Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Socialism = NAZI (Hitler was a socialist)
THE OMINOUS PARALLELS ^ | Leonard Peikoff

Posted on 06/22/2002 10:38:56 AM PDT by freeforall

Socialism = NAZI or...

Hitler was a socialist.

The nasty little secret they don't want you to know!

THE OMINOUS PARALLELS, by Leonard Peikoff...

A Veritas News Service Book Review - "A magnificent work... it should be required reading for all Americans. This book reveals socialisms nasty little secret." William Cooper

Excerpt from Chapter One.

The Nazis were not a tribe of prehistoric savages. Their crimes were the official, legal acts and policies of modern Germany -- an educated, industrialized, CIVILIZED Western European nation, a nation renowned throughout the world for the luster of its intellectual and cultural achievements. By reason of its long line of famous artists and thinkers, Germany has been called "the land of poets and philosophers."

But its education offered the country no protection against the Sergeant Molls in its ranks. The German university students were among the earliest groups to back Hitler. The intellectuals were among his regime's most ardent supporters. Professors with distinguished academic credentials, eager to pronounce their benediction on the Fuhrer's cause, put their scholarship to work full time; they turned out a library of admiring volumes, adorned with obscure allusions and learned references.

The Nazis did not gain power against the country's wishes. In this respect there was no gulf between the intellectuals and the people. The Nazi party was elected to office by the freely cast ballots of millions of German voters, including men on every social, economic, and educational level. In the national election of July 1932, the Nazis obtained 37% of the vote and a plurality of seats in the Reichstag. On January 30, 1933, in full accordance with the country's legal and constitutional principles, Hitler was appointed Chancellor. Five weeks later, in the last (and semi-free) election of the pre-totalitarian period, the Nazis obtained 17 million votes, 44% of the total.

The voters were aware of the Nazi ideology. Nazi literature, including statements of the Nazi plans for the future, papered the country during the last years of the Weimar Republic. "Mein Kampf" alone sold more than 200,000 copies between 1925 and 1932. The essence of the political system which Hitler intended to establish in Germany was clear.

In 1933, when Hitler did establish the system he had promised, he did not find it necessary to forbid foreign travel. Until World War II, those Germans who wished to flee the country could do so. The overwhelming majority did not. They were satisfied to remain.

The system which Hitler established -- the social reality which so many Germans were so eager to embrace or so willing to endure -- the politics which began in a theory and ended in Auschwitz -- was: the "total state". The term, from which the adjective "totalitarian" derives, was coined by Hitler's mentor, Mussolini.

The state must have absolute power over every man and over every sphere of human activity, the Nazis declared. "The authority of the Fuhrer is not limited by checks and controls, by special autonomous bodies or individual rights, but it is free and independent, all-inclusive and unlimited," said Ernst Huber, an official party spokesman, in 1933.

"The concept of personal liberties of the individual as opposed to the authority of the state had to disappear; it is not to be reconciled with the principle of the nationalistic Reich," said Huber to a country which listened, and nodded. "There are no personal liberties of the individual which fall outside of the realm of the state and which must be respected by the state... The constitution of the nationalistic Reich is therefore not based upon a system of inborn and inalienable rights of the individual."

If the term "statism" designates concentration of power in the state at the expense of individual liberty, then Nazism in politics was a form of statism. In principle, it did not represent a new approach to government; it was a continuation of the political absolutism -- the absolute monarchies, the oligarchies, the theocracies, the random tyrannies -- which has characterized most of human history.

In degree, however, the total state does differ from its predecessors: it represents statism pressed to its limits, in theory and in practice, devouring the last remnants of the individual. Although previous dictators (and many today; e.g., in Latin America) often preached the unlimited power of the state, they were on the whole unable to enforce such power. As a rule, citizens of such countries had a kind of partial "freedom", not a freedom-on-principle, but at least a freedom-by-default.

Even the latter was effectively absent in Nazi Germany. The efficiency of the government in dominating its subjects, the all-encompassing character of its coercion, the complete mass regimentation on a scale involving millions of men -- and, one might add, the enormity of the slaughter, the planned, systematic mass slaughter, in peacetime, initiated by a government against its own citizens -- these are the insignia of twentieth-century totalitarianism (Nazi AND communist), which are without parallel in recorded history. In the totalitarian regimes, as the Germans found out after only a few months of Hitler's rule, every detail of life is prescribed, or proscribed. There is no longer any distinction between private matters and public matters. "There are to be no more private Germans," said Friedrich Sieburg, a Nazi writer; "each is to attain significance only by his service to the state, and to find complete self-fulfillment in his service." "The only person who is still a private individual in Germany," boasted Robert Ley, a member of the Nazi hierarchy, after several years of Nazi rule, "is somebody who is asleep."

In place of the despised "private individuals," the Germans heard daily or hourly about a different kind of entity, a supreme entity, whose will, it was said, is what determines the course and actions of the state: the nation, the whole, the GROUP. Over and over, the Germans heard the idea that underlies the advocacy of omnipotent government, the idea that totalitarians of every kind stress as the justification of their total states: COLLECTIVISM.

Collectivism is the theory that the group (the collective) has primacy over the individual. Collectivism holds that, in human affairs, the collective -- society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc. -- is THE UNIT OF REALITY AND THE STANDARD OF VALUE. On this view, the individual has reality only as part of the group, and value only insofar as he serves it; on his own he has no political rights; he is to be sacrificed for the group whenever it -- or its representative, the state -- deems this desirable.

Fascism, said one of its leading spokesmen, Alfredo Rocco, stresses:

...the necessity, for which the older doctrines make little allowance, of sacrifice, even up to the total immolation of individuals, on behalf of society... For Liberalism (i.e., individualism), the individual is the end and society the means; nor is it conceivable that the individual, considered in the dignity of an ultimate finality, be lowered to mere instrumentality. For Fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends.

"The higher interests involved in the life of the whole," said Hitler in a 1933 speech, "must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual." Men, echoed the Nazis, have to "realize that the State is more important than the individual, that individuals must be willing and ready to sacrifice themselves for Nation and Fuhrer." The people, said the Nazis, "form a true organism," a "living unity", whose cells are individual persons. In reality, therefore -- appearances to the contrary notwithstanding -- there is no such thing as an "isolated individual" or an autonomous man.

Just as the individual is to be regarded merely as a fragment of the group, the Nazis said, so his possessions are to be regarded as a fragment of the group's wealth.

