Skip to comments.Here Come the Fascists ... and the Communists
Posted on 09/28/2017 11:20:19 AM PDT by Kaslin
Not long after the end of World War II, author and economist Friedrich A. Hayek wrote in “The Road to Serfdom” that fascism and communism were really two sides of the same coin.
For this, he was sharply criticized and even mocked. We just teamed up with the communists to beat the fascists, the argument went. True, Stalin (grudgingly) fought alongside the Allies to defeat Hitler. But Hayek warned that this was an anomaly; both ideologies exalted top-down state control and were ultimately antithetical to individual freedom.
It’s time to revisit Hayek’s warnings.
Arguments about fascism are all the rage at the moment. It’s de rigueur for those on the left to accuse President Donald Trump and his supporters of being “fascists.” Meanwhile, some of the left’s most visible and vocal factions -- notably but not exclusively antifa -- are accused (accurately) of behaving like fascists themselves: shutting down speech, vandalizing property, violently beating up people whose views offend them.
Meanwhile, what has slipped under the radar is the increasing advocacy for communism.
Within the past few days, a West Point graduate (and current infantry officer) named Spenser Rapone made headlines with pro-communist social media posts, including a photo of him holding his military cap with “Communism will win” written on the inside. In another post, he pulls his uniform aside to reveal a t-shirt with the image of communist revolutionary Che Guevara on it.
Lest you dismiss this as the isolated posturing of some fringe goofball, The New York Times has been running a year-long series of articles titled “ The Red Century .” Using the centennial of the 1917 Russian Revolution as its backdrop, the Times has published nearly three dozen articles on communism and its impact on the 20th century. An astonishing number of these are glowing accounts of the glories of communism.
The New York Times has been a platform for communism’s apologists since the days of Walter Duranty . But this is jaw-dropping, even for them.
On Feb. 24, 2017, the article titled, “ What’s left of communism ?” asked in its subhead, “Can a phoenix rise from the ash heap of history?” (A better question would be, why on earth would we want it to?)
Subsequent pieces praise Lenin as an unparalleled “ strategic genius ”; look back nostalgically to a time when communism inspired Americans ; paint a hopeful picture of an “ American afterlife ” for communism; defend collectivists’ visions as explained to children in the book “Communism for Kids”; characterize Lenin and the Bolsheviks as “ well-intentioned people trying to build a better world ”; point out the communist influence on popular science fiction and early environmental activism ; and -- perhaps most absurdly -- extol the virtues of communism for women, both in terms of their sex lives (in former Soviet Russia) and their “ big dreams ” (in Mao’s China).
Seventeenth-century British writer Samuel Johnson once described second marriages as “the triumph of hope over experience.” Had he lived during the “Red Century” (or thereafter), he might well have used the phrase to describe communists, who are still selling their rotting and putrid wares, despite 100-plus years of bloody experience.
Nearly 100 million people died as a result of communism in the 20th century -- more than all those killed by fascism and ordinary homicide combined. As Reason magazine author John Walters noted in a 2013 blog post , the worst famines in the 20th century (killing tens of millions) all took place in communist countries. As for women, Soviet Russia had the highest abortion rates in the world (the average Russian woman had seven abortions in her lifetime). China’s one-child policy resulted in millions of abortions (often forced , under horrific circumstances) and widespread infanticide of unwanted baby girls.
Then there were (are) the gulags, the laogai, the prison camps.
Socialism is little better. Communism’s blander cousin, it is founded on similar flawed philosophies that the state should be the provider; that people cannot be left to their own devices to order their lives as they see fit.
And socialism is often a precursor to something worse. Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez initially ran on a socialist platform, and then moved steadily left over the years, demonizing business, nationalizing industries and confiscating private property. He died with Venezuela already on a downward spiral. His successor, Nicolas Maduro -- another left-wing ideologue -- has destroyed whatever was left of Venezuela. Its citizens are without food, medicines, electricity or fuel. Doctors, teachers and other professionals are forced into prostitution to feed their families. Once wealthy and prosperous, Venezuela has been every bit as badly ravaged by communism as the neighboring Caribbean nations were by hurricanes Irma and Maria. Communism is one of the world’s most destructive forces.
