nazis

Not long ago I watched a silent movie from 1927 called Metropolis. It was supposed to be a science fiction move set in 2026, but it was more of a political story about the plight of the lowly worker than it was science fiction. Since I believed it had been made in the United States as I was viewing it I was a bit amazed because the slant did not match my understanding of the political environment in the U.S. in the 1920s. When I investigated after watching the movie, though, I found that the movie was made in Germany. This gave the flick a bit of extra historical value because it presented a view into the general mindset in Germany during the time between the two world wars.

My perception of this film aligns with my interpretation of the Nazi propaganda film Triumph of the Will that the real appeal of the Nazi party was that it was a workers party. The German super man that Hitler pushed was presented as the typical German worker who was superior to the typical workers of other nationalities. Rather than saying, "Germans are superior to other races so let's systematically eliminate non-Aryans," Hilter emphasized the strength of the German workforce.

The reason I care to post about Hitler is that there are few lazier or more insulting tactics than comparing an opponent to the Nazis or to Hitler, but they are made with amazing frequency. It bothers me that people take the tactic of pinning Nazism to opponents rather than genuinely searching for the real reasons that the Nazi party was able to take hold and learning from them. Sometimes valid comparisons between the Nazi party and some situation in modern times but we cannot learn from those because all of the erroneous comparisons have dulled the effect of a good comparison. It also bothers me that people minimize the evil perpetuated by others from the past century such as Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, or Saddam Hussein in focusing so much effort on Hitler, but that is a discussion for another day.

I believe that the warning that Hitler and most other bloodthirsty dictators offers is more simple than people realize. When the masses follow their wallets in bringing a leader to power, and they nearly always do, this is when a nation is most at risk of accepting things from their leadership that they might not otherwise on moral grounds. I do not believe that, had they known of the atrocities committed against the Jews and other "lesser" groups, most Germans would have supported the regime. That said, since the Nazis offered the best economic hope to most Germans, a critical mass of Germans believed what they needed to about what was going on so that they could continue to enjoy relative economic strength.

My real point in this is not to take an anti-labor position. To compare organized labor to the Nazis would be to go to the extreme that I am lamenting. My real point is that the most sure way to allow a Hitler into power is to care solely about our what our leaders are doing for us financially than whether they are leading society down a proper course. Since I personally believe that most members of society do not spend enough effort understanding the economics of different policy positions this may seem odd, but I do believe that our social principles should trump our economic positions when there is conflict. History and general observation tell me that most people rationalize their social principles based on what will economically benefit them rather than the other way around.

As a final point, it is possible that someone could read this post as some sort of indictment of the current or the previous White House. This is not my intent, though. I am just saying that the warning that Hitler provides is simply that we should be wary of the political revolutions we support because just because what we have at any given point may be bad that does not mean it cannot get worse. Sometimes it is better if the bad leadership isn't booted.