"Private property" as conceived under the liberalistic economy order was a reversal of the true concept of property [wrote Huber]. This "private property" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard for the general interests... German socialism had to overcome this "private", that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of property. All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community.

Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property -- so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.

If "ownership" means the right to determine the use and disposal of material goods, then Nazism endowed the state with every real prerogative of ownership. What the individual retained was merely a formal deed, a content-less deed, which conferred no rights on its holder. Under communism, there is collective ownership of property DEJURE. Under Nazism, there is the same collective ownership DE FACTO.

During the Hitler years -- in order to finance the party's programs, including the war expenditures -- every social group in Germany was mercilessly exploited and drained. White-collar salaries and the earnings of small businessmen were deliberately held down by government controls, freezes, taxes. Big business was bled by taxes and "special contributions" of every kind, and strangled by the bureaucracy. At the same time the income of the farmers was held down, and there was a desperate flight to the cities -- where the middle class, especially the small tradesmen, were soon in desperate straits, and where the workers were forced to labor at low wages for increasingly longer hours (up to 60 or more per week).

But the Nazis defended their policies, and the country did not rebel; it accepted the Nazi argument. Selfish individuals may be unhappy, the Nazis said, but what we have established in Germany is the ideal system, SOCIALISM. In its Nazi usage this term is not restricted to a theory of economics; it is to be understood in a fundamental sense. "Socialism" for the Nazis denotes the principle of collectivism as such and its corollary, statism -- in every field of human action, including but not limited to economics.

"To be a socialist", says Goebbels, "is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole."

By this definition, the Nazis practiced what they preached. They practiced it at home and then abroad. No one can claim that they did not sacrifice enough individuals.

Excerpted from Chapter 1 of THE OMINOUS PARALLELS, by Leonard Peikoff... most probably the most important book written in modern times. Buy it... read it... study it.


TOPICS: Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: america; calgov2002; fascist; germany; goebbels; hitler; leftist; nazi; nazism; nsdap; socialism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-244 next last
To: Tribune7
It is a Dead Kennedys song: Holiday In Cambodia
151 posted on 06/23/2002 6:12:11 PM PDT by Doc-Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: freeforall
You quote to me a critic of socialism to prove that the Nazi's were socialists! What kind of proof is this! You claim I am giving you superficial differences. Well, let me make it clear then. Socialism is a stage on the way to the abolition of the state--no government, period. That is the far left. Nazism is the organization of the state into a form that is to be worshipped for the purpose of raising one race of people above all others--that is the far right. On one hand there is no government, on the other the government assumes the role of God. That is the theoretical difference. The distinction comes from the writings of Edmund Burke.

Practically, the Nazi's did not nationalize a single industry. I have read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" three times. Please tell me what industries the Nazi's nationalized. Socialists nationalize industries. I can give you a host of examples of socialists nationalizing industries. These are practical examples. The only reason the world "socialist" is in the name National Socialist Party was because of the appeal that socialism had to the working man of the time. It was a mere ruse developed from El Duce's former socialist experiences and Hitler's takeover of a small, ineffective revisionist socialist party. Both men thoroughly rejected Marxism and saw the Soviet Union as the greatest threat to the world and both expected Britain and the United States to ally with them ultimately to fight the Soviets--true Socialists.

I will not be posting further on this subject as it is one that is well settled, in fact, not even seriously argued, by political philosophers. If you want to discuss the idea that a new spectrum is more pertinent to modern times, and why, I am all ears. I find America torn between more and more powerful fascists and more and more powerful socialists and I see little progress on the libertarian front. In fact, most Americans seem truly afraid of real freedom. I wish everyone had a gun and I would let everyone out of prison. The governments sole duty would be to protect my constitutional rights against governmental instrusion and to find and prosecute anyone who commits violence, theft or fraud against me.

152 posted on 06/23/2002 6:21:36 PM PDT by stryker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: lmandrake
"Capitalism over Marxism"? Among the first victims whom Hitler had executed were capitalists.
153 posted on 06/23/2002 6:45:07 PM PDT by tabsternager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tabsternager
Among the first victims whom Hitler had executed were capitalists.

Names?

154 posted on 06/23/2002 6:47:19 PM PDT by ProudAmerican2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: All
I posted this article on a message board at a chess site. The same argument is beginning to brew over there. I would love to see some Freepers join in the discussion at the chess site. There are some dedicated socialists adamantly denying the obvious fact that National Socialists *are* socialists. Here's a link:

pacific-mall.com/chess

You can play chess there too if you want to :-)

155 posted on 06/23/2002 7:01:47 PM PDT by Sunsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: lmandrake
Fascism and it's cuddle buddy, Nazism(nationalist socialist worker's party), come from the spoutings of Antonio Gramsci, who said, in essence, that the people required to make socialism work were too smart to accept the idiocy of it all. So you have to trick them with nationalism and the trappings of nobility and/or an appeal to a (often made up)glorious past.
Nobody will sacrifice for the sake of some people on the other side of the world, (workers of the world, unite! remember that nonsense?)but they will sacrifice for their own perceived kind. That's how he proposed to get socialism going. Probably the most important thinker(in a bad way)of the last couple hundred years. Look at all the damage his followers have done. We are still repairing the damage they did for the last two terms.

156 posted on 06/23/2002 7:20:18 PM PDT by thrcanbonly1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ProudAmerican2
I've seen so many documentaries and read so many books on WWII that I'm not 100 percent sure where I read about executions of capitalists in Germany, but I believe that it was at the Holocaust Museum in D.C. where I saw the pictures and the captions stating that when Hitler first came to power in 1933, he ordered those whom opposed him and whom he thought might be trouble to be sent to work camps and many of them were shot -- the caption read "ministers, priests, and capitalists." No specific names that I can recall, just pictures of them in the work camp.
157 posted on 06/23/2002 7:26:04 PM PDT by tabsternager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: stryker
You quote to me a critic of socialism to prove that the Nazi's were socialists! What kind of proof is this! You claim I am giving you superficial differences. Well, let me make it clear then. Socialism is a stage on the way to the abolition of the state--no government, period. That is the far left. Nazism is the organization of the state into a form that is to be worshipped for the purpose of raising one race of people above all others--that is the far right. On one hand there is no government, on the other the government assumes the role of God. That is the theoretical difference. The distinction comes from the writings of Edmund Burke.

