22nd February 2013
Further proof that Hitler was socialist.
Sheila, my good commentator friend has been persisting on proving I’m a great ignoramus. I may well be. I ask who is not? But I suggest that Shiela is not paying attention to what I’m saying. She is unable to see the forest for the trees.
I was going to delete the whole lot of her last comment, for it added not one iota to her claim that Hitler is not socialist (hence advocate of human liberty). I don’t know this, I don’t know that, etc. That’s all she said. News, also, to me: “Is this what I’ve been “taught” by Swami Ramdev?” But I’ve published her comment for her sake, to let her vent. I’m already such a fool and ignoramus. If I keep deleting irrelevant comments I’ll be branded a censor and opponent of free speech on top of that.
But to carry on the substantive debate let me point out a few key extracts from a few sources.
I hope Shiela will one day realise that I don’t care whether someone decks up their socialist worldview in the guise of Marxism, Fabian socialism, Rawlsian property owning democracy, social democracy, religious fundamentalism, tribalism, xenophobia, divine right of kings, racism, or fascism. Regardless of how someone presents his socialist idea, I’m able to see through to the underlying dimension: that the individual must be submerged and sacrificed for the sake of society (or whatever “society” – read ‘great man’ – thinks society must look like or aspire to).
To Shiela my approach seems ill-informed. Why, she asks, am I bundling a LOT of worldviews into one? To someone used to (like she obviously is) classifying worldviews into different “types”, like a Linnaeus classifying plants or animals, my approach must be extremely vexing.
I seek her forbearance and invite her to pay attention to what I’m saying.
In this regard, I found an amusing Mussolini quote on Wikipedia:
Fascism, sitting on the right, could also have sat on the mountain of the center … These words in any case do not have a fixed and unchanged meaning: they do have a variable subject to location, time and spirit. We don’t give a damn about these empty terminologies and we despise those who are terrorized by these words.
I’m not saying that fascism doesn’t mean something SLIGHTLY different to socialism, but to me it makes little sense to classify human thought into so many categories when all the categories are merely of TWO types.
Shiela is like a rock collector who looks at the colour of a rock, its opacity, its other properties, and classifies it as “diamond”, “quartz”, “granite”, “basalt” whatever.
On the other hand I am like a geologist who looks at the composition and origin of rocks and classifies all of them into two: igneous or sedimentary. Everything else is a derivative of these two.
My classification is therefore a META-classification of human ideas, and that is why Shiela is getting confused. She wants me to distinguish socialism from fascism, so some poor student in an exam won’t mix up the two and lose his grades since his ignorant teacher doesn’t see the ROOT of both. But I’m not teaching students. I’m teaching the FUNDAMENTALS of liberty to society. I’m teaching how to distinguish socialist views from those that promote liberty. That’s a more important message in a land where liberty has been muffled for a hundred years.
To help good friend Shiela out, I suggest she consider other people’s views apart form mine (and Hayek’s – who is obviously one more ignorant fool – according to her):
Consider Ayn Rand!
It is a matter of record that in the German election of 1933, the Communist Party was ordered by its leaders to vote for the Nazis—with the explanation that they could later fight the Nazis for power, but first they had to help destroy their common enemy: capitalism and its parliamentary form of government.
It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of “Freedom or dictatorship?” into “Which kind of dictatorship?”—thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice—according to the proponents of that fraud—is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism).
That fraud collapsed in the 1940’s, in the aftermath of World War II. It is too obvious, too easily demonstrable that fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory—that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state—that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders—that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique—that fascism is not the product of the political “right,” but of the “left”—that the basic issue is not “rich versus poor,” but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government—which means: capitalism versus socialism.
“‘Extremism,’ or the Art of Smearing,”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 180
Now consider Sheldon Richman:
As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer… As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition.
“The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property.” [Hitler himself]
“Fascist “property rights” were only nominal: A businessman (such as Oskar Schindler) would retain legal title to his goods, but he would not retain any control over them. Because he was not politically free, the government could order him to use his property as it desired (such as by using it to produce war implements) — even if it was his property that was being used.” [Source]
“It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole…that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will [Sanjeev: “general will”, Shiela, determined by the “great man”] are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual….This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture….The basic attitude form which such activity arises, we call — to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness — idealism. By this we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men.” [Adolf Hitler speaking at Bueckeburg, Oct. 7, 1933; The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-39, ed. N.H. Baynes (2 vols., Oxford, 1942), I, 871-72; translation Professor George Reisman.] (ibid)
Now consider the Wikipedia entry on fascism.
A totally confused entry. No one there seems to know whether fascists are socialists or “capitalists”. But the following extracts give it all away:
Sorel promoted the legitimacy of political violence in his work Reflections on Violence (1908) and other works in which he advocated radical syndicalist action to achieve a revolution to overthrow capitalism and the bourgeoisie through a general strike. In Reflections on Violence, Sorel emphasized need for a revolutionary political religion.[
Sorel’s emphasis on the need for overthrowing decadent liberal democracy and capitalism by the use of violence, direct action, the general strike, and the use of neo-Machiavellian appeals to emotion, impressed Mussolini deeply.
This National Socialism was a form of state socialism that rejected the “idea of boundless freedom” and promoted an economy that would serve the whole of Germany under the leadership of the state.
This National Socialism was opposed to capitalism because of the components that were against “the national interest” of Germany, but insisted that National Socialism would strive for greater efficiency in the economy. Plenge advocated an authoritarian rational ruling elite to develop National Socialism through a hierarchical technocratic state.
both Bolshevism and fascism hold ideological similarities: both advocate a revolutionary ideology, both believe in the necessity of a vanguard elite, both have disdain for bourgeois values, and both had totalitarian ambitions. In practice, fascism and Bolshevism have commonly emphasized revolutionary action, proletarian nation theories, single-party states, and party-armies.
Fascism denounces capitalism not because of its competitive nature nor its support of private property that fascism supports; but due to its materialism, individualism, alleged bourgeois decadence, and alleged indifference to the nation.
Hitler’s Handouts – Inside the Nazis’ welfare state – MICHAEL MOYNIHAN | FROM THE AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2007 ISSUE
“The Nazis themselves regarded the left-right convergence as integral to understanding fascism. Adolf Eichmann viewed National Socialism and communism as “quasi-siblings,” explaining in his memoirs that he “inclined towards the left and emphasized socialist aspects every bit as much as nationalist ones.” As late as 1944, Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels publicly celebrated “our socialism,” reminding his war-weary subjects that Germany “alone [has] the best social welfare measures.” Contrast this, he advised, with the Jews, who were the very “incarnation of capitalism.””