File spoon-archives/phillitcrit.archive/phillitcrit_2000/phillitcrit.0007, message 169


From: zatavu-AT-excite.com
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 19:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: PLC: Plato/Marx/Nation Socialism



On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 21:38:39 -0400 (EDT),
phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu wrote:

>  On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 zatavu-AT-excite.com wrote:
>  
>  > >  Nazism set itself up publicly in opposition to Marxism. FAscism was
>  > >  for racial inequality and cozy with capitalism and rooted in
idealist
>  > >  conceptions of spirit. Marxism was for racial equality and opposed
to
>  > >  capitalism and rooted in historical materialism. Hitler publicly
>  > >  denegrated Marxism as a form of Jewish poison, and the operation of
the
>  > >  Nazi state reflects this public view.  If Hitler were to publicly
say he
>  > >  "admired" Bolshevism, that would be pretty odd and confusing to the
rank
>  > >  and file, inconsistent with Nazism.   
>  > 
>  > This is ignoring the fact that historically, until HItler at least,
most
>  > forms of socialism (including some Marxists) were anti-Semitic.
>  
>  Most philsophies and political programs in Europe were anti-semitic,
>  perhaps. Marxism was not.  So what is "ignored" here? The point is Nazis
>  saw Jews as the source of German woe, the Communists saw class based
>  exploitation as the source.  How would "remembering" that "most forms of
>  socialism were anti-semitic" affect my point in any way?

You are the one who insisted that Marxism was not anti-semitic. I merely
pointed out that before Hitler it sometimes was.
>  
>  > >  Professional historians--as well as lawyers and psychologists--would
for
>  > >  the most part find the below request reasonable.
>  > 
>  > And it is reasonable, except that I was merely asked for the source of
my
>  > comments about Hitler and Marxism and I did indeed give that. Whether
it is
>  > a good source or not is irrelevant to that issue. 
>  
>  Hardly. Especially if someone questions the source and you write
>  
>      > You seem determined not to believe anything inconvenient to your
own
>      > ideology. > Oh well. I can't do any more than what I have done.
>  
>    And I am the first to
>  > admit that it is a somewhat questionable source of Hitler's thoughts,
>  
>  YOu certianly were not the first to admit that on this thread. And you
>  seem to waffle back and forth in this post.

Haven't you ever heard of that turn of phrase "i'm the first to admit..."
It's not to be taken literally. I didn't say I was the first to admit in
this thread...
>  
>  > >  That is why in intellecual discussion one hopefully gets to cross
examine
>  > >  sources and to test the validity of arguments constructed on them. 
>  > >  
>  > >  But you resist this cross-examination, and take its appearance as
>  > >  evidence that someone else can't be reasoned with.
>  > 
>  > I only apepar to resist it because it falls into the parameters of the
>  > request made for me to give my source. I gave my source. I did not say
it
>  > was a perfect source, but only that it was the source of my comments.
That
>  > source did indeed support what I had said.
>  
>  In the sense that it just proves you read got that Hitler Marxism
>  connection from somewhere? Or that it makes what you said reliable, as
you
>  seem to imply when you state "did indeed support what I had said."

I was merely asked to state my source so I could prove I wasn't just making
it up. I gave my source.
>  
>   As for its reliability, I don't
>  > think you or I or anyone here is prepared to say exactly how actually
>  > reliable the source is. 
>  
>  That is in itself a comment on its reliability.

HOw do we know the absolute reliability of anything? How do we know that
Plato actually wrote the things we think he wrote? Or that Plato even
existed? How can we trust those sources? I'm not being frivolous, or saying
the point about the source is not valid regarding its reliability. I'm only
pointing out historical inquiry has by its very nature that difficulty.
>  
>  I am sure there are differing opinions, and I have
>  > even said that the fact that it is recollection does throw the details
into
>  > account. The argument as I saw it essentially went as follows:
>  
>  > 1) I made a claim
>  > 2) People asked for me to give a source
>  > 3) I gave my source
>  > 4) I was told that the source was unnacceptable and that I would have
to
>  > give another source
>  
>  That is almost correct.  Ben only said that another sources would be 
>  needed to corroborate Rauschning's recollections.  

I don't disagree with that, were it stated exactly that way.
>  
>  And then there was one more step. You said
>  
>    5)> >  > You seem determined not to believe anything inconvenient to
your own
>  > >  > ideology. > Oh well. I can't do any more than what I have done.
>  
>  However, following my post, the issue for you becomes not Rauschning's
>  reliability as a commentator on Hitler, but whether you got your ideas
>  from Rauschning.

