sj_zero on Nostr: 15 of 17. Nazis! Fascists! Everywhere! World War II was effectively a clash between ...
15 of 17. Nazis! Fascists! Everywhere!
World War II was effectively a clash between four different ideologies: liberalism, class socialism, State socialism, and racial socialism.
One of the major powers didn't really have any of these ideologies. Although imperial Japan aligned with the axis, their story was much different. After the sengoku period in the 1600s, the newly established tokogawa shogunate shut the borders of Japan for 200 years, only engaging in a small amount of trade using some small outposts. Effectively, Japan became an insular feudalist regime headed by a military dictator. This was the status quo until America send a fleet of ships commanded by Commodore Perry who forced Japan's borders open with the threat of at the time highly advanced ironclad battleships centuries more advanced than anything Japan had. This, combined with the reality of China's century of humiliation resulted in the Meiji restoration of the emperor as the head of government, and the adoption of imperial policies intended to protect the islands of Japan from the same sort of disgrace that China had faced. Japan adopted the "Line of Advantage" strategy which sought to protect itself against the imperialism of the west by capturing an entire empire, and so if they were attacked by imperialist powers then it would be their holdings in oceana and mainland asia that would be affected rather than the actual islands of Japan. In World War 1, Japan sided with the allies, and had done quite well building their empire, but in world war 2 they chose to ally with the axis powers, sensing the chance to further increase the power of their empire.
There were elements of fascism and racial socialism in japan, but it was not either. Instead, it was a truly conservative state trying to maintain the power structures that had existed for millennia to whatever extent they could while they modernized to deal with a world filled with powers such as the Europeans who had effectively taken over the entire world through colonialism. The Meiji restoration restored the power of the emperor, but the emperor had long been a position in Japan, and despite the shogunate being the central power after sengoku, continued to exist since the 1600s. The Japanese were racist in the same as racial socialists, but this did not make them racial socialists per se. They were an imperial state with an emperor at the head. The Japanese had a somewhat totalitarian regime similar to the state socialists, but they were not State socialists because they were instead a mostly feudal state made up of an earlier organization of power. They were most certainly not class socialists in any way because Japan was still a highly hierarchical society, with the emperor on top and certainly poor and powerless people on the bottom. And while there were bits and pieces of liberal society from the reforms after the Meiji restoration, Japanese society was in no way a liberal society. It was its own thing separate from the ideological trappings of the early 20th century west.
The reason that I focus on the Japanese is to show that in spite of a civilization sharing aspects of various forms of socialism and even liberalism, they did not actually practice socialism or liberalism. Logically, all cars have wheels, but not all things with wheels are cars. In the same way, accusations of being a Nazi or a fascist have flown around for the last 80 years, most of the time using the same logic as cars have wheels, therefore everything with wheels is a car.
Different societies shared attributes of one another. Racial socialism is racist, but liberal societies were racist for most of their existence too. Class socialism was invented by a surprisingly racist man, with Karl Marx being shockingly racist even for his day. State socialism shared the totalitarian attributes of racial socialism and class socialism, but anyone who was one of the three would strongly disagree that they were the other things.
The end of the war was largely a victory for liberalism and class socialism (the west and the soviet union), but not completely. In many ways the war destroyed liberalism, because every state that once practiced it ended up taking on many of the aspects of a total war state. The high levels of bureaucracy, high levels of control of the populace, in the United States even the food supply was changed forever because advances in the production and storage of rations led to advances that were implemented by food companies, so today you can't even eat a piece of bread without eating a piece of military technology lying in wait for the next Total War. The same ended up being true of class socialism, which also took on any of the aspects of their Total War society, which is one of the reasons why the Soviet Union ultimately fell, and today even communist China isn't really class socialist in the sense that it would have been under Mao.
The thing is, the total war affected version of liberalism isn't state socialism, and it isn't racial socialism. It's a different thing. All cars have wheels, but not everything with wheels is a car.
In the same way, Democrats love accusing Republicans of being racial socialists or state socialists (Nazis and Fascists). Even by the most generous interpretation of facts, it may be that the Republicans share aspects of their platform with those ideologies, but not everything with wheels is a car. If we were to use the same standards, the Democrats share policies with racial socialists and state socialists as well, and certainly with class socialists, but not everything with wheels is a car.
The other problem is that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and the racial socialists or state socialists may have ideas that once separated from the bad ideas of the ideology. As an example, most people love the volkswagen beetle despite the fact that Adolf Hitler was directly involved with the creation of both Volkswagen and the Beetle. As another example, the Autobahn was a Nazi project which Adolf Hitler was directly involved with the creation of, but nobody is proposing we tear up the Autobahn.
The constant accusations of being the bad guys from World War 2 is actually dangerous for several reasons. First, it's "the boy who cried wolf" -- If every time you see someone you don't like they're a nazi or a fascist, then eventually nobody thinks there's any actual nazis or fascists out there anymore. Second, it's not productive making accusations like this, it's the same as calling the other side "Satan" -- it might feel good, but it just says you think the other side is bad which isn't persuasive to anyone who doesn't already fully agree with you. Thirdly, it is anti-persuasive -- if you claim someone is a Nazi or a Fascist and they obviously aren't, then it discredits you so if you have real arguments they become less persuasive.
The increasing use of these attacks against Trump actually served to help his campaign, because it's so petty and so obviously incorrect. It ends up being the only attack that the Democrats can run against the guy, and it's pathetic. Everyone who is called Donald Trump a Nazi or a fascist should be ashamed of themselves, because they only showed how juvenile they are. None of the people calling Trump a Nazi or a fascist ever did an analysis like I have here, they're just reaching for the worst insult they can.
