A Little Secret About the Nazis (They were left-wing socialists like the modern left of today)

russp ^ | 1/2002 | Richard Poe

[DrNo]

...does not make for sound hermeneutics...

Herman who?

[thucydides]

To be more specific: it is universally acknowledged that Marx was a virulent anti - semite. You are engaged in quibbles over whether a particular text can be construed (deconstructed?) so as to show that it could be read in a way that is not anti - semitic. This is reminiscent of the holocaust deniers and revisionist historians. If you are interested strictly in textual hermeneutics, fine. But this thread is supposedly about the question of whether the Nazis were of the left or of the right. In that context, the question of Marx's anti - semitism came up as showing a connection between him and Hitler. Why don't you want to address the larger question?

[DrNo]

The historical illiteracy of our era strikes again.

Doctor:

Now that I've had a chance to get to my office and check my sources, let me offer the following support for my earlier-stated reading of "On the Jewish Question."

Robert Tucker (The Marx Engels Reader, 1972, W.W. Norton, page 24) offers the following observation on the piece:

"In the second part, Marx proceeds to the criticism of economics or commerce, which he equates with 'Judaism.'

"His concluding call for the 'emancipation of society from Judaism' (which has been seen on occassion as a manifesto of anti-Semitism) is in fact a call for the emancipation of society from what he here calls 'huckstering,' or from what he was subsequently to call 'capitalism.' "

I can see where you'd call me a(n) historical illiterate, I'm just a dumb working-class kid from the Mid-West at a Southern state university, but Robert C. Tucker is/was a Profesor of Politics at Princeton University!

P.S. Since this is apparently his area of expertise, I trust you will not accuse me of having committed the fallacy of ad verecundiam!

[Asclepius]

... "His concluding call for the 'emancipation of society from Judaism' (which has been seen on occassion as a manifesto of anti-Semitism) is in fact a call for the emancipation of society from what he here calls 'huckstering,' or from what he was subsequently to call 'capitalism' ...

First, please allow me to withdraw the 'illiteracy' remark. It was uncalled for and I apologise profusely.

Second, thank you for the quote. I don't agree with it, but I can at least see where you're coming from.

And here is what I disagree with, the notion that "huckstering" and "capitalism" are somehow linked in Marx's essay. "Huckstering" was a coping strategy for Jews who were excluded from European civil society (cf Gypsies); capitalism was for Marx a fully realized system of production based on the capital accumulation, a novel division of labor, and the serial production and distribution of commodities etc., etc. I would argue that Marx does not implicate the Jews in capitalist commodities production or the bourgeois social order simply because they were excluded from both in Marx's era. They were confined to ghettos, allowed only to dig graves or lend money etc.

Marx's essay is an indictment of Judaism (as a religion, as an alibi for Jewish suffering) precisely because it insulates the Jews from the bourgeois revolution, which Marx believed was an historically necessarily precurser to revolution etc., etc. It's no big deal. I am not a Marxist; I am not comfortable defending Marx. Reasonable people can disagree and all that.

[Asclepius]

... To be more specific: it is universally acknowledged that Marx was a virulent anti - semite ...

Universally acknowledged, is it? A bold claim, don't you think?

Psychologists refer to this as "social proof." Everyone believes it, so it must be so. Not terribly rational. You can read all about it in Aaronson's Social Animal or Cialdini's Influence, Science and Practice. Logicians simply call it appealing to the mob (argumentum ad baculum).

Please remind me. Which one of us is supposed to be ideologically purblind?

[thucydides]

Some years ago a compendium of all Marx's writings on jews was published under the title "A World Without Jews." No one familiar with his writings, or who had read historians like Paul Johnson's biographical material would be in doubt of his anti - semitism. You are simply being obtuse.

[KC Burke]

The whole reason that "left wing" and "right wing" entered into our vocabulary was to differentiate between the various flavors of Socialism (e.g. Communists on one side and Fascists on the other).

In some sense, what you claim may have some truth in it, but the origin that I put most faith in goes back further.

At the time of the French Revolution, the Estates General was called. The Royalist supporters sat on the Right half of the hall, and the proponants of the new ideologies sat on the Left side of the hall. Ever since that time, revolutionary ideologues have lambasted all opposition as "from the Right" and alligned with old interests, corrupt monarchy, and old power.

At that time in our nation, despite its feelings of fraternity with French in throwing off an old maonarcy, the Federalists and Adams were as leary of the Left as Jefferson and the Republican-Democrats were fond of them.

[Temple Owl]

There's just too much confusion here. Let's cut to the quick. The Nazis (socialists) and Communists (pick the country) are left-wingers. They are the bad guys. They are loved by American left-wing press. Capitalists are the conservative right-wingers. We are hated by the left-wing press. Capitalism is what America is all about. It is why people from other nations risk their lives to come here. We are the good guys. We stand for the Constitution and freedom. It is that simple.

[thucydides]

Thanks for the links to Johnson and Himmelfarb on Marx. The Himmelfarb essay is new to me. I have wasted my time on this thread trying to disabuse Asclepius of his notion that Marx was not an anti - semite. Well, the facts speak for themselves.

[LantzALot]

I knew it.
LOL!

[Asclepius]

No one familiar with his writings, or who had read historians like Paul Johnson's biographical material would be in doubt of his anti - semitism. You are simply being obtuse.

You believe Marx, a Jew and a social revolutionary, advocated the final solution, and I'm obtuse?

Here's a thought. Read what Marx wrote about colonialism, about the European subjugation of other races. Then come back to me and try to argue that Marx was a racist, that he advocated genocide. 'Kay?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I KNEW IT! I KNEW IT!

[TLBSHOW]

what

[bigjoesaddle]

great article BUMP!

And congrats, TLBSHOW!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

NAZI's were lefties. I was being facetious. How could a socialist not be a left-winger?

[DrNo]

Logicians simply call it appealing to the mob (argumentum ad baculum).

Isn't that "appeal to the stick?" (To wit, if you don't agree I'll punch you in the nose!)

[Asclepius]

... Isn't that "appeal to the stick?" (To wit, if you don't agree I'll punch you in the nose!) ...

You're probably right. I always get those screwed up.

[First_Salute]

The Twenty-Five Points of Hitler's NAZI Party (website: The History Place(tm))

 " ... we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.