh businessman who just joined to be able to get his liscence to practice business...
... admitedly the logistics would have to be different, but immediately after WW2 something like this hypothetically could have happened...

Yes, of course.

Yes, it likely resulted in many people being killed. Some were likely not involved, and merely thought to be. I'm sure there are plenty who were killed as Hitler supporters, but actually were undercover agents helping the victims to escape or survive.

I think that it's a tragic waste of life. But I accept it does happen. It's not a good act, but I can justify it I think in a time of war. Not so sure in a non war time though. I suspect that the people who are rounding up Nazi's and harming them during non war times would be arrested, and put on trial.

I'm asking for them to back that up in this case, with the example given of the Nazi forces.

The Nazis said it was good. They said absolutely loyalty to the state was good. They said that putting the German people above everything else was good. They said that genocide was necessary and good for the German people.

What else do you need to convince you that they thought it was good?

Where did they say that? Are you saying brainwashing was a factor? After all, if someone told me killing children was good, I'd probably say they must have misunderstood something, if not not outright tell them go jump in a lake.


You know Falkus, it's perfectly acceptable to say that's just what you believe, and then say you're not sure where you read that. But to respond as if everyone else should believe the way you do already before any actual support is given seems a bit strange, don't you think?

From your posts, I do get that you believe that is truth. I'm asking for the support at this point.  Was I wrong to ask for support for the statements?
This message was last edited by the player at 11:57, Mon 13 Dec 2010.

Where did they say that? Are you saying brainwashing was a factor? After all, if someone told me killing children was good, I'd probably say they must have misunderstood something, if not not outright tell them go jump in a lake.

I suggest you go read a history book: The idea that killing the children of your enemy is a good thing is not a new idea and stretches back to the dawn of human history. It's something we've always done. The idea that it's wrong is only a relatively recent one.

The thing is it wasn't just 'oh the Nazis said it was good and if somebody told me that something was good I wouldn't buy into it'
there are issues of ppeal to authority, group think- not everyone who participated thought what they were doing was necessarily good, but most of them were willing to leave that judgement call up to someone else who did think it was a good thing.
And those beliefs didn't just pop up out of nowhere either. You don't think killing Nazis is a good thing, but you can understand why someone else did. Now keep in mind that in the minds of most Europeansd at that time, Jews occupied teh same place as stereotypical villains that Nazis occupy in our minds today. So while you might not agree that killing Nazis is good you wouldn't move to stop the killing in the death camp where Nazis are being shoved into gass ovens, and you could understand why people in charge who felt threatened by teh possibility that a Nazi plot could undermine and destroy the country would believe it was both good and necessary to shove Nazis into gas ovens.
And that is the situation that there was in Germany, except that instead of Nazis it was Jews, which are a race instead of an organization which you associate with voluntarilly. That seems like a world of difference today but back then the theory of evolution was still new and most models incoporated a lot of old prejudices. They had no model of DNA or real understanding of how heredity work- you simply inherited traits from your parents teh same as you had always done only know the question of which traits and who had them could bleed over and contaminate and infect other racial groups and afect teh whole of humanity. From that perspective the 'wrong' bloodlines were in and of themselves a threat to humanity.
And to carry it a step furtehr most domesticated animals had been improved through selective breeding- n fact this observation was core principle in the theory of evolution. So the idea that the human race could be similarly improved...
... and if traits like dishonesty, cowardice, and a vague generic 'evil' could be inherited would it not be in teh best interest of humanity to eliminate those who carried that trait? We know now they cannot be, but at the time it seemed reaonable, after all, everyone "knew" that Jews were dishonest schemers plotting to dominate the world, so if that was true of all Jews it must be an inherited trait...

And this is the real point it wasn't just 'someone told them it was good and they said okay and believed them'
It was that they already had a vague idea that Something Was Wrong and Something Should Be Done About It, so when someone else pointed them in a direction that made sense with how they understood the world, they started Doing instead of reconsidering.

Okay, I apologize in that case.  I certainly wasn't trying to be difficult.  Quite the opposite in fact:  I thought I might be able to agree with you if you clarified your meaning slightly.  But if you feel it's a distraction, I retract the request for clarification, and ask you to carry on with the other questions in post #153 instead.


I certainly don't mean to imply that you don't understand your question.  I mean to imply (and now state explicitly) that I don't fully understand your question, or your position on the issue.  I'm not doing it to be difficult, I honestly am not sure what you mean when you say they thought an act was justified but still evil.  To me, an evil act cannot be justified--it's unjustifiable.  To me, that's sort of part of what makes it evil, rather than just wrong, or unfortunate, or the like.  I'm not saying my understanding is better than you, or that we should be using my definitions instead of yours.  I'm happy to use whatever definitions you like.  But right now, I'm confused and looking for help understanding what you're saying.  But like I said, if you think it's a distraction, skip it and move on to the questions in #153.


Again, though, I'm not sure what would "back that up" in your view.  Are you just looking for quotes from people who said it was right to kill jews?  I get the feeling that you're after more than that, but I'm not sure what it is (and I think I might not be alone in that).


EDIT:  Just in case I'm wrong, and you are just looking for quotes, here's some:
(note--I just found these on the internet, and haven't checked the original sources for accuracy)






(note, this was written before WWII, so "this war" wouldn't be WWII.










This one is interesting because it sort of sounds a bit like what you're saying (they knew it was bad, but wanted to do it anyway), but at the same time sort of the opposite: they didn't want to do it, but felt they had to because it was the right thing to do.



These people really seemed to believe the crazy stuff they were practicing.  They weren't all just opportuntist (though no doubt some surely were)--some of them were true believers of this madness.  And I think there's a danger of assuming otherwise.  We tend to fall into the same traps if we ignore the reasons that people have fallen into them before.  People who think everyone agrees on whats right and what's wrong never question their own actions;  they're sure it's right, and they're sure everyone else, deep down, agrees with them.  That kind of unshakable faith in their own moral correctness allows them to commit acts of great evil when others might stop and think "wait a minute..."  Denying that such people exist makes it easier for them to do their thing, and most frightenly of all, makes it all the more possible that we will do something similar because we don't question our own rightness.
This message was last edited by the GM at 19:40, Mon 13 Dec 2010.