There was a competing party promising net utilitarian benefit. Communist/socialist party. The national-socialist party was different in the sense that it promised greater benefit to specifically aryans.
edit: by the way, I happen to live in a small eastern European country with strong nationalism and a significant neonazi population. Example of a big local policy debate: should a Polish community be allowed to keep street signs in both Polish and Lithuanian? Another policy debate: should Polish people be allowed to use the letter “w” in their names in the passport?
Literally, the vast majority of debates have actual fascists on one side. Nobody ever argues that it is a net social benefit to waste money replacing the street signs. Or that it is a net social benefit not letting the Polish use W in their names.
There was a competing party promising net utilitarian benefit. Communist/socialist party. The national-socialist party was different in the sense that it promised greater benefit to specifically aryans.
It’s entirely possible for two conflicting groups to promise net utilitarian benefits by different means, or by different standards. In fact, I’d say this is the case for most political conflicts. It’s somewhat rare for political groups to use utilitarian rhetoric on a broad scale, or to base ideology on utilitarian calculations—certain strains of socialism are the only ones I can think of for the former, and I can’t think of any prominent examples of the latter—but if you ask an ideologue whether their ideology will lead to less overall happiness in the long run, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, the answer will be “no”. Fascists are no exception—it’s just that they happen to believe subordination to a state to be the highest expression of human values.
The NSDAP were an odd group even among fascists, though. I haven’t read enough of their stuff to be certain that they’re one of the exceptional cases, but I’m not confident that they’re not, either.
I’m not speaking of the hypothetical of what happens if you ask someone. I’m saying that NSDAP did explicitly claim that their policies will benefit German people in such and such ways, using the phrase “German people” as often as they could, very openly saying that their allegiances lie with the German people, rather than people in general.
Now, let’s model a voter as selfish. German voter (in the pre-war sense) can expect greater benefit with a leader that speaks of benefits to specifically German people, than with a leader that speaks of a benefit to the people in general. This gave an edge to NSDAP.
Now, let’s model a voter as selfish. German voter (in the pre-war sense) can expect greater benefit with a leader that speaks of benefits to specifically German people, than with a leader that speaks of a benefit to the people in general. This gave an edge to NDSAP.
I don’t think voters, even in Weimar Germany, are very well modeled as selfish agents. The NSDAP certainly benefited from proclaiming—often and loudly, as you say—their allegiance to the German volk, but I model that more as a way of positioning themselves as the party of German pride: a pretty clear political niche, at the time, and one that could easily be framed as promising restitution for perceived or actual wrongs rather than exploitation of others. (Though you don’t need to be a Nazi to be excellent at rationalizing the latter as the former.)
After six years or so of Nazi rule, they did manage to finagle this into a justification for genocidal expansionism, but that isn’t the choice that was presented to German voters in 1933.
I’m not saying a purely selfish agent. People are at least partially selfish, though, except for perhaps very few who are completely saintly. Let’s consider the immigration debate. You will get nowhere by arguing that open borders are a benefit to the Mexicans, but you can get somewhere by arguing that open borders are good for US businesses, or by arguing that Americans lose their jobs.
There was a competing party promising net utilitarian benefit. Communist/socialist party.
So? Promising net utilitarian benefit is not the same as convincing people you will in fact deliver net utilitarian benefit.
Nobody ever argues that it is a net social benefit to waste money replacing the street signs. Or that it is a net social benefit not letting the Polish use W in their names.
The argument that there is a net social benefit to having a single culture.
The argument that there is a net social benefit to having a single culture.
Not at all. The argument is that Polish deserve this for having previously occupied the country. Or other nationalistic crap.
edit: just because you are accustomed to rationalizing actions as net benefit does not mean that other people do that. Most don’t. Utilitarian arguments are quite rare. The proponents of said policies themselves never even claim them to be beneficial to anyone. They use other rhetorical tools.
There was a competing party promising net utilitarian benefit. Communist/socialist party. The national-socialist party was different in the sense that it promised greater benefit to specifically aryans.
edit: by the way, I happen to live in a small eastern European country with strong nationalism and a significant neonazi population. Example of a big local policy debate: should a Polish community be allowed to keep street signs in both Polish and Lithuanian? Another policy debate: should Polish people be allowed to use the letter “w” in their names in the passport?
Literally, the vast majority of debates have actual fascists on one side. Nobody ever argues that it is a net social benefit to waste money replacing the street signs. Or that it is a net social benefit not letting the Polish use W in their names.
It’s entirely possible for two conflicting groups to promise net utilitarian benefits by different means, or by different standards. In fact, I’d say this is the case for most political conflicts. It’s somewhat rare for political groups to use utilitarian rhetoric on a broad scale, or to base ideology on utilitarian calculations—certain strains of socialism are the only ones I can think of for the former, and I can’t think of any prominent examples of the latter—but if you ask an ideologue whether their ideology will lead to less overall happiness in the long run, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, the answer will be “no”. Fascists are no exception—it’s just that they happen to believe subordination to a state to be the highest expression of human values.
The NSDAP were an odd group even among fascists, though. I haven’t read enough of their stuff to be certain that they’re one of the exceptional cases, but I’m not confident that they’re not, either.
I’m not speaking of the hypothetical of what happens if you ask someone. I’m saying that NSDAP did explicitly claim that their policies will benefit German people in such and such ways, using the phrase “German people” as often as they could, very openly saying that their allegiances lie with the German people, rather than people in general.
Now, let’s model a voter as selfish. German voter (in the pre-war sense) can expect greater benefit with a leader that speaks of benefits to specifically German people, than with a leader that speaks of a benefit to the people in general. This gave an edge to NSDAP.
I don’t think voters, even in Weimar Germany, are very well modeled as selfish agents. The NSDAP certainly benefited from proclaiming—often and loudly, as you say—their allegiance to the German volk, but I model that more as a way of positioning themselves as the party of German pride: a pretty clear political niche, at the time, and one that could easily be framed as promising restitution for perceived or actual wrongs rather than exploitation of others. (Though you don’t need to be a Nazi to be excellent at rationalizing the latter as the former.)
After six years or so of Nazi rule, they did manage to finagle this into a justification for genocidal expansionism, but that isn’t the choice that was presented to German voters in 1933.
I’m not saying a purely selfish agent. People are at least partially selfish, though, except for perhaps very few who are completely saintly. Let’s consider the immigration debate. You will get nowhere by arguing that open borders are a benefit to the Mexicans, but you can get somewhere by arguing that open borders are good for US businesses, or by arguing that Americans lose their jobs.
So? Promising net utilitarian benefit is not the same as convincing people you will in fact deliver net utilitarian benefit.
The argument that there is a net social benefit to having a single culture.
Not at all. The argument is that Polish deserve this for having previously occupied the country. Or other nationalistic crap.
edit: just because you are accustomed to rationalizing actions as net benefit does not mean that other people do that. Most don’t. Utilitarian arguments are quite rare. The proponents of said policies themselves never even claim them to be beneficial to anyone. They use other rhetorical tools.