National Socialism (I've posted this several times over the years)

Ludwig Von Mises Institute ^ | 9/28/1998 | Ralph Reiland

[stockpirate]

In 1944, Ludwig von Mises published one of his least-known masterworks: Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War. Drawing on his prewar experience in Vienna, watching the rise of the national socialists in Germany (the Nazis), who would eventually take over his own homeland, he set out to draw parallels between the Russian and German experience with socialism.

It was common in those days, as it is in ours, to identify the Communists as leftist and the Nazis as rightists, as if they stood on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. But Mises knew differently. They both sported the same ideological pedigree of socialism. "The German and Russian systems of socialism have in common the fact that the government has full control of the means of production. It decides what shall be produced and how. It allots to each individual a share of consumer's goods for his consumption."

The difference between the systems, wrote Mises, is that the German pattern "maintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices, wages, and markets." But in fact the government directs production decisions, curbs entrepreneurship and the labor market, and determines wages and interest rates by central authority. "Market exchange," says Mises, "is only a sham."

Mises's account is confirmed by a remarkable book that appeared in 1939, published by Vanguard Press in New York City (and unfortunately out of print today). It is The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism by Guenter Reimann, then a 35-year old German writer. Through contacts with German business owners, Reimann documented how the "monster machine" of the Nazis crushed the autonomy of the private sector through onerous regulations, harsh inspections, and the threat of confiscatory fines for petty offenses.

"Industrialists were visited by state auditors who had strict orders to examine the balance sheets and all bookkeeping entries of the company or individual businessman for the preceding two, three or more years until some error or false entry was found," explains Reimann. "The slightest formal mistake was punished with tremendous penalties. A fine of millions of marks was imposed for a single bookkeeping error."

Reimann quotes from a businessman's letter: "You have no idea how far state control goes and how much power the Nazi representatives have over our work. The worst of it is that they are so ignorant. These Nazi radicals think of nothing except ‘distributing the wealth.' Some businessmen have even started studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system.

"While state representatives are busily engaged in investigating and interfering, our agents and salesmen are handicapped because they never know whether or not a sale at a higher price will mean denunciation as a ‘profiteer' or ‘saboteur,' followed by a prison sentence. You cannot imagine how taxation has increased. Yet everyone is afraid to complain. Everywhere there is a growing undercurrent of bitterness. Everyone has his doubts about the system, unless he is very young, very stupid, or is bound to it by the privileges he enjoys.

"There are terrible times coming. If only I had succeeded in smuggling out $10,000 or even $5,000, I would leave Germany with my family. Business friends of mine are convinced that it will be the turn of the ‘white Jews' (which means us, Aryan businessmen) after the Jews have been expropriated. The difference between this and the Russian system is much less than you think, despite the fact that we are still independent businessmen."

As Mises says, "independent" only in a decorous sense. Under fascism, explains this businessman, the capitalist "must be servile to the representatives of the state" and "must not insist on rights, and must not behave as if his private property rights were still sacred." It's the businessman, characteristically independent, who is "most likely to get into trouble with the Gestapo for having grumbled incautiously."

[stockpirate]

"Of all businessmen, the small shopkeeper is the one most under control and most at the mercy of the party," recounts Reimann. "The party man, whose good will he must have, does not live in faraway Berlin; he lives right next door or right around the corner. This local Hitler gets a report every day on what is discussed in Herr Schultz's bakery and Herr Schmidt's butcher shop. He would regard these men as ‘enemies of the state' if they complained too much. That would mean, at the very least, the cutting of their quota of scarce and hence highly desirable goods, and it might mean the loss of their business licenses. Small shopkeepers and artisans are not to grumble."

"Officials, trained only to obey orders, have neither the desire, the equipment, nor the vision to modify rules to suit individual situations," Reimann explains. "The state bureaucrats, therefore, apply these laws rigidly and mechanically, without regard for the vital interests of essential parts of the national economy. Their only incentive to modify the letter of the law is in bribes from businessmen, who for their part use bribery as their only means of obtaining relief from a rigidity which they find crippling."

Says another businessman: "Each business move has become very complicated and is full of legal traps which the average businessman cannot determine because there are so many new decrees. All of us in business are constantly in fear of being penalized for the violation of some decree or law."

Business owners, explains another entrepreneur, cannot exist without a "collaborator," i.e., a "lawyer" with good contacts in the Nazi bureaucracy, one who "knows exactly how far you can circumvent the law." Nazi officials, explains Reimann, "obtain money for themselves by merely taking it from capitalists who have funds available with which to purchase influence and protection," paying for their protection "as did the helpless peasants of feudal days."

"It has gotten to the point where I cannot talk even in my own factory," laments a factory owner. "Accidentally, one of the workers overheard me grumbling about some new bureaucratic regulation and he immediately denounced me to the party and the Labor Front office."

