A German social-democratic refugee Franz Neumann, produced a comprehensive look of Nazism in a new and holistic manner. It is well-thought and astute; it is remarkably adorned with multiple references and numerous quotes of political thinkers across the span; it encompasses copious amounts of analytical substance; and it has a language style that is irrefutably engrossing. However, the book shows a collection of inconsistencies. The majority of Neumann’s theories, in my opinion, unsupportable, although many of the books sections have an insight of unmatched quality.
Neumann asserts that Nazism is a “non-state, a chaos, a rule of lawlessness and anarchy, which has swallowed the rights and dignity of man, and is out to transform the world into …show more content…
Law cannot be defined as simply a general and universal codex. The idea is far too reminiscent of Marxist theory which first began to assert the idea to hide class lines and achieve a supra-class society. Marxists contend that law is merely the will of the ruling class codified and handed down, without regard for universal application and without regard for rules establishing convenience for the masses. Feudal law failed to take the same into consideration through Europe, but it cannot be contended that it was not law. Further, it is rare for a state or society to not change the nature and scope of its established, codified laws when it suspects that it is drawing close to danger. When the state experiences a catalyst of imminent danger, it abdicates its norms and codes resorting instead to militaristic options. However, even in a state of open revolution or military rule there is a system of law. Law exists where there is an organized mass and the law is dictated by the makeup of that organization. That concept exists for any society placed under the microscope although law has since abandoned any implied trait of generality or …show more content…
To place the army, capitalists, and beurocracy of the state and party all together on a parallel plane of existence is a weakness in his arguments. Capitalists, as we discuss in this class, are a different breed altogether from other actors of ideology. They make up an economic class, whereas the others are social groups that either adhere or directly conflict with its agenda. In the way that it can transcend social strata and group distinctions, it is not likely that the army is likely to glean near as much power in German society. It can actually be claimed that they do not have any such ability to challenge capitalists, but actually support them in their endeavors. The beurocracy of the state and party Neumann refers to actually exist on the prevailing capitalist system that is established, growing more powerful and influential only as capitalists grow more powerful and influential. The two are anything but at odds. Concerning the beurocracy of the party, Neumann discusses in his chapter on the German economy how intrinsic the beurocracy and capitalists have become and how their codependent nature has led to a marked decrease of conflict.
The Germany Neumann describes is a capitalist state and it is without a doubt ruled by those that ascribe to its doctrines. Some of the aspects of its political functions have
Neumann asserts that Nazism is a “non-state, a chaos, a rule of lawlessness and anarchy, which has swallowed the rights and dignity of man, and is out to transform the world into …show more content…
Law cannot be defined as simply a general and universal codex. The idea is far too reminiscent of Marxist theory which first began to assert the idea to hide class lines and achieve a supra-class society. Marxists contend that law is merely the will of the ruling class codified and handed down, without regard for universal application and without regard for rules establishing convenience for the masses. Feudal law failed to take the same into consideration through Europe, but it cannot be contended that it was not law. Further, it is rare for a state or society to not change the nature and scope of its established, codified laws when it suspects that it is drawing close to danger. When the state experiences a catalyst of imminent danger, it abdicates its norms and codes resorting instead to militaristic options. However, even in a state of open revolution or military rule there is a system of law. Law exists where there is an organized mass and the law is dictated by the makeup of that organization. That concept exists for any society placed under the microscope although law has since abandoned any implied trait of generality or …show more content…
To place the army, capitalists, and beurocracy of the state and party all together on a parallel plane of existence is a weakness in his arguments. Capitalists, as we discuss in this class, are a different breed altogether from other actors of ideology. They make up an economic class, whereas the others are social groups that either adhere or directly conflict with its agenda. In the way that it can transcend social strata and group distinctions, it is not likely that the army is likely to glean near as much power in German society. It can actually be claimed that they do not have any such ability to challenge capitalists, but actually support them in their endeavors. The beurocracy of the state and party Neumann refers to actually exist on the prevailing capitalist system that is established, growing more powerful and influential only as capitalists grow more powerful and influential. The two are anything but at odds. Concerning the beurocracy of the party, Neumann discusses in his chapter on the German economy how intrinsic the beurocracy and capitalists have become and how their codependent nature has led to a marked decrease of conflict.
The Germany Neumann describes is a capitalist state and it is without a doubt ruled by those that ascribe to its doctrines. Some of the aspects of its political functions have