Maybe we can phrase it this way. The Nazis had far, far more in common with our Democratic Party than it did with right-wing faction of the GOP.

158 posted on 06/23/2002 7:45:54 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: freeforall
The Hitler Letter

By Rabbi Daniel Lapin

Posted by the Culture of Life Foundation -  

I have no intention of explaining how the correspondence which I now offer to the public fell into my hands. There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. (Preface to The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis)

My Dear Julius (1), Landsberg prison which I entered on April 1, 1924 and where I wrote Mein Kampf, is strangely similar to this place that I entered after shooting myself on the afternoon of April 30, 1945 and from where I write this letter. I found myself in both places involuntarily, yet they have each provided me with peace as well as perspective to write of the ideas that fueled our movement. I dedicated Mein Kampf to the dead heroes of the so-called Beer Hall Putsch who fell on November 9, 1923 with loyal faith in the resurrection of their people(2). I dedicate this letter to you along with the nine other heroes of Nuremberg who joined me here on October 16, 1946. May their memory shine forever, a glowing example to the followers of our ideas. 

As one tends to do in the timeless eternity of our existence here, I often reflect upon my single most regrettable error-underestimating America. On December 8, 1941, I hurried back by train to Berlin from my headquarters on the Russian front. It is true that earlier that year Ribbentrop and I had promised the Japanese Foreign Minister, our good friend Yosuke Matsuoka, that should Japan become engaged in a war against the United States, Germany would join the war immediately. However, to us, the Three-Power Pact had as its goal frightening and keeping America out of the war. I encouraged Japan to immediately take an active part in the war against England(3) and not to provoke America. Although I didn't see much future for the Americans, I did not want them in the war until we had put down Russia. 

Exactly one month after the Japanese betrayed me by attacking Pearl Harbor I told you all at our Berlin headquarters that America is a decayed country. My feelings against Americanism were feelings of hatred and deep repugnance. Everything about the behavior of American society reveals that it's half Judaized and the other half Negrified. How can one expect a state like that to hold together?(4) Well, America did hold together and she seized victory from us. However, and this is important my friend, she has finally adopted many of the vital ideas of our movement. Could not this be described as an ultimate vindication of all we lived and died for? Perhaps it is even a victory of sorts. 

Let me explain. First and foremost we were socialists. As national socialists, or Nazis, we presumed that government and the people were hostile to one another. Thus, we understood that the old German tradition of citizens owning guns had to end. On March 18, 1938 we enacted our Law on Weapons and ruled that only government officials were allowed to own firearms. You can imagine my approval as I watched Senator Thomas Dodd craft America's Gun Control Act of 1968 by having our own law of 1938 translated for him by an official of The Library of Congress(5). My dear Julius, we can be proud of how similarly the two laws read. Those leading American gun control efforts are naïve and well-meaning but their results will resemble ours. We told the German people that gun control laws were needed to curb gang activity and preserve democracy, what those laws really did was help us prevail.

 Do you remember, dear Julius, how we Nazis always understood that every German citizen must live for the state. We did everything possible to keep our people healthy. They were our future and the destiny of our nation. In the same way that wise farmers must accept responsibility for the health of their herds, we used the power of government to keep our flocks healthy. We were disgusted by the addictive powers of cigarettes since both mind and body were supposed to belong to the Fuhrer. We succeeded in almost criminalizing the smoking of cigarettes. 

Our Minstry of Science and Education ordered elementary schools to discuss the dangers of tobacco(6). Government sponsored cultural and educational events were declared to be "smoke-free." In the late 1930s we called for increased taxes on cigarettes and later instituted bans on cigarette advertising. I am most proud of the legislation we introduced prohibiting sales of cigarettes to minors. We set up counseling centers for the psychological treatment of smokers and we established smoke-free restaurants. 

We soon managed to prohibit smoking on Luftwaffe properties and followed that with prohibiting smoking in post offices, government buildings and many workplaces. "No Smoking" cars were established on all German trains with fines levied upon violators and in 1940 SS Chief Heinrich Himmler announced a smoking ban for all on-duty police and SS officers. Our comrade, Hermann Goring, decreed that soldiers may not smoke in public and most of our cities banned smoking on public transport in order to protect the ticket takers from the hazards of second-hand smoke. We can indeed be proud that today America has also come to realize the importance of central government taking the initiative in regulating what people do not have the good sense to do voluntarily. We may have lost the battle of ideas in the middle of the century, but we Nazis are winning the war of ideas at its end. 

Do you remember that awkwardness in late 1940, my dear Julius? The American consulate in Leipzig reported our policies to the American State Department, of conducting compassionate euthanasia on the patients in the Grafeneck Mental Asylum in Wurttemberg. What an uproar resulted in America! 

But now, one of America's most prestigious institutions, Princeton University, has appointed as professor of bioethics (whatever that is) one Peter Singer who openly advocates putting to death the mentally defective, the terminally ill and even severely disabled infants. He would give parents and doctors the right to actually kill-not just withhold treatment-newborns with, for instance, Spina Bifida and hemophilia. Singer insists that a newborn has no greater right to life than pigs, cows and dogs. Peter Singer is one of us, Julius. And the best part of it is that those who most loudly protested our comparatively mild policies in Wurttemberg, have not uttered even a squeak of protest to Princeton University and its professor of bioethics. The ridiculous idea that all human life is sacred is now finally under attack in America. A sitting president was reelected after affirming the legitimacy of exterminating infants during birth and doctors in their province of Oregon have begun doing away with the elderly and weak. Yes, America is certainly coming around to our way of seeing things. 

Finally dear Julius, you will remember what I frequently said and wrote in Mein Kampf: "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people(7)." I explained that as long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. It is truly heartwarming to see how well this lesson has been learned by American government. In the name of the children, incursions into the private lives of American citizens have been made that we Nazis would have gazed at with open mouthed admiration. Does it matter that our bodies failed as long as our spirit still triumphs? 

I know you have a question to ask me, my friend: What about the Jews? After all, how can I say that much of America is adopting our views when Jews still exert such disproportionate influence in that country? Grasp the genius of your Fuhrer. You see dear Julius, with well meaning earnestness, most American Jews are solidly behind the ideas I have been describing. In the mistaken belief that they are making America safer for minorities, American Jews have joined those advocating ever larger and ever more powerful government. In reality, what they are doing is making America more hospitable to our form of national socialism. When it eventually arrives, they too will see the real dangers, but by then, it will be too late. Now they only see danger in illiterate thugs with no hair on their heads and in degenerate psychopaths with second hand Nazi regalia. American Jews are frightened by a handful of the sort of people we used to execute, instead of being terrified of the danger they are helping to create-government with limitless power that could one day be hospitable to tyranny. 