I was asked for the source of my statement, and I gave it. That's my only
point.
>  
>  > The problem is, that is my source. You can't say the source is an
>  > unnacceptible source and that I have to now come up with some other
source.
>  > I don't have any other source. That's where I read it. It's just a
source.
>  > If I went out and found another source and said that was there I got
the
>  > information, I would be lying.
>  
>  You have a problem with lying, but not with using unreliable sources as
>  if reliable? If you want to establish the reliability of your source,
then
>  yes, you must come up with some corroboration. 

I idd not say my source was or was not reliable, only that I had gotten it
from that source (several years ago, by the way, which is why it took me so
long to figure out where I even got it from).
>  
>   You can argue about the validity of the
>  > source if you want. It may or may not be valid. But that is where I
read
>  > what I had claimed. I have no problem with people saying the source
itself
>  > is bad, 
>  
>  Then why did you write
>  
>   > You seem determined not to believe anything inconvenient to your own
>  > >  > ideology. > ?
>  
>  The odor of red herring here:
>  
>    but you cannot say that I cannot use it therefore as the source of
>  > where I learned the information, because that is in fact where I
learned it.
>  > The validity of it as a source for correct information is another issue
>  > entirely, and something I am willing to engage in as a separate topic.
>  
>  Well fine. Except that no one is saying you cannot use Rauschning as the
>  source of where you got your information. What you call "another issue
>  entirely" is the main topic--viz. whether Hitler thought or said the Nazi
>  state was a true manifestation of Marxism, and whether there is any
>  reliable information that he did so and whether you out to be relying on
>  that information.

That's fine. I certainly agree, since I have learned some information about
the source, that it is likely not a completely reliable source for a
word-for-word statement of what Hitler may have said.
>  
>  Seems to me your initial claim that Hitler claimed the nazi state was the
>  true manifestation of Marxism was made in order to connect Marxism to
>  Nazism--to smear Marxism via this innuendo.  When asked for a source, you
>  provide Rauschning, whose quotes do not, by the way. establish Hitler
said
>  the Nazi state was a true manifestation of Marxism. 
>  
>  Next when Ben raised the issue of Rauschning's reliability, you did not
>  then agree the source was unreliable and suggest you only offered the
>  quotes to show where you got them from, rather, you asserted Ben must be
>  "determined not to believe anything inconvenient to [his] own ideology." 

I think that is often true in these kinds of arguments.
>  
>  When I pointed out that cross examination of sources is part of
>  intellectual discussion, your tack changed considerably. You saw how the
>  source could be unreliable. The quotes were only offered to prove where
>  you got them. Not that Hitler really expressed an affinity for
>  Marxism.  And it would be really unfair to ask you for other sources
>  because you got your ideas from Rauschning so it would be lying if you 
>  said you got them somewhere else.
>  
>  With this little red herring tracked down and put aside, we are still
>  left with the question of why you would want to toss those
>  ill-remembered claims about Hitler and then complain people that people
>  are closeminded if they don't accept unreliable sources for those
>  ill-remembered claims.
>  
>  > Read some of my comments about whether or not I am completely
comfortable
>  > with his recollections. The fact that they are recollections alone make
me
>  > uncomfortable. I would have rather had letters or other written forms
of
>  > documentation. But absent that, the real question is not whether
>  > Rauschning's details were right, but if he got what Hitler said to him
right
>  > in general. If he is right about that, then we can perhaps say Hitler
did
>  > see Marxism as an influence.
>  
>  If the stated ideals of Marxism are diametrically opposed to those of
>  Nazism, and if Hitler demonstrates no understanding of Marxism, then what
>  would be the point of assuming any influence at all, even if Hitler likes

>  the "enthusiasm" of the Soviets?  

I don't htink he really understood Nietzsche either, but who would say he
was influenced by his particular understanding of him?
>  
>   And just because Hitler saw it as an influence
>  > does not mena he got it right - that was just his perception. 
>  
>  How is it that one of my objections to your Hitler quotes is now offered
>  up as part of your argument?
>  
>   I did not say
>  > that Naziism was the proper manifestation of Marxism, but that HItler
>  > appeared to see it that way - which was among the reasons why he saw
>  > Marxists as being the best potential Nazis. Or maybe it was because he
>  > realized they too did not see men as individual men either, but as
pawns to
>  > be used in their social experiments.
>  
>  So we are back, now, to what the Rauschning quotes really say about
>  Hitler?
>  
>  If Hitler only "appeared" to see Nazism as a manifestation of Marxism
then
>  couldn't we say he also only "appeared" to say Marxists made the best
>  potential Nazis?  It is this apparent Hitler, then, which
>  conveniently sees Nazism and Marxism as American conservatives
>  do--viz. as threats to the classical liberal notion of the individual.

Both are threats to classical liberalism.

Troy Camplin






_______________________________________________________
Say Bye to Slow Internet!
http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html



     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005