Hitler’s Strident Anti-Marxism

Last Days Watchman ^ | Julio Severo

[DiogenesLamp]

:)

[Lucy Hamilton]

“Same here, Lucy. You don’t post and run and although we differ, you disagree in an a agreeable manner and stick around to continue the conversation (in spite of the timezone variance).”

Well I’m English, you know we’re taught manners!

I responded to you re. Klemperer, yes I agree you’ll find.

[Lucy Hamilton]

Hey you, I need to get out of this thread or it’ll be like 2,000 posts long in a few hours! And surely nobody wants that!

[re_nortex]

I’ve got Victor Klemperer’s book.

Well, looks like we cross-posted. Glad you have the book and I hope others dropping by this thread will also read it. It's not hyperbole to state that it's easily within the top twenty books I've read in my long lifetime and I'm an inveterate reader.

[x]

Certainly, the Nazis considered Marx to be a Jew and anti-nationalist, so they considered themselves to be strongly anti-Marxist.

And since Nazis were fighting in the streets against the KPD and SPD who were the left in Germany politics, the Nazis were likely to be seen as right wing.

So to that extent, you're right.

But the objection is that the Nazis, like the Fascists, mixed together right-wing and left-wing ideas. Those left-wing elements can't be ignored. Nor can the similarities between Communism or Stalinism and Fascism or Nazism.

People on both sides of the political divides lean heavily on right-wing vs. left-wing, associating all good with one side and all bad with the other. Things aren't so simple.

[Lucy Hamilton]

Agreed again.

[yuleeyahoo]

Arguing about whether fascism and marxism are opposite are polar opposites is exactly the same as arguing that Sunni and Shia are polar opposites.

[uglybiker]

And they’re both as different from each other as Ebola and the Plague.

It's more like comparing a Chevy to a GMC.

The badges and the trim are different, but underneath they're the same thing.

[DiogenesLamp]

One more thing. From the alarming news I see coming out of the UK, it would appear to me that you might one day get in trouble for participating in the discussions on this web site.

The way they keep changing the rules, the definition of what was once innocuous can segue into "hate speech" rather quickly.

I am not urging you to refrain, just to be cautious and conscious of the exponential growth in intolerance of opinions that don't conform to the latest Gleichschaltung.

I dare say that when their comes a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

The world seems to be collectively losing it's mind.

[Lucy Hamilton]

Thanks for pointing this out.

Sadly what you stated has already entered my mind a while ago. How tragic this world has become :(

[rollo tomasi]

Different in respect to the recognition of force the Sovereign uses. Europe is too wrapped up in the nuances of nationalism/globalism/"internationalism" and ignore the degrees of force benevolent socialism, Communism (Dictatorship of the Proletariat/State), Nazism, soft tyranny and Fascism that these systems employ. Hence right = Nationalism and left = Internationalism, a non-sequitur when it comes to totalitarianism.

In fairness though, so do the majority of the United States' electorate.

[otness_e]

Not sure if Theocracy truly belongs on the left, that’s more of a right-wing thing to be honest, since God ultimately desires a theocracy where He alone is in charge.

But I’m glad you at least acknowledged anarchy is left-wing, because I constantly get very annoyed when people claim that anarchy is “right-wing”, and this is despite ignoring that many leftists in history, including even the likes of Karl Marx, advocated for anarchy.

Also, I’m pretty sure John Locke was technically closer to a leftist than a true right-winger. If anything, many of his statements, including being free to pursue whatever feels good, actually comes across as being like the hippies and Rousseau. It should also be noted that very few of the Founding Fathers actually embraced Locke. In fact, pretty much the only one who actually did was Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. You want to find Locke anywhere, it’s in the French Revolution, which BTW Jefferson and Paine both supported. It should speak volumes that the United States Constitution was created by everyone BUT Jefferson, while Jefferson if anything had a hand in the creation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in France.

And yes, Hitler indeed was a leftist, not right-wing. Just because academics say that doesn’t mean Hitler is that. There have been plenty of Nazi documents and other stuff, made by the Nazis, including private stuff, that make clear that Hitler was a leftie. It’s like saying Michel Focuault is a right-winger just because he condemned any and all forms of government and advocated complete anarchy and lawlessness.

[rollo tomasi]

Locke believed that in the State of Nature there is true freedom which of course feels good. Do you own a house? That feels good. Owning property and calling it your own feels good. Not sure what you are getting at, because even Locke suggested limiting “feeling good” via government in order to preserve and defend a just society.

Alexander Hamilton was probably one of the few (Knox too) who initially rejected the French Revolution (Washington took Jefferson’s advice of diplomacy and did not entirely rescind the treaty of alliance ). Heck, the United States made out because they stopped paying war debts to the monarchy. The only real objection was the aftermath and forgoing Biblical concepts for humanistic enterprises. Most in the Administration probably were relieved the French monarchy crumbled.

Of course, Jefferson did not have a hand in ratification, however, he raised holy heck about a Bill of Rights being left off. They could hear him all the way from France, especially James Madison through a series of letters.

Also, Jefferson was convincing enough that he flipped Madison from Federalist to “why did I agree to put that in the Constitution” rabid limited government/States right zealot.

[sargon]

As F. A. Hayek noted in The Road To Serfdom, the reason the National Socialists hated Communists so much, is that they were both competing over the same territory—impressionable authoritarian collectivist minds...

[CodeToad]

There was zero difference between the Nazi and communists. None.

[otness_e]

True, but as soon as the Founding Fathers learned about the September Massacres, they definitely turned away from it in droves, until only Jefferson and Paine held ANY support for it, up to and including the Reign of Terror. And the rest of the founding fathers at least had an excuse for not knowing about the true details about Bastille Day since they were literally separated by the Atlantic Ocean from the events happening and could only be third-party observers at best. Jefferson, however, cannot be excused because unlike his contemporaries, he was in fact in France acting as the American ambassador at the time.

And John Adams actually was a vocal critic of the French Revolution even during its early stages, with it even being one of the biggest reasons why he and Jefferson had a massive strain in their friendship (in fact, if I remember my history correctly, it was Adams learning that Jefferson had a direct hand in authoring the Declaration of the Rights of Man that acted as the last straw). You can find more about it in these pages:

*http://the-american-catholic.com/tag/french-revolution/

*https://bostonpamphlet.org/2015/08/03/170/

*https://allthingsliberty.com/2017/05/understanding-thomas-jeffersons-reactions-rise-jacobins/

As far as Locke's philosophy, I suggest you read “Liberty: The God that Failed”, because that goes into how Locke's philosophy if anything is actually part of why things are bad right now. For a primer, I can also point you to this link:

http://distributistreview.com/liberty-god-that-failed/

Let's not forget that it was ALSO Locke who provided the framework for Rousseau's “Social Contract”, which played a key role in the French Revolution.