We didn't just kill Jews-we were obsessed with them. We knew and understood the power their God conferred upon them. It was either their three thousand year-old vision of holiness or our modern ideas of scientific progress that would prevail in the world. Do you recall that Israeli thug, Isser Harel, who founded their cursed Mossad and who captured our brother Adolf Eichmann in Buenos Aires in 1960? Harel was astounded when Eichmann, upon realizing that he had been captured by Jews(8), called out the Hebrew prayer Shema Yisrael , "Hear Oh Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One." Eichmann understood. You, Julius, you also understood. You ascended the gallows in Nuremberg and your very last words were "Heil Hitler!" (for which I thank you) and then "Purim Fest 1946."(9) You knew that when the Allies hanged my ten friends, they were playing out a modern day version of the Biblical Book of Esther in which ten enemies of the Jews were hanged on the festival of Purim. 

And it wasn't just the Jews. Joseph Goebbels put it quite correctly when he said, "The Fuhrer is deeply religious though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so, it is a branch of the Jewish race(10)." We can be confident that America will preserve and develop our Nazi ideas of human perfectability because of one stroke of genius that even Reich minister of propaganda, the great Joseph Goebbels, has to admire. Those who are advocating socialism in America, whether deliberately or inadvertently, have succeeded in turning the term "Nazi" into a slur that may only be used against those on the right, such as Christian conservatives. Never is it used against those on the left who are precisely the Americans doing most to advance our agenda. We are winning Julius, we are winning. Heil Hitler.

Radio talk show host, Rabbi Daniel Lapin is the author of the recent best seller, America's Real War, and is president of Seattle-based Toward Tradition.

(1) Hitler is addressing Julius Streicher, hanged by the Allies in Nuremberg, October 16, 1946. (2) Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ.Verlag Franz Eher, 1927, Dedication and Preface (3) The Second World War, Volume 3, Winston S. Churchill, Publ. Houghton Mifflin, 1950. Page 186 (4) The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William L Shirer, Publ. Simon and Schuster, 1959. Page 895 (5) Aaron Zelman, JPFO, Milwaukee, WI. (6) The Nazi War on Cancer, Robert N. Proctor. Publ. Princeton University Press. Page 198. (7) Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Mifflin, 1943, Page 403. (8) Los Angeles Times, April 7, 1989. (9) Newsweek, October 26, 1946. Joseph Kingsbury-Smith, an American reporter present at the hangings. (10) Joseph Goebbels, quoted in Anthrozoos, 5 (1992) page 18.

 


159 posted on 06/23/2002 8:00:00 PM PDT by RedWhiteBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tabsternager
he ordered those whom opposed him and whom he thought might be trouble to be sent to work camps and many of them were shot -- the caption read "ministers, priests, and capitalists."

Hitler arrested and executed anyone that might pose a threat to his regime. He did not execute some capitalists because they owned the means of production. He executed them because they would not accept his government. Those capitalists willing to play ball and help the war effort enjoyed the support of the Nazis, including slave labor.

160 posted on 06/23/2002 8:33:37 PM PDT by ProudAmerican2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

Comment #161 Removed by Moderator

To: Tribune7
I could not disagree more. Read Burke, then come back and talk sense. Who reveres the traditional institutions of America more--the GOP or the left? Whichever does is closer to the Nazi party, however marginally. Who desires to change the traditional institutions of America in the name of combatting racism and promoting pluralism, creating a classless society? Whoever does is closer to the socialists. You've got to do the study time if you want to be able to write on this stuff with any accuracy. You are dealing in a social science where certain terms have very specific meanings to the people within that discipline. Again, I challenge you to go to the nearest university and find a single professor of political philosophy or science that will agree with you.
162 posted on 06/23/2002 8:45:57 PM PDT by stryker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

Comment #163 Removed by Moderator

Comment #164 Removed by Moderator

To: freeforall
This comes as no surprise to anyone who has read Bastiat's "The Law", F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom or Milt and Rose Freidman's Free to Choose. Nevertheless, it appears to be an excellent book worth an investment.
165 posted on 06/23/2002 9:15:48 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProudAmerican2
Precisely -- he was all in favor of the capitalist businessmen that his government could control for the Fatherland. The rest of the capitalists he had shot or worked to death in labor camps.

"The worker in a capitalist state -- and that is his deepest misfortune -- is no longer a living human being, a creator, a maker.
We call ourselves a workers' party because we want to free labor from the chains of capitalism and Marxism." (Joseph Goebbels)
166 posted on 06/23/2002 9:58:56 PM PDT by tabsternager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: stryker
Tribune7 wrote:

The Nazis had far, far more in common with our Democratic Party than it did with right-wing faction of the GOP.

You replied:

Who reveres the traditional institutions of America more--the GOP or the left? Whichever does is closer to the Nazi party, however marginally. Who desires to change the traditional institutions of America in the name of combatting racism and promoting pluralism, creating a classless society? Whoever does is closer to the socialists.

But tribune7 wasn't comparing the Democrats to the GOP, he was comparing the Democrats to the right-wing faction of the GOP. If you define the right-wing faction as the individualist, Constitutionalist, cultural traditionalist faction of the GOP, then his point stands, or at least cannot be dismissed without some further arguments.

Consider this example...

Person A is a collectivist and a cultural traditionalist

Person B is a collectivist and a cultural progressive

Person C is an individualist and a cultural traditionalist

Now, who is more similar?

Over at DU and in the political science departments of most universities, they'll say person A and C are more similar because A and C have cultural traditionalism in common.

But lots of Freepers and guys like Peikoff and Hayek would say person A and B are most similar because A and B have collectivism in common.

It all boils down to which variable you choose to look at. To me, this is the key to grokking this subject and the reason why it's easy for people to talk past each other when they're arguing about it.

I think the collectivist variable is the more important, and the one that should be used to determine "similarity", since it tends to determine the status of the other variable in the society at large. If cultural traditionalist collectivists have control, the society will be collectivist and will tend to be preserve cultural traditions. If progressive collectivists have control, the society will be collectivist and tend towards classlessness and egalitarianism and all that. Both types of collectivists will use the power of the government to shape the society according to their idealology.

