Don’t Trust the Snippets

History is important because it can guide and instruct us, not because it has all the answers.  Just like with the Bible, people can take snippets out of context and use them to support almost any premise.  Yet, when read in full context and with full understanding, that snippet may mean and support something quite different. 

I am not a Biblical scholar but I have read and studied a fair amount of history and I think that these days there is much misunderstanding and misuse of snippets from history.  There especially seems to be short-sighted and biased uses of the terms Nationalism, and Socialism/Communism. 

 Let’s consider the core themes underlying these terms.  First, Nationalism.  Its basic ideology is that one puts one’s country first.  How that plays out can exist on a spectrum.  On one end is Nazism or things like what we currently see in China as, for example, Muslims being placed in “reeducation camps.”

If you step off the other end of the spectrum there is no nation at all to be nationalist about.  Close to that end is the point that is reached when a country’s borders are so open and porous that there is actually no border at all.   Most forms of Nationalism are far closer to the middle of the spectrum than either of these extremes.

The underlying ideology of Socialism is to make better humans and in so doing make a better society.  (Note that it does not define "better" but leaves that to whomever is in power.)  Whatever form Socialism takes, it advocates that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.  Classic Marxism sees Socialism as a transitional state on the way to the realization of Communism which envisions the creation of totally communal humans and with that a totally communal (Communist) society. 

Socialism falls less as a spectrum and more as a movement.  It starts with an existing society and through various methods of control works to re-make the humans therein so that they become, or at least behave like, the ideal that the leaders are seeking.  (As an aside, let’s not forget that part of Hitler’s nationalism was a desire to create a master race; nationalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive).   At the end of the socialist movement the individual and any individual freedom is completely lost to the preconceived socialist society.

Let’s take a particular snippet: “America First.”  There is no question that this phrase was associated with Nazi Germany in the 1930s and has a negative connotation as used there.  But we are not living in 1930 and when that phrase was used by Donald Trump it had a very different meaning as well as connotation.  While Hitler sought his master race via elimination of Jews and others, Trump sought to protect the borders of America by empowering its people while strengthening its immigration laws (not eliminating legal immigration nor diversity).  To say that simply because the same phrase was used in connection with two men that those two men were and their agenda was the same is a disingenuous use of a snippet to support an anti-Trump agenda.

There have been many promises throughout history of the beauty and glory of a socialist society.  These snippets are often shared without the context of what happened to the people who believed those dreams.   On the other hand, some aspects of socialism can have a beneficial effect if carefully implemented and controlled. 

Those who advocate socialism often ignore human nature in their socialist propaganda.  Even with his power from things like the Great Terror and the absolute fear of dissent instilled in the people, Stalin had to pull back and re-grant some aspects of individual freedom and even capitalism to his people:  he realized he could not simply remake mankind into a totally communal animal.

From the dawn of mankind, people have been territorial and selfish.  They also can be humanitarian and idealistic.  They can be all of these things and many more to a greater or lesser degree, and all with individual differences.  It is unrealistic to think that any political philosophy can remake all of mankind.

Nations, which are just the family or tribal unit on a grander scale are made of these same humans.  All nations are nationalist to some degree just as they are all socialist/communist to some degree.  To perceive either of these terms as entirely good or entirely evil is inaccurate.  And to take one snippet or phrase and use it to characterize a person or action in an entirely different context is not helpful to anyone.

A nation requires boundaries.  It usually has certain values and customs that define it.  It also usually welcomes diversity to some extent.   To be a nation, the people within it must want to protect and sustain it and that is nationalism and usually involves some aspect of “Nation First.”  That nationalism can become totalitarianist or evil does not make it in and of itself evil.  It can and more often does just as easily become a positive environment for the nation’s inhabitants.

All groups of people to a certain extent have an aspect of communalism (i.e. socialism).  Programs such as Social Security in which the community as a whole (in our case our elected representatives) has decided not only that a benefit will be available but what the amount and parameters of that benefit will be.  In other, non-representative forms of government other power structures will make the decisions, but in any socialist program the individual loses some individual freedom.

In a democracy the individuals make the choice of when and how much freedom they are willing to relinquish and for what purpose.  But socialism can, and usually does, easily become totalitarian in which the people no longer have the choice but are forced to give up their individualism to the collective.

Absolutes are rare in the daily world.  Realizing that would allow people to discuss just how strong we want our nationalism to be and just how much of our individual freedoms are we willing to give up for communal certainties designed by someone else.  But that requires education about these concepts and their histories; that is something which pulling snippets out of context does not provide.  Snippets are used to support hate and division.  Understanding requires more.

The problem here is that already we have those who advocate for Socialism taking full control of our educational tools.  As such, education becomes little more than state-sponsored propaganda.  So, if we are actually going to have a real conversation about these things, if we are going to choose for ourselves where we are headed, we need to do it now or it will be too late.