Reports another factory owner: "The greater part of the week I don't see my factory at all. All this time I spend in visiting dozens of government commissions and offices in order to get raw materials I need. Then there are various tax problems to settle and I must have continual conferences and negotiations with the Price Commission. It sometimes seems as if I do nothing but that, and everywhere I go there are more leaders, party secretaries, and commissars to see."

In this totalitarian paradigm, a businessman, declares a Nazi decree, "practices his functions primarily as a representative of the State, only secondarily for his own sake." Complain, warns a Nazi directive, and "we shall take away the freedom still left you."

In 1933, six years before Reimann's book, Victor Klemperer, a Jewish academic in Dresden, made the following entry in his diary on February 21: "It is a disgrace that gets worse with every day that passes. And there's not a sound from anyone. Everyone's keeping his head down."

It is impossible to escape the parallels between Guenter Reimann's account of doing business under the Nazis and the "compassionate," "responsible," and regulated "capitalism" of today's U.S. economy today. At least the German government was frank enough to give the right name to its system of economic control.

[We now can see the direction we are heading. In the past when I posted this many here laughed. Now many here should cry.]

[stockpirate]

What say you?

[PhiKapMom]

This fits perfectly with what I posted on a blog I own:

Democratic Socialist of America (US House Members + One Senate Member)

Many Members Progressive Caucus of the 111th Session of the US House also are members of the Democratic Socalist of America (DSA). Where is the media in pointing out the Progressive Caucus are also Socialist? Do they not know who they are? Did anyone wonder why the Democrats changed their name to Democratic? Not wondering any more since Speaker Pelosi originally came from the Progressive Caucus. What are Americans doing as voters electing members of the Socialist Party to Congress? Do the voters know they are voting for a socialist?

DfS is more then happy to provide some names/info thanks to to http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/dsa_members.htm website which has been updated for the 111th Session of the House and Senate.

What are seven principles behind what the DSA’s calls it’s “Progressive Challenge?”

Dignified Work
Environmental Justice
Economic Redistribution
Democratic Participation
Community Empowerment
Global Non-Violence
Social Justice.

Sounds a lot like what Obama is selling as well! There are 70 members, 11 of who sit on the Judiciary Committee who are members of DSA which is frightening.

Here are the Members of our House of Representatives and one Senate member who are members of the DSA:

Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)

Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

[Brilliant]

Libs are always saying, “Fascism is the merger of the corporation and the State...”

If you ask them what socialism is, they say, “Socialism is when the government owns (or controls) the means of production.”

The interesting thing is that if you think about it, those are just two ways to say the same thing. Socialism and fascism are really the same thing. The only difference is that “socialism” is the east European brand of totalitarianism., while “fascism” is the west European brand of totalitarianism.

[CPT Clay]

Boy is that a target rich environment.

255 dems in the house - 69 = 186 need 218 for a Quorum.

[RC2]

Vely, vely intralestink. Vee must take achtion on dees situvations.

[Wonder Warthog]

Well, I’d say that today’s Democrats are the equivalent of yesterday’s “National Socialists”, both in methodology and morals.

[AFPhys]

Apologies to those who have seen some much of this recent rant before. It is especially appropriate as a comment to this story, and includes some modifications to what I've written previously.

I have finally come to the understanding that the political system now being touted by the left as "PROGRESSIVE", to deflect criticism of them being liberal, is actually a synthesis of two previously existing government forms: Communism and Fascism.

When many use the word “fascist” they are simply using it as a pejorative. When people were calling Bush “fascist”, that was simply a smear. When I challenged them to define fascist, and they were unable to respond, I educated them. That reduced them to calling him monkey instead. Dear Leader has been RULING as a fascist (most recently demonstrated by his town hall antics) as I will demonstrate.

When I labeled Dear Leader and Pelosi, etc., Fascist, I was NOT using it as a pejorative. It's an attempt to describe as accurately as possible the system of government they espouse and are trying to bring about. I ran into a problem, though, when researching the question.

I excerpt part of http://open-encyclopedia.com/Fascism as a base for the analysis.

The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that

• exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
• uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
• engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and
• espouses nationalism and sometimes racism or ethnic nationalism. ,

... The purpose of the government under fascism proper was to value itself as the highest priority to its culture in just being the state in itself, the larger scope of which, the better...

... The Nazi movement spoke of class-based society as the enemy, and wanted to unify the racial element above established classes. The Fascist movement, on the other hand, sought to preserve the class system and uphold it as the foundation of established and desirable culture...

...Fascism rejects the central tenets of Marxism, which are class struggle, and the need to replace capitalism with a society run by the working class in which the workers own the means of production. ...

[Fascism includes] capitalism ... This was a new capitalist system, however, one in which the state seized control of the organization of vital industries.

Look at the agenda the Progressives have undertaken since gaining control of Congress in 2006, and indeed before that time. Control of business, reduction of personal liberty, using propaganda and censorship to suppress opposition, social regimentation, higher taxes which again reduces personal liberty, expanding national government everywhere, even severe regimentation passing laws about light bulbs and on and on. Much of their agenda and methodology is VERY fascist.