I’ll say this much for the Times’ “Red Century” series: It makes clear that the communists are still with us, using every leftist cause as a crowbar to push the country toward their dystopic vision. Those of us who oppose collectivism are right to be concerned when the same people clamoring for socialized medicine are trying to resurrect and rehabilitate communism.
Hayek was right. And the battle lines are being drawn.
“Kill a commie for mommy!” One of our old slogans in 80s era US Military
Friedrich A. Hayek wrote in The Road to Serfdom that fascism and communism were really two sides of the same coin.
What did the Furor himself say? :
We are Socialists, we are enemies of today’s
capitalistic economic system for the exploitation
of the economically weak, with it’s unfair salaries,
with it’s unseemly evaluation of a human being
according to wealth and property instead of
responsibility and performance, and we are all
determined to destroy this system under all conditions.
Thank you for posting!!!!
Hitler was an economic retard. The very engine that created his war machine e.g. Krupp, Siemens, AG-Farben, Messerschmidt etc rose out of free market economics, and were only later usurped by nazi fascism. State intervention in the private market driven economy ALWAYS results in a vast ‘meddling penalty’ both economically and from the inevitable corruption.
Also, “Kill a gook for God.”
But Hitler was smarter than Ernst Rohm and the SA who wanted complete government control of German Industry.
Which was another reason for the “Night of the Long Knives”, Hitler wouldn’t be able to get the support of the Industrialists without him taking out the SA.
Hjalmar Schacht was smarter than both of them. The various “isms” are nothing other than trying to force society into a perpetual militaristic regimented state of war. Everything a new marine is told in boot camp is now how every citizen is required to behave. You are not an individual, you are just a tool in the box for the good of the larger organism that is constantly in conflict, real or imagined to keep the pot stirred.
Calling socialism the bland version of communism is spot on.
I’ve long said that given their common roots the socialist are the moderates of the left. On one side of them are the communist and on the other side of them are the fascist.
The fascist, divorced from the racist neo-pagan Nazi crap, commit the unpardonable sin to the rest of the left in not seeking to redistribute wealth but instead represent an alliance of big business and big government to their mutual advantage. It is an arrangement that is absolutely dedicated to entities owning the lion’s share of all means of production and distribution, achieving the aims that the left claims it wants through full employment.
Fascism (again, not neo-pagan Nazism) is, I’ve argued, where Europe was heading had WW1 not happened, with enlightened monarchs and elites seeking to further stabilize their societies by eliminating (most) poverty through employment, achieved through development of their economies. It would have been an imperial fascism of the court, bank and exchange rather than a thug state ... but it would have still been corporatism.
Socialism is worse than that form of fascism because it removes entities from private ownership. This is even true of what George advocated, though he wanted everything to be owned by local communities.
There is NOTHING to prevent socialists from being thugs, and it is a self approving delusion that socialist have that they won’t be. Being thugs or not is a matter of style, of execution of socialism ... just as being weak feminized men or actual whoopsies and has turned out to be a style of executing socialism.
Communism is worse still, delusional and even opposed to human nature.
No where in this left to right spectrum OF THE LEFT will you find The likes of Adam Smith or an economy that truly values actual persons owning and operating the means of production and distribution.
You are very welcome.
“Friedrich A. Hayek wrote in The Road to Serfdom that fascism and communism were really two sides of the same coin.”
Exactly; two totalitarian systems with only minor distinctions. If anything, fascism in practice seems to have been somewhat less tyrannical than communism.
Wear it, “Antifa”.
Sorry I couldn't resist. source
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.
Communism, Fascism and Socialism all have one common core. A large central government with vast amounts of control over the economy. Basically big states. The US was founded on a small limited government ideal that has unfortunately lost its roots.