PDA

View Full Version : National Socialism Is Platonic in Origin



Paradigm
Wednesday, December 15th, 2010, 05:27 AM
I thought of originally putting this in question form, but I'm already standing in the "affirmative" of the idea; that it is Platonic.

The ideal state would be the Tripartite State, an ideal state broken into three classes: Guardians, Auxiliaries/Military, and Producers.

Plato believed the rank of the Guardian class is open to all classes of children, and that children in their early years of development must be constantly monitored and tested, so the children of the highest intelligence will be selected for the Guardian class. The training is done by education and service to the State. Education and music is strictly monitored for health of mind and body, and they would be trained in a variety of subjects. By age 30 through their series of intense education involving mind and body, there would be another selection of who's to advance to the study of dialectic, which would consume five years of study. After their study, they would be sent to hold a military position, and to receive general knowledge in everyday politics. They would spend 15 years in a probationary period (this would assumed to be the position from dialectic training from age 35 to age 50). Those who have met the last test would be admitted to the governing class.

The lives of the Guardians and Military would be extremely strenuous and disciplined through dedication to the State. Guardian and Military class would not be allowed to own private property or money, and would live like soldiers in barracks with common meals, only to receive the basic necessities from the Producer class. They are to have no family, so there would be no conflict of interest involving family loyalty and State loyalty. During their sexual prime they will breed through planned occasions by the State, and the mates selected by the State to breed humans scientifically in order to create the best children possible (best male with best female). The children will be raised in a command nursery with no personal attachments to their biological parents. They will regard all of those who mated in the Sacred Marriage as their parents.

The lives of the Producers will follow the old patterns and traditions of family, friends, home, work, property, and money. Generally, they would live regular lives with the exception of censorship by the State. There would be government regulated accumulation of wealth to maintain the economy in moderation (this resembles Keynesian theory of trying to keep the economy in quasi-boom by printing money and lowering interest rates). The Producers are the only class to keep gold/silver, have a traditional family, and are free in sexual activity. They would be trained in a profession to best serve the needs of society. This would be determined by the Guardians. The Producer would be maintained by State propaganda in patriotism, loyalty, work motivation, and anything to keep them from thinking outside of their social class. Literature and art would be extremely monitored and censored to maintain a sense of ideal morality amongst the class.

Plato rejected individualism and democracy and advocated supremacy of the State.

It seems that in many aspects that National Socialism is influenced by the city-state outlined by Plato in his Republic. Thoughts on this?

Elessar
Wednesday, December 15th, 2010, 05:55 AM
Considering that National-Socialism was given only 6 years (respective of the war) to develop, I don't think we can draw too many conclusions about the extent of its intentions.
That being said with what we did see, I think the description you've provided fits pretty well.
Gaurdians: National-Socialist Party Officials
Auxillaries/Military: Order of the SS and Wehrmacht
Producers: Deutsche Bauer und Arbeiter

Like my signature says “Nobility will no longer be a feature of a caste constituting a horizontal social layer, but will pass vertically through all the ranks of the folk.” – Alfred Rosenberg. All ranks of the folk being those provided above, Rosenberg being a key NS intellectual.
Essentially the aim was to create the ideal Aryan state.

Bittereinder
Wednesday, December 15th, 2010, 06:32 AM
One difference I can descry is that in NSDAP Germany the "Military class" was allowed and encouraged to reproduce because the attributes a soldier possesses is something that from a eugenic point of view needed to be preserved and bettered, these attributes are not solely useful in the military. Looking at South Africa it was the soldiers who later became the pillars of society in many ways. Also I think that Germanics placed more emphasis on family as the centre of the state where Plato made the state itself the centre. :shrug

Paradigm
Wednesday, December 15th, 2010, 06:32 AM
If we agree that National Socialism is Platonic, is it safe to say the idea is foreign to Germanics? Was the Third Reich just another Greek city-state in the works?

Bittereinder
Wednesday, December 15th, 2010, 06:36 AM
If we agree that National Socialism is Platonic, is it safe to say the idea is foreign to Germanics? Was the Third Reich just another Greek city-state in the works?

No, I think you missed my post the family is the centre not the state...

Elessar
Wednesday, December 15th, 2010, 06:40 AM
Good ideas (in my opinion) are not to be looked at as foreign, good ideas are universal, especially not in the case of so foreign as "Greek". We as a civilization would get nowhere if somewhere along the line we never "stole" or borrowed ideas from eachother. We all have the same wants, desires, pains, and pleasures. It' not as if these things are separated by our ethnicities.
If something works, why not use it? Are we so shallow to omit that because, if what you say is true about the Greek city-state, that we as Germanics cannot use it?
Remember now, we all come from the same European stock. We're brothers by blood, it's time we start acting like it.