World War II was effectively a clash between four different ideologies: liberalism, class socialism, State socialism, and racial socialism.
One of the major powers didn't really have any of these ideologies. Although imperial Japan aligned with the axis, their story was much different. After the sengoku period in the 1600s, the newly established tokogawa shogunate shut the borders of Japan for 200 years, only engaging in a small amount of trade using some small outposts. Effectively, Japan became an insular feudalist regime headed by a military dictator. This was the status quo until America send a fleet of ships commanded by Commodore Perry who forced Japan's borders open with the threat of at the time highly advanced ironclad battleships centuries more advanced than anything Japan had. This, combined with the reality of China's century of humiliation resulted in the Meiji restoration of the emperor as the head of government, and the adoption of imperial policies intended to protect the islands of Japan from the same sort of disgrace that China had faced. Japan adopted the "Line of Advantage" strategy which sought to protect itself against the imperialism of the west by capturing an entire empire, and so if they were attacked by imperialist powers then it would be their holdings in oceana and mainland asia that would be affected rather than the actual islands of Japan. In World War 1, Japan sided with the allies, and had done quite well building their empire, but in world war 2 they chose to ally with the axis powers, sensing the chance to further increase the power of their empire.
There were elements of fascism and racial socialism in japan, but it was not either. Instead, it was a truly conservative state trying to maintain the power structures that had existed for millennia to whatever extent they could while they modernized to deal with a world filled with powers such as the Europeans who had effectively taken over the entire world through colonialism. The Meiji restoration restored the power of the emperor, but the emperor had long been a position in Japan, and despite the shogunate being the central power after sengoku, continued to exist since the 1600s. The Japanese were racist in the same as racial socialists, but this did not make them racial socialists per se. They were an imperial state with an emperor at the head. The Japanese had a somewhat totalitarian regime similar to the state socialists, but they were not State socialists because they were instead a mostly feudal state made up of an earlier organization of power. They were most certainly not class socialists in any way because Japan was still a highly hierarchical society, with the emperor on top and certainly poor and powerless people on the bottom. And while there were bits and pieces of liberal society from the reforms after the Meiji restoration, Japanese society was in no way a liberal society. It was its own thing separate from the ideological trappings of the early 20th century west.
The reason that I focus on the Japanese is to show that in spite of a civilization sharing aspects of various forms of socialism and even liberalism, they did not actually practice socialism or liberalism. Logically, all cars have wheels, but not all things with wheels are cars. In the same way, accusations of being a Nazi or a fascist have flown around for the last 80 years, most of the time using the same logic as cars have wheels, therefore everything with wheels is a car.
Different societies shared attributes of one another. Racial socialism is racist, but liberal societies were racist for most of their existence too. Class socialism was invented by a surprisingly racist man, with Karl Marx being shockingly racist even for his day. State socialism shared the totalitarian attributes of racial socialism and class socialism, but anyone who was one of the three would strongly disagree that they were the other things.
The end of the war was largely a victory for liberalism and class socialism (the west and the soviet union), but not completely. In many ways the war destroyed liberalism, because every state that once practiced it ended up taking on many of the aspects of a total war state. The high levels of bureaucracy, high levels of control of the populace, in the United States even the food supply was changed forever because advances in the production and storage of rations led to advances that were implemented by food companies, so today you can't even eat a piece of bread without eating a piece of military technology lying in wait for the next Total War. The same ended up being true of class socialism, which also took on any of the aspects of their Total War society, which is one of the reasons why the Soviet Union ultimately fell, and today even communist China isn't really class socialist in the sense that it would have been under Mao.
The thing is, the total war affected version of liberalism isn't state socialism, and it isn't racial socialism. It's a different thing. All cars have wheels, but not everything with wheels is a car.
In the same way, Democrats love accusing Republicans of being racial socialists or state socialists (Nazis and Fascists). Even by the most generous interpretation of facts, it may be that the Republicans share aspects of their platform with those ideologies, but not everything with wheels is a car. If we were to use the same standards, the Democrats share policies with racial socialists and state socialists as well, and certainly with class socialists, but not everything with wheels is a car.
The other problem is that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and the racial socialists or state socialists may have ideas that once separated from the bad ideas of the ideology. As an example, most people love the volkswagen beetle despite the fact that Adolf Hitler was directly involved with the creation of both Volkswagen and the Beetle. As another example, the Autobahn was a Nazi project which Adolf Hitler was directly involved with the creation of, but nobody is proposing we tear up the Autobahn.
The constant accusations of being the bad guys from World War 2 is actually dangerous for several reasons. First, it's "the boy who cried wolf" -- If every time you see someone you don't like they're a nazi or a fascist, then eventually nobody thinks there's any actual nazis or fascists out there anymore. Second, it's not productive making accusations like this, it's the same as calling the other side "Satan" -- it might feel good, but it just says you think the other side is bad which isn't persuasive to anyone who doesn't already fully agree with you. Thirdly, it is anti-persuasive -- if you claim someone is a Nazi or a Fascist and they obviously aren't, then it discredits you so if you have real arguments they become less persuasive.
The increasing use of these attacks against Trump actually served to help his campaign, because it's so petty and so obviously incorrect. It ends up being the only attack that the Democrats can run against the guy, and it's pathetic. Everyone who is called Donald Trump a Nazi or a fascist should be ashamed of themselves, because they only showed how juvenile they are. None of the people calling Trump a Nazi or a fascist ever did an analysis like I have here, they're just reaching for the worst insult they can.