However, bullet points 1 & 4 give us a problem whether we use nationalism or racism. Progressives certainly never goad people into a frenzy by extolling the virtues of the United States so are not nationalists in the typical sense of the word. They don’t use racism that way, either- they merely use it as a pejorative. Thus, we are not quite accurate in equating Progressivism with Fascism.

A digression concerning Nazi (National Socialist) vs. Fascist: Nazi is a subset of Fascist, but that subset does not include any more Progressive traits than Fascist.

What actually is needed to describe Progressives is Fascism that is NOT nationalist, at least nationalism in the sense of promotion of their nation as superior.

They are not Socialist (Marxist), either. When have you EVER heard a Progressive politician or any of the Democrats extol the virtues of having a classless society? Certainly they don't desire that for themselves or their rich donors! They are definitely in favor of a classes, with themselves in the highest class.

This brings up the following, from the same main source: http://open-encyclopedia.com/Communism

In terms of socio-economic systems, communism and socialism are two different things. For example, socialism involves the existence of a state, while communism does not...[and] abolishes private ownership altogether.

I’ve heard it argued that Communism has never been implemented, as a result. Apologies to Marx and Engels, but it is the supporters of communism who make that argument. Communism as it is now defined requires that there be NO “state”.

This helps us gain some ground. Communism shares this major feature of "no state" with Progressivism! So, where are we now?

These super-liberals, including Dear Leader and those who are currently running congress, have been pushing CapNTax, ObamaCare, apologies for the US, making nice with sworn enemies, international law, eliminating military superiority, etc.. In nearly EVERY area of our culture or economy that they have been pushing most fervently, they push for a leveling of the US with other nations, and attempt to remove national differences and boundaries. These fit with Communism, except that they have NO DESIRE to eliminate "classes" of people, or that the state OWN business- they only wish to CONTROL business as in Fascism (they have stated that they don't want to run the banks or auto companies) and they don't mind that their favored elites are billionaires, just as in fascism. Like fascism, they desire to control individual thought and behavior and forcibly suppress dissent.

Either we stipulate that the “whole world” is the “nation” for Dear Leader et al, to accurately describe their government philosophy, and state they are "ONE-WORLD FASCISTS", or we need a new word to describe their desired governmental system.

A word that would accurately synthesize their thinking is:

CommuFascist

The important point, though, is that whether this philosophy is labeled CommuFascist, or “Progressive” or One-World Fascists, analysis reveals that Dear Leader, Pelosi, and these super-liberals are espousing a MORE EXTREME FORM of Fascism and VERY extreme form of liberalism. Dear Leader is a “one-world” Mussolini.

Far from being pejorative, analysis reveals I was being generous when I was describing them as Fascist, not pejorative. I might be calling them something more extreme instead, “Progressive” or equivalently, CommuFascist.

[Colonel_Flagg]

This should be required reading for anyone who doesn’t yet compare the current administration with Fascism.

[hosepipe]

Fascism is also Socialism..

[Talisker]

Great, great post. Thanks.

[the invisib1e hand]

what say you

Here's what my favorite blog says:

The Bad News...is that a reasonable person cannot fail to conclude that fascism is now the operative model of the US government.

[Talisker]

The interesting thing is that if you think about it, those are just two ways to say the same thing. Socialism and fascism are really the same thing.

Excellent. Brilliant, in fact. ; )

[Nosterrex]

Statism is statism is statism. Statism is just another term for totalitarianism, or fascism, or socialism. In each example the state trumps the individual. Government is not derived from the permission of the governed, but the the people’s rights are determined by the state. The people serve the government, not vice versa. In the statist’s view, the state knows what is best for the people. People are too stupid to govern themselves.

[Tahoe3002]

read later

[AFPhys]

Please critique Post#8.

I believe there is at least one major difference between the totalitarian philosophies of [Fascism, Communism, Socialism] and Progressivism.

My analysis claims that Fascism is not identical to Socialism or to “Progressivism”, but I’m open to your thoughts, and in fact solicit them.

[griswold3]

As usual the ‘statists’ destroy two things first. Religion and Small Business.. Without these ‘independent’ ideas, the population becomes easier to ‘control’.

Same with the Bolsheviks, who weren’t so ‘civil’.

I grew up listening to tales from my German mother who refused to join the ‘Party’.

[FlashBack]

Bookmark!

[SpaceBar]

It should be noted that Adolf Hitler was well aware of and studied both the Soviet gulag system, and the Turk genocide of the Armenians. From those lessons he learned that there was very little social backlash from those events, and could expect little public resistance.

[AFPhys]

Thank you for posting this brilliant example once again.

It does reflect the truth of Santayana’s famous 1648AD dictum,

“Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.”

America must unflinchingly and coldly examine the errors made by the failed governments of the past if we are to avoid the same doom.