Call it a Germanic City-State. Same effect.

Sigurd
Wednesday, December 15th, 2010, 08:10 AM
I thought of originally putting this in question form, but I'm already standing in the "affirmative" of the idea; that it is Platonic. [...] It seems that in many aspects that National Socialism is influenced by the city-state outlined by Plato in his Republic. Thoughts on this?

View what it says under "Politics" in my post-bit, and I believe there need to be no explanation. I find especially the Platonic idea of the leader being a "philosopher king" a true representation of how NS should be executed with one of its basic tenets, the Führer Principle--- pragmatic NS is Platonic, not Machiavellian in nature. ;)

The point being here - the Führer is absolute, but he doesn't over-exercise his power. The folk know a natural hierarchy, and will respect those above them in hierarchy unquestioned as long as those make wise decisions (which one truly made to be a leader will) - but for the most part, he'll leave people to lead their own lives in their very own community, will only seek to interfere against things that go against the well-being of the folk whilst encouraging things that further the well-being of the folk, yet standing with indifference those things that neither benefit nor threaten the well-being of that folk.

In its very own way, old Germanic kingship was aligned after this principle as well. In fact, all old Indo-European kingship was aligned after such principles, as it is essentially the natural method of living, and especially the natural method of living for our wider folk family (many other folk families and indeed races miss the basic understanding by virtue of their lesser intellectual and spiritual development, and even an aristocratic principle by which they act will make them fall short of demands) and generally the intelligent peoples of the world. :)

The only criticism to give would be the one that Grimner has already mentioned, that Platon over-exaggerates the validation from above whilst in truth, the basic Germanic principle which underlies our thinking (as it naturally sprung from our thought and folk memory) accepts that validation is automatically from above and below; the family as the centre of the more farming-orientated Germanics since antiquity, much more prominently so than in Greek thought and culture (and thus explained away with cultural differences), the perception of natural standing of women is also different in Graeco-Roman vs. Celto-Germanic thought. :thumbup


If we agree that National Socialism is Platonic, is it safe to say the idea is foreign to Germanics? Was the Third Reich just another Greek city-state in the works?

No, I would not say so. What Platonic thought is essentially about is that it revolves much around observation of Nature's Laws (this includes his treatise of jurisprudence, modern-day Naturalists such as Fuller or Finnis looked to Plato), and hence we find a certain truth in his words. However, that doesn't make his thoughts solely his, nor those thoughts foreign.

It is what Wittgenstein (a Jew, naturally --- and curiously like Hart and Kelsen, those who gave birth to our extreme Positivist jurisprudence, being a grotesque perversion of Germanic Bentham's pragmatic Utilitarianism) criticised, that "Platonic type of thinking" --- but we find this Platonic type of thinking also amongst our own German philosophers, some of whom were not briefed with the old Greek tradition. As such, simply because an idea was first documented with a foreign nation, doesn't mean the idea sprung there, or that it is exclusive to that region.

I think the whole idea of what we call "NS" these days is older than labels for given ideologies, political parties, or such --- it is as old as our folk, and has since been able to develop as a natural method of living for our people. It did not start in 1920 and did not end in 1945, the only thing that changes over time is the name we call it by. :)

Sigurd
Wednesday, December 15th, 2010, 08:23 AM
Like my signature says “Nobility will no longer be a feature of a caste constituting a horizontal social layer, but will pass vertically through all the ranks of the folk.” – Alfred Rosenberg. All ranks of the folk being those provided above, Rosenberg being a key NS intellectual.
Essentially the aim was to create the ideal Aryan state.

Rosenberg is easily the best. Not just *a* key intellectual, but in my book *the* key intellectual. The Führer's very own thoughts (which, IMO, were influenced much by Heß' thinking as well; a good symbiosis between two honourable men stuck in a cell together) provide a good description of how things are and ought to be --- but National Socialist thought in its historical dimension is not complete without Rosenberg's treatise, with which I find myself sympathise a great deal, and which is timeless reading I turn to regularly. :thumbup

Paradigm
Wednesday, December 15th, 2010, 10:21 AM
I don't agree with how systematic Plato's Tripartite State is, but I do agree on the idea of the philosopher-king, and the amount of devotion and servitude the governing class would pay to it's people. The politicians would be living under a more monk-like life which would eradicate corruption that would arise with affiliations with special interests.