However, if individualists have control (that almost sounds like an contradiction), the choice of cultural traditionalism or progressivism will not be decided through government coercion but through persuasion, and people (or counties, or states, or whatever entity the decision is devolved down to) can decide for themselves how they'll redistribute their wealth and how they'll relate to people of other races and so forth.

In this case, the one variable does not guarantee the status of the other for the society at large. Nobody's arm will be twisted so that some societal goal is met. That is what sets the individualist right-wingers worlds apart from the Democrats and Nazis, who have collectivism, with its attendant arm twisting, in common (though obviously to differing degrees).

167 posted on 06/23/2002 11:57:11 PM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: stryker
Who reveres the traditional institutions of America more--the GOP or the left?

The GOP.

Again, I challenge you to go to the nearest university and find a single professor of political philosophy or science that will agree with you.

I'll just let that statement hang there.

168 posted on 06/24/2002 10:06:16 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Yardstick
But tribune7 wasn't comparing the Democrats to the GOP, he was comparing the Democrats to the right-wing faction of the GOP. If you define the right-wing faction as the individualist, Constitutionalist, cultural traditionalist faction of the GOP, then his point stands, or at least cannot be dismissed without some further arguments.

Exactly right. Rick Santorum, Dick Armey, Tom Delay and Ron Paul would be among the first inmates of the Concentration Camps, if they weren't killed outright. Or the Gulags, for that matter..

169 posted on 06/24/2002 10:10:22 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7; Yardstick
Teddy Kennedy, Dick Gephardt and Slick would happily be offered, and accept, jobs with the new overseers.
170 posted on 06/24/2002 10:15:22 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Just wondering, as I am admittedly ignorant here... where does Enron fit in the political scheme of things?
171 posted on 06/24/2002 10:15:51 AM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Davis hired two political mud slingers from the Goron campaign to spin and protect him a year ago January when the power shortage started to dim his reelection chances.

Their first focus was on evil Texas Power Companies, evil GW, Evil Cheney. These became Mantras for Davis and all Rat politicians here in Kali during our blackout days.

When Enron collapsed, it became a perfect target to blame the problems of high electrical costs on.

So our joke out here is blame everything that ever happens to California due to Gray Davis on Enron, GW, Cheney and the evil Texas power companies. It is like the demonization of Nixon, Newt and anyone else in the past. Just show their picture, mention their name and then blame them for any problem. Their voting cult members feed on this.
172 posted on 06/24/2002 10:30:15 AM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: stryker; Meaghan
Socialism is a stage on the way to the abolition of the state--no government, period. That is the far left.

I believe Marx said as much. The question is how seriously you want to take him or can take him. The idea of the "withering away of the state" looks like a myth, religion or fantasy.

More moderate socialists pretty clearly thought that for the time being there would be more government and more regulation and control of the economy. Perfect freedom might be the eventual goal, but how it would be achieved was unclear. It's likely that the Fabians and Social Democrats didn't think it could be achieved in their lifetime. But understand too, that "freedom" in their lexicon had different meanings than it did in conservative or libertarian ones.

Revolutionary Communists often did have timetables for the arrival of pure communism. But it never seemed to arrive. There was always some enemy, some saboteurs or spies or subversives to be rounded up in order to realize the dream. I think they deluded themselves. Their concepts were vague and elastic enough that even the worst of tyrannies might proclaim that the stateless, utopian future was just around the corner.

What I'm headed to is the idea that socialism was a more complex idea than nationalization of industry in the ostensible pursuit of utopian freedom. Look to pre-Marxian socialists and you'll find their communes organizing people's lives in great detail, for their own good. Marx tied socialism more closely to the philosophical and religious strivings of his own day for freedom and redemption from alienation, but it's not clear that this theoretical emphasis really affected the practiced of democratic socialism or revolutionary socialist dictatorship.

One could make a case that Nazism did have things in common with socialism. Certainly the tiny pre-Hitler party gave greater support to nationalizations and expropriations. The line about the Nazi party in power was that rather than nationalize industry, they nationalized the people. Of course, Hitler kept his hands off the incomes and investments of the industrialists, but there does seem to be some statist overlap or continuity between the Nazis and socialists. Not to say that they were or were only and essentially socialists, but they were both part of a more statist early 20th century atmosphere.

The political atmosphere a century ago was far more statist than what we see today. The Webbs, early fabian socialists divided the political world into "A's" and "B's" -- anarchists and bureaucrats -- and they, like many others at the time were emphatically on the side of the "B's."

Were the Nazi's rivals and competitors, the Bolshevik Communists, "true socialists?" Certainly Democratic Socialists would dispute this.

Was racism the distinguishing factor between left and right? Read George Watson on socialist thought of a century ago. It's always the belief of present-day progressives that their ideological ancestors shared their views on sex, gender, race, ethnicity, class and the rest, but it's not always the case.

Was Nazism devoted to state worship? Emphatically so. And yet, in the world the Nazis would have created, the actual, historical German state and its provinces would have been subsumed or submerged or dissolved in a much greater empire. Their devotion to power and to the New Order was paramount and unquestioned, but the actual state as it had been known would "wither away" in the new racial order.

For the record, I think Peikoff is wrong. He oversimplifies too much, and ignores things like imperialism and the the wars of the era that strengthened a non-socialist, rightist statism. But those who would deny links between socialism or national socialism are also oversimplifying. The horrors of the 20th Century have connections to long standing Western ideologies. Arguing that one side is completely innocent and all the guilt on the other side may please ideologues of one stripe or another, but it makes people ignore some of the lessons that we can learn from the tragedies of the past.

In the atmosphere that existed in the wake of the First World War and the Russian Revolution, even decent people with impeccable ideological origins ended up embracing one form or another of barbarism. The struggles of the age led people to one extreme as a means of defeating another. "Extremes" need not be polar opposites, though there's something in the human mind that leads us to conceive of them in that way when the opposition of each to the other is so strong

173 posted on 06/24/2002 10:33:25 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

Comment #174 Removed by Moderator

To: jodorowsky
political fantasy bttt.
175 posted on 06/24/2002 10:59:27 AM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: thrcanbonly1
Gramsci was a passionate opponent of fascism. Mussolini sent Gramsci to prison and he died under armed guard. Many of his writings weren't published until long after his death.

