freediver wrote on Mar 5
th, 2013 at 9:11pm:
Quote:All good points. Nice post - but Liebensraum was all about land and resources as you describe.
There was a bit more to Nazism than Lebensraum. In any case, opposing people like Hitler or Muhammed whose ideology incorporates taking what you please through war and violence is more than just economics. What we understand today as economics is actually a rejection of this principle, and is a fundamental shift in thinking that came out of the west and contributed to the advances of the modern world.
Quote:Bugger the rest of the world, we’ll have a thousand year Reich.
Perhaps Hitler had Muhammed in mind when he said this.
There's no comparison. The posterboys of fundamentalist Islam, the Taliban, are so different to the modernist putsch that was Nazism, it's apples and oranges.
Think - Nazism was tribalism in jackboots. Teutonic ritual in military formation. It was a modern eugenic movement borrowing from the past. It was centralized, systematic and hi-tech. Nazism was the essence of the modern corporate state.
The Taliban ARE the past. The only modern thing about the Taliban are rocket launchers, satellite phones and Kalishnikovs. From what I understand, their organizational structure is essentially tribal.
Values are clearly important in both movements. Obviously, I'd argue against both sets of values, although there's elements of each movement that are positive. The Taliban is a rejection of modernity, consumerism, greed and imperialism. It values simplicity - family values, religious values (to a degree - many in the Taliban are illiterate and uneducated and would never read a Koran - hence the religious imperative to blow things up).
The Nazis liked blowing things up too. They believed war had a social "cleansing" function. War mobilized the population and brought them into the present. For Nazism to work, there had to be a clear and ever-present enemy.
Old boys Nazis argue this all the time. They love Islam because it's an ever-present enemy. The cheese-dealer has argued that Islam
is the enemy. It's very purpose is to
be the enemy - a very self-serving argument, but one that values war for its own sake.
Perhaps the more fundamentalist schools of Islam share this with Nazism through external jihad. Their's is a "spiritual" battle. For the Nazis, the battle was social and racial. It was about purifying and improving upon the human species - well, the "German blood", anyway. The ignorant view of jihad believes in martyrdom for its own sake - slave morality at its most basic. Both treat individuals as cells in a living body. Both value the willingness to give up your own life for an abstracted and mediated social good. Both cheapen human life and will, if not commodify it.
But as movements, they share very little in terms of objectives or world views.