My problems arise with the selective breeding (I find this rather cold and modern), censorship, and control of the economy.

I lean towards Aristotle on what's "good" (in contrast to Plato's) which is more utilitarian in nature, and in the idea of the state, in which Aristotle believed in a midway between democracy and oligarchy. A constitutional government with power remaining with property owners (essentially the middle class), this would "balance" the power between the top tier who would rule "despotically" and the bottom tier who would be less knowledgeable and who's rule would be "degraded". The failure of democracy was the ability of any individual to vote away someone's property towards someone else in the name of "wealth distribution" or "taxes" instead of just calling it legal thievery. Aristotle didn't seem to believe in the absolute like Plato, and instead of one absolute truth or government that would be reflective of all cultures and people, that varying constitutions and states would form to reflect that specific group of people or culture.

Then again, I stand outside both Plato and Aristotle on the idea of the existence of the State on whether their needs to be an outside apparatus and whether or not laws can be issued locally based on private property rights in general.


In conjunction with the privatization of all assets according to the principles outlined, the government should adopt a private property constitution and declare it to be the immutable basic law of the entire country. This constitution should be extremely brief and lay down the following principles in terms as unambiguous as possible:


Every person, apart from being the sole owner of his physical body, has the right to employ his private property in anyway he sees fit so long as in doing so he does not uninvitedly change the physical integrity of another person’s body or property. All interpersonal exchanges and all exchanges of property titles between property owners are to be voluntary (contractual). These rights of a person are absolute. Any person’s infringement on them is subject to lawful persecution by the victim of this infringement or his agent, and is actionable in accordance with the principles of proportionality of punishment and of strict liability.

As implied by this constitution, then, all existing wage and price controls, all property regulations and licensing requirements, and all import and export restrictions should be immediately abolished and complete freedom of contract, occupation, trade and migration introduced. Subsequently, the government, now propertyless, should declare its own continued existence as unconstitutional-in so far as it depends on noncontractual property acquisitions, that is, taxation-and abdicate. - Hans Herman-Hoppe

velvet
Wednesday, December 15th, 2010, 11:41 AM
Anarcho-capitalist goes NS.... :oanieyes


In your opening post you proclaim the state all-powerful, even goes so far as to censor, dictate and control every single aspect of people's lives.

But of course, this Hoppe thingy brings back the anarchic "private property and individual rights" principle, that is diametrically opposed to the Platonic all-powerful state, that, through this, gets deprived of power completely and made impotent to enforce any law.

What about the guardians, who're supposed to live without any property, also without any own thought, need, wish and is made a soulless ant to serve the state? How is this supposed to work out with total(istic) freedom, private property rights, individual terroristic rights (and in this Hoppe thing it really is and is complete anarchic in nature and destructive to the folk-body and the state). How does the top-down breed-programme reconcile with the (anarcho-terrorist) 'unharmable' body that will be harmed through the mere existence of surrounding individuals by this rampant anarcho-freedom-rights?

Makes absolutely no sense to first declare the state including the philosopher king all-powerful, just to take away the instance that he's supposed to exercise power over by rampant individualism and ruleless freedom that will not accept any rules from 'above' or the community. I know you dont see it as such, because you think everyone would just do the right things always when he's just left alone. This isnt the case though, and the biggest problem really is the rejection of any laws or rules that govern the people in this anarchic, totalist freedom utopia. And Hoppe's vision really also takes away any power from the state (or any other institution which is not the atomized individual) to enforce laws. Another problem is with the rejection of the proper education of the 'producer class', who is (although there is really no instance that could do that, since this anarchism removes all institutions) manipulated by censorship and limited (and kept limited) knowledge and propaganda only, instead of teaching those people proper values, skills, culture and reason to give them the preconditions and means for more freedom in the first place.

What you put forth now is a complete contradiction to each other. The dictatorial, all-powerful state cannot have anarchistic principles that only destroy the foundation of the human spirit, society and governing principles (in an anarchic "contract" (which also is a contradiction) society / trade system that is anarcho-capitalist in nature there are no more governing principles, because everything can be done by terms of contract and there is neither an instance that could prevent abuse nor punish abuse or to enforce general principles of that society and with that would set limits to the anarcho-contracts and rampant freedom of the individual).

Vindefense
Wednesday, December 15th, 2010, 02:49 PM
Paradagm here has hit on a very significant fact. The evolution of what we consider the Germanic people and their world view has been greatly influenced by the older Latin culture. This is true, from it's religion to it's political structure, to it's form of coinage. Without getting into the debate about whether or not this is good or bad a fact remains it has hindered our people from developing, pursuing and understanding it's own law, religion and political science, which was superior to that of the Greco-Roman even in it's infancy.

For an in depth look into the battle of the blood and spirit and the resulting schism: read here (http://www.archive.org/stream/anglosaxonstudyi00boxauoft#page/n5/mode/2up), a book I highly recommend to not only those of Anglo-Saxon decent but to all Europeans of Teutonic stock.

Paradigm
Wednesday, December 15th, 2010, 04:19 PM
velvet, I was posting the Platonic Tripartite State from what I was recently reading on Plato, and I thought it was be an interesting discussion piece. I was posting it from a neutral view. I didn't proclaim anything (except the origins of NS), I was posting what Plato proclaims, and discussing it. As far as how a government would be structured I lean more towards the Aristotelian idea, and I would favor an "aristocratic constitutional" government, which I had explained, and then stated my actual position. Maybe you should actually read the posts before replying. It's also useless to explain anything to you, so I won't even bother with trying to reply to anything else you said.

Ocko
Wednesday, December 15th, 2010, 05:53 PM
I think good ol' democracy on a republican stance is still the best choice. It simply needs protection from invasion of foreign elements, free flow of information, decentralized decision as much as possible. As little state as possible and as much as necessary.

Power, concentrated in the hands of few, is most always getting corrupted.

The thing depends on the type of people you have. If you create a people of sheeple, the platonic state has its merits.

If your picture of humans include free-thinking, independent and responsible people a republic as the one in the US works well.

To take children away from their mothers after birth and bring them up in military like quarters will only produce degenerates. Little Kids need their mothers, older boys need fathers (or father-figures) to grow up healthy.

Plans made with the intellect without intuition, without base in tradition, customs etc. will fail.

You have to be with the folk spirit to be successful with state-building. There might be a few basic ideas but in general things should be open to what direction the folk-spirit takes you.

Old germanics have been heavy influenced by a priest-class which is missing in Plato's version of a state. Unless you see a 'philosopher-king' in the mold of druids/godes/priests etc. (Even Adolf claimed to be led by the 'Vorsehung', something like a spirituel plan he was part of)

To keep leaders ethical they have to be intimately connected to the folk, as they are the ones ruled for. The leader should be someone who can see what the folk wants and puts it into a method to accomplish that aim. It is not a 'ruler' in its own power, it is not that the ruler owns the people and they are subject to HIS ideas.

I strongely believe that the folk-soul, spirit or however you call it, is responsible for its destiny, its wanting, will, form etc.

A leader should be closely connected to that entity, then he will be closely connected to the folk/people. People recognize such a leader as genuine as well as they clearly recognize a leader who is destructive of them.

I think the idea of a state hinges on two things: How you perceive humans/the folk and how you see the influence of spirituell beings.

Elessar
Wednesday, December 15th, 2010, 09:19 PM
Democracy, while sometimes necessary as a short-term solution, has been recognized by all radical ideologists throughout history as a poor long-term solution (most notably Socrates), and by authentic National Socialists as the worst possible long-term solution. The most fundamental flaw of democracy is not even that it is extremely easily subverted, but that it is by definition government by majority opinion, which is never the best informed or most intelligent – let alone the kindest or noblest – opinion. Democracy at best is empowerment of mediocrity. Furthermore, the crimes of democracies are rarely punished, as it is very difficult to punish an entire voter bloc, with the unsurprising result that democracies have far less practical disincentive to crime than any dictatorship whose dictator can be pinpointed for account. And when majority opinion – in itself already a socially persuasive force – is further given political authority, it acquires an illusion of moral rectitude, meaning that democracies can rarely be brought to even admit their evil. The people will at most blame the representative they themselves selected, while retaining unshakeable confidence in their collective ability to wisely select his replacement.

Paradigm
Wednesday, December 15th, 2010, 11:29 PM
Democracy, while sometimes necessary as a short-term solution, has been recognized by all radical ideologists throughout history as a poor long-term solution (most notably Socrates), and by authentic National Socialists as the worst possible long-term solution. The most fundamental flaw of democracy is not even that it is extremely easily subverted, but that it is by definition government by majority opinion, which is never the best informed or most intelligent – let alone the kindest or noblest – opinion. Democracy at best is empowerment of mediocrity. Furthermore, the crimes of democracies are rarely punished, as it is very difficult to punish an entire voter bloc, with the unsurprising result that democracies have far less practical disincentive to crime than any dictatorship whose dictator can be pinpointed for account. And when majority opinion – in itself already a socially persuasive force – is further given political authority, it acquires an illusion of moral rectitude, meaning that democracies can rarely be brought to even admit their evil. The people will at most blame the representative they themselves selected, while retaining unshakeable confidence in their collective ability to wisely select his replacement.

In a democracy the leaders are only temporary and rotate, so they themselves have no long term investments in the country or land. They have no incentive for a long term goal if their rule or position will be only a few years, or if you hold a seat in Congress you're more worried about keeping your seat than actually working. This is the problem with government in general that has no real property or wealth of it's own, only it's people, so it becomes an unproductive parasite, a leech, that's trying to get as much as it can in a short time per ruler. Compared to a monarchy or kingdom where there is actual incentive to keep the people or subjects happy (so you won't lose your investment), and with the land and kingdom as an investment you'd want to pass it down through your family line, etc. The differences in a democracy and a monarchy is that in a monarchy the rulers actually have property investments in the kingdom in which they rule. In a democracy the rulers are mere care takers for the time being. Also, when looking at who's to be accountable for mishaps or negative actions on the part of the State in a democracy, who's to blame, and does it really matter? You can blame the entire bureaucracy for streets in disrepair, but do you think someone like a king would have their reputation and investments hang on the brink of some shoddy public work projects?

Bernhard
Saturday, December 18th, 2010, 01:10 PM
If we agree that National Socialism is Platonic, is it safe to say the idea is foreign to Germanics? Was the Third Reich just another Greek city-state in the works?

To answer this I think we can quote someone considered quite an authority on national socialism;):


In the historical department the study of ancient history should not be omitted. Roman history, along general lines, is and will remain the best teacher, not only for our own time but also for the future. And the ideal of Hellenic culture should be preserved for us in all its marvellous beauty. The differences between the various peoples should not prevent us from recognizing the community of race which unites them on a higher plane. The conflict of our times is one that is being waged around great objectives. A civilization is fighting for its existence. It is a civilization that is the product of thousands of years of historical development, and the Greek as well as the German forms part of it.*




Concerning politics there are indeed similarities between Platonism and Nationalsocialism. Both are in favor of an aristocratic organization of the state and of society and both think of aristocracy as a meritocracy; so no aristocratic class based on birth or wealth. Plato and Hitler both even use the same argument that, in contrast to aristocracy, f.e. democracy is only for the benefit of one class, the lower class. This shows their conception of aristocracy as a meritocratic system, where the best of the people rule for the benefit of all classes and not just the rule of a single class over the others, which is the case with democracy, timocracy or a police-state.
Yet this does not suffice for nationalsocialism to be classified as platonic. I think that platonic metaphysics are not applicable to Nationalsocialism. Plato's universalism and realism do not match with the Artgebundenheit of which Rosenberg speaks.** Here's a quote of Rosenberg that shows what I mean:


It [i.e. the awakened nordic race-soul] understands that what is racially and spiritually akin can be assimilated, but that which is alien must be unflinchingly excised, or if necessary, destroyed. This is not because it is false or bad in itself, but rather because it is racially alien [artfremd] and fatal to the inner structure of our being.***

This of course concerns a lot of things (Rosenberg even includes science), including f.e. ethical judgements. But in Plato's Euthyphro we can read about how according to Socrates ethical judgements are made because of universal standards of what is Good and what is Just. Rosenberg also places importance on polarity in a dualist manner, which is impossible in platonic metaphysics.
So politically there are, as I said, quite some similarities between Platonism and Nationalsocialism. Metaphysically they are rather different. This is of course due to a lot of developments and discoveries after Plato, both philosophical and scientific, which lead to the rejection of his realism and his universalism. For Nationalsocialism to be metaphisically platonic, the Ideal world of Plato must be revised according to discoveries and ideas which are at the base of Nationalsocialism, but even than it is likely that the result will not be a very consistent philosophical theory. Despite some similarities, I wouldn't classify Nationalsocialism as platonic.



* Source: http://hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch02.html

** Perhaps it is not a coincidence that Evola, adhering to rather platonic metaphysics, rejects biological racism and politically is in favor of an empire based on universalist principles, transcending the different ethnicities.

*** Source: http://aryanism.net/downloads/books/alfred-rosenberg/myth-of-the-twentieth-century.pdf