What you are discribing is the experience of many socialists in the years surrounding World War I. Mussolini himself, a socialist before the war, went through such an evolution. Gramsci and his other colleagues reviled him for putting nationalism above class-consciousness. Mussolini didn't need Gramsci to tell him what to do. Gramsci and others were commenting on what Mussolini was already doing and there was a rich Italian tradition of Machiavellianism for Mussolini to draw on.

Gramsci and Mussolini came out of a similar enviroment: early 20th century socialists and Marxists read Nietzsche, Bergson, Sorel, and other "new thinkers" and acquired, or at least encountered and explored, an interest in myth, the will and the irrational. Machiavelli also was widely read, analyzed and applied by intellectuals across the political spectrum. The national passions stirred by the war further influenced the thinking of the day. The conclusions drawn varied widely, though. Hitler was influenced by this mix, but at second hand. Later those who wrote about ideologies ignored the common soil of the era in which a variety of ideologies took seed.

176 posted on 06/24/2002 11:06:56 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: BillinDenver
And his solution was to ban all unions except the Nazi party's union, outlaw strikes, jail labor leaders and anyone who attempted to organize, etc. Sounds like a businessman's wet dream in America.

Stalin tolerated labor dissent? Brezhnev welcomed Solidarity? Hitler had much more in common with Stalin et al than he did with American free marketers.

177 posted on 06/24/2002 1:01:26 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

Comment #178 Removed by Moderator

To: freeforall
Socialism = NAZI (Hitler was a socialist)

An "Anti-Hillary Rodham Clinton HildeBeast" BUMP

179 posted on 06/24/2002 1:36:23 PM PDT by Pagey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stryker; freeforall; Tribune7; Yardstick
To Stryker:
The Nazis were not socialists despite their name. I have rebutted this nonsense so many times on FR I am sick of it.

Perhaps you need to take a step back to see why your argument continually fails.

Only someone without any knowledge of political philosophy could make such a claim.

So swathes of objective analysis must fall to your brilliance? Peikoff, von Mises, Hayek? Even Hitler his bad-self spent much time explaining his socialism.

The Nazis lay on the far right of the traditional political spectrum...

Your using a popular (mis)conception of their political position to justify your argument. Nothing inherently wrong there. But others here are merely arguing for the chance to change that popular (mis)conception.

Despite their National Socialist rubric, they failed to nationalize a single major industry, but rather nationalized the labor force itself, which socialists would hardly do.

I think your argument fails in at least two ways. What 'Socialists would do' could mean one of two things: either they adhere to the "true" socialist model or they adhere to the practical socialist model. "True" socialists argue in the theoretical abstract, because they claim "that socialism has never been tried". That is, all the socialistic experiments (and failures) to date, all the death and destruction wrought in the name of socialism, are meaningless, because the practitioners were faulty (i.e., human). I don't think most people are willing to give the socialists a bye on this. To claim that the Nazis weren't "true" socialists is a meaningless argument, because no regime to date has been "true".

In practical terms, socialism has meant government control, or totalitarianism, in the name of the Collective. Now the form of the Collective, be it State, Race, Community, Society, the Proletariat, or what have you, is, I submit, a minor point, because, in the end, it is simply a rationalization for obtaining control.

On the contrary, socialism lay at the far left of the traditional spectrum, where the traditional institutions of the dominant culture are intentionally weakened in an effort to strike against institutionalized racism and sexism and the major industries are nationalized while the workers are free to unionize and direct the operation of the nationalized industries. This is what we find happening in the United States slowly, but with a powerful counter movement toward fascism.

Statements like this come right out of the leftist handbook. They are just so much nonsense. Virtually every major concept presented therein is fraught with definitional and conceptual problems. And because you present it uncritically, one is left to wonder as to your true motives.

Both directions mean the loss of freedom.

It is, as many have pointed out, the same direction, towards totalitarianism.

Who reveres the traditional institutions of America more--the GOP or the left? Whichever does is closer to the Nazi party, however marginally. Who desires to change the traditional institutions of America in the name of combatting racism and promoting pluralism, creating a classless society? Whoever does is closer to the socialists. You've got to do the study time if you want to be able to write on this stuff with any accuracy. You are dealing in a social science where certain terms have very specific meanings to the people within that discipline. Again, I challenge you to go to the nearest university and find a single professor of political philosophy or science that will agree with you.

Um, whoever is a Constitutionalist is closer to a Nazi?? This is nonsense.

By whose definition do you argue? Even Marxists and Leninist theory disagree as to your assertions. And by simple extension of your definitions, since no one has ever implemented socialism, then the Russian, Chinese, German, Cambodian, etc. experiments weren't socialism. And the resulting 100 million dead can't be laid at their door steps. And if wasn't socialism, it must have been totalitarianism and therefore a crime of the right? More nonsense!

jodorowsky wrote: Coca Cola appeals to the desire to transform society into a timeless stasis where there is "Always Coca-Cola", while Pepsi is the choice of the new generation who align themselves with the joy of cola in and of itself.

While you professed ignorance as to jodorowsky's point, it remains. Just because 2 entities claim they are wholly different and their proponents claim they are wholly different, does NOT, in fact, make them wholly different.

The ultimate aim of socialism is the abolition of the state by reaching the stage of communism, when the state withers away to a mere administrative body, there being so much surplus production and so little class distinction that no organized force is necessary and therefore no state in the classical sense.

Yes and No. While Marxist and Leninist theory hold generally the same end point, it is widely recognized that they are describing communism. Think of it another way: Socialism (control) is the means to the end (communism).

Fascism on the other hand, raises the state, as the epitome of the character of its' people to the level of a God, to be worshipped, as was Hitler in his role as the Fuhrer, or leader. The state is associated with various religious symbols that take on mystical proportions such as the swastika and the devil’s head of the SS. Class distinctions are not only maintained, but are emphasized to the point of open classism and racism.

No difference so far with the soviet or maoist models...;-)

You can argue all you want, but walk into any university in the United States and ask any professor of political philosophy whether German national socialism was in any way socialism and leftist and you will hear the same answer I am giving you.

Circular logic, my dear boy. Ask any communist if the Nazis were communist? Always good for a laugh, but meaningless.

You quote to me a critic of socialism to prove that the Nazi's were socialists! What kind of proof is this!

Pretty good proof, actually, if it adheres to the Objectivist reality that you claim to believe. But if critics of socialism won't cut it for you, then the Nazis themselves must be good proof, because they claim they are socialists and use much ink to explain how and why. In the current environment, for socialists (or by your apparent definition, communists) to deny Nazism is clearly no proof that the Nazis weren't socialists.

You claim I am giving you superficial differences. Well, let me make it clear then. Socialism is a stage on the way to the abolition of the state--no government, period. That is the far left. Nazism is the organization of the state into a form that is to be worshipped for the purpose of raising one race of people above all others--that is the far right. On one hand there is no government, on the other the government assumes the role of God. That is the theoretical difference.

You're close. Socialism is the means to achieve communism (the end of the state). Communism is far left. Socialists often think they are not quite so far left. But because socialism leads relentlessly to totalitarianism, it is far left in reality. And Nazism, because it leads to the same end state and uses virtually the same means as the socialists to achieve it, is logically, far left as well.

Practically, the Nazi's did not nationalize a single industry.

Read the article: It is a difference without meaning in this context.
180 posted on 06/24/2002 2:27:02 PM PDT by My Identity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: BillinDenver
Stalin and Brezhnev did NOT allow the wealthy industrialists and landed gentry to keep their private wealth. On THIS score, Hitler is much closer to American free marketers than Communists or Socialists.

Hitler allowed the industrialists to keep their wealth, provided that they did his bidding. This was a state regulated economy where the penalty was death. It has nothing to do with a free market system. In virtually every way, it is similar to the soviet model. Per the article:
It is a difference without meaning in this context.
181 posted on 06/24/2002 2:50:35 PM PDT by My Identity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: BillinDenver
When I was young the traditional comparsion of isms was inculcated in me, probably through my public school.

This well-know comparison can be -- forgive the poor use of html -- graphed:

Nazi .....US . . ..Communism

I have since come to understand that a better comparision is

Anarchy . . .US . . . . . Totalitarian

Of course totalitarians includes Communists and Nazis.

You can play games with the shades of meanings of words, especially if they are redefined in an Orwellian fashion. The eugenics movement renamed itself Planned Parenthood when the Nazis made the first word unfashionable.

The Nazis and the Communists both put the state ahead of the individual. American Constitutionalism puts the individual first and declares the state to be a servant -- one which must be constantly watched.

I agree that free-marketers are very cool towards unions. But they are also cool towards corporate ogilopies and monopolies.And I agree 100 percent that there are a lot of capitalists who don't believe in the free market and are a-holes in general.

182 posted on 06/24/2002 3:38:12 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: My Identity
Great post
183 posted on 06/24/2002 3:38:38 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

Comment #184 Removed by Moderator

To: BillinDenver
The free-market and Nazis is a contradiction in terms. You can't compare them without seriously miscontruing one or both.

Near as I can tell, totalitarian means left-wing. The communists, socialists, collectivists, fascists, and nazis all treat dissent in the same fashion. If you have read the posts in this thread, you'll see Hitler was a socialist.
185 posted on 06/24/2002 4:19:21 PM PDT by My Identity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: BillinDenver
BillinDenver, you wrote in your #174:
And [Hitler's] solution was to ban all unions except the Nazi party's union, outlaw strikes, jail labor leaders and anyone who attempted to organize, etc. Sounds like a businessman's wet dream in America.

But a businessman's wet dreams don't define an economic system. The actions of those who are overseeing the system determine what sort of system it is. A businessman can dream all he wants about getting the government to unfairly gang up with him against his employees and his competitors, but in a capitalist system those dreams will remain unfulfilled. Capitalism is about the separation of business and the state, not their collusion. The fact that Hitler was willing to hop in bed with the big industrialists is proof that he wasn't a capitalist.

In your #178 you wrote:

However, Stalin and Brezhnev did NOT allow the wealthy industrialists and landed gentry to keep their private wealth. On THIS score, Hitler is much closer to American free marketers than Communists or Socialists.

True, I guess. But doesn't this really just serve to prove how flaky and far-out the the Soviet communists were? Hitler had a silly mustache but at least he allowed business owners to keep their businesses. And there is still a profound difference between Hitler and the American free marketers. In the US, business owners have a right to the wealth they create; in Nazi Germany their wealth could be taken from them if the Fuhrer willed it, since, according to Ernst Huber,

The authority of the Fuhrer is not limited by checks and controls, by special autonomous bodies or individual rights, but it is free and independent, all-inclusive and unlimited.

Capitalism requires a limited government.

You wrote:

And American free marketers haven't been very kind to organized labor historically either. Up until striking was made legal in the 30's, strikes were frequently suppressed with private police or National Guard units.

Well, being a free marketer -- and being consistent about it -- means believing in a free labor market, too. Workers are free to strike and employers are free to fire them for striking, but forcing your workers to get back to work is about as anti free market as it gets. In a capitalist system you can no more force people to work for you than you can force people to buy your product. So it seems to be a bit of a strawman to call these guys free marketers in regards to their dealings with labor, which they clearly were not, and then to compare them with Hitler (plus, by the time WWII rolled around, the US had pretty much seen the end of violent strike-breaking).

186 posted on 06/24/2002 4:50:04 PM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Yardstick
bump

187 posted on 06/24/2002 5:22:36 PM PDT by My Identity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: My Identity; stryker
Thanks for a graet post.Stryker asked for profs who would agree with the proposition before us, well here we go.

Kenneth H. W. Hilborn {Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Western Ontario, Kenneth Hilborn's primary field of specialization is 20th Century international relations with an emphasis on the impact of ideologies. During the Cold War, he wrote extensively on international issues for newspapers and anti-Communist periodicals. He reported from Australia, Berlin, Cyprus, Nationalist China (Taiwan and Quemoy), southern Africa and Southeast Asia (including South Vietnam). For several years, his book reviews appeared from coast to coast in Canadian newspapers of the Thomson chain.

Professor Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), was the outstanding representative of the so-called "Austrian School" of economics. He was world-renowned for his research, writing, and teaching, and long served as a member of the staff of The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE).

Publication of The Theory of Money and Credit in 1912 won him early recognition as one of Europe's foremost economists. Among his many other books and articles, one of his most important contributions is his Socialism, first published in 1922. However, he is best known for his work published in the United States, notably Omnipotent Government (1944), Bureaucracy (1944), Planned Chaos (1947), Human Action (1949), Planning For Freedom (1952), The Anti-Capitalist Mentality (1956), Theory and History (1957), and Epistemological Problems of Economics (1960).

In 1926, Dr. Mises founded the Austrian Institute of Business Cycle Research. From then until the Anschluss of Austria by Germany in 1938, the Institute was one of the centers of economic and statistical research in Europe. For more than twenty years, Dr. Mises taught economics at the University of Vienna. From 1934 to 1940, he occupied the chair of International Economic Relations at the Graduate Institute of International Studies at Geneva, Switzerland. He lectured as a guest at various universities and institutions in Great Britain, the United States, Italy, the Netherlands, and Mexico.

Professor Walter Block {Professor Walter Block, formerly senior economist with the Fraser Institute in Vancouver, and recently-past professor of economics at College of the Holy Cross in Worcester Massachusetts, is now chair of the Department of Economics and Finance at the University of Central Arkansas in Conway Arkansas.

How many more do I need or is their a magic number to be valid?

188 posted on 06/24/2002 5:54:20 PM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: freeforall
Interesting and related post:
Orwell, words, politics and the war for freedom

A small quote:
189 posted on 06/24/2002 6:10:13 PM PDT by My Identity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: My Identity
An intelligent reply. My problems with it are these. First, you are trying to impose a new definition of the left and the right on a social science that has always defined the left and the right based upon the liberal/conservative split that developed around the writings of John Locke and Edmund Burke. I agree with most everything you wrote when imposing this new paradigm, where the power of the state is measured to the left, and its' diminishing power is considered moving to the right. But that is not the historical model. No one knows what you are talking about without first making clear that you have changed paradigms from what is generally accepted to one that is used primarily by libertarians.

Second, the new paradigm that you use is not sufficient to distinguish between fascism and socialism. While both may result in omnipotent states, there are very real differences between the two that must be taken into account; differences that are best explained based on the classical left/right spectrum. In the case of fascism, there is in fact no nationalization of industry. It remains in private hands, and slave labor is provided by the state to the profit of individual owners of the means of production. Additionally, differences between the populace are accentuated: the state promotes racism and intolerance and promotes a supposedly superior, indiginous people to an elevated position over all others. These are not theoretical matters. They are actual acts that fascism has shown itself to do. Additionally, fascism raises the symbols of nationalism, usually adding new ones, but nevertheless symbols that revere the traditions of the fascist society, to the level of worship. Do not fool yourself that there was anything Christian about Hitler's Germany. One worshipped the State and the Fuhrer, and could be shot for worshipping "that Jewish bastard," quoting Hitler.

On the other hand, socialist societies have nationalized the land and industries of the countries in which socialists have come to power. They have vastly expanded the rights of women and minorities within those societies, and have entered upon programs of forced equality of the sexes, races, etc. I'm sure you saw FOX's coverage of the school's for women and the minority tribe's in Afghanistan set up under the socialist government that once existed there. Again, these are actions that really occur and are different from actions that occur under fascism.

Now here is where you do make a serious mistake and why this issue is so important. You state basically that the works of Marx and Lenin are synonomous. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is here that libertarians must be very aware of the distinctions between the left and right on the classical scale. Marx wrote that the western industrial democracies would evolve into socialism and then into communism. He also developed the idea that overproduction by those countries would lead to colonialism and periodic wars when the international markets would be redistributed between those industrialized countries. With his involvement in the First International, Marx tentatively wrote that it might be possible for a colony or third world country during a war for national liberation to skip the capitalist stage and move directly to forced socialism if a dedicated cadre of communist party members could be ready to seize power at the opportune moment.

Lenin, in his "What is to be Done," and "Imperialism, the Last Stage of Capitalism," took this idea and developed the actual technique and structure that such a party would have to use to seize and maintain power against the capitalist efforts to recolonize a country. Hence, it is Lenin that promoted the use of force by the state, other than democratic, to seize and maintain power by socialists, not Marx.

But this is very important to us as libertarians. If we examine closely current events in the United States, we find that Marx was absolutely correct, not the failed theorotician our masters would have us believe. What else is the new tolerance that we must all accept that states not only must we tolerate others differences and opinions but those differences and opinions are as valid and true as our own? What else is affirmative action and Title IX and abortion on demand except the evolution of the United States into a socialist society? What else is the redistribution of wealth through the graduated income tax and the welfare system than creeping socialism? What else is the erasure of our heritage and history in our public schools so that our children now know more about Pocohantas than George Washington and Thomas Paine? What else is the gradual abolition of our right to own and bear arms? And I could go on and on.

My point is that there is value in remembering the traditional left/right spectrum placing socialism with its nationalization of industry, redistribution of wealth, and destruction of the traditional institutions of a society on the left and fascism with its' nationalization of minority groups as a labor force, its' raising of a single race to privileged status, and its' not mere reverence, but worship of the traditional institutions and symbols of the society on the right. Through this paradigm we can measure how far we have moved from the center, where there is balance and safety.

I agree that in the end what matters is whether we are free. Therefore, a paradigm such as you use is very beneficial in measuring simply how far we are from totalitarianism, whether it be totalitarianism of the left or right. But we should also be very aware of which type of totalitarianism is the biggest threat at any given moment. The classical paradigm used in political science departments across this nation does that job well, and demonstrates that the danger comes now from the left.

My hat is off to you, My Identity, for an excellent argument. Stryker

190 posted on 06/24/2002 6:15:45 PM PDT by stryker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: stryker
My hat is off to you, My Identity, for an excellent argument. Stryker

Thank you for your thoughtful reply and kind words.

I will need to respond with a few comments on your reply a bit later.
But for now...
Best Freegards,
191 posted on 06/24/2002 6:31:57 PM PDT by My Identity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: stryker
In the case of fascism, there is in fact no nationalization of industry. It remains in private hands, and slave labor is provided by the state to the profit of individual owners of the means of production.

Do you think Sweden is a socialist country? Have they nationalized their industry?

192 posted on 06/24/2002 7:18:10 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Sweden, like the US, is in transistion, certainly redistributing wealth with an incredibly burdomsome tax system, but capable of going right or left, depending upon what happens in the rest of the world. I notice that the far right on the traditional paradigm of left-communist/right-fascist as extremes is having more and more success in western Europe as refugees pour into the area. Again, the traditional paradigm will serve us well as a gauge to see which way Sweden will go. BTW, Sweden, as a subject unto itself, is not a country I feel very knowledgable in, other than what I read in the papers. Enlighten me.
193 posted on 06/24/2002 7:33:25 PM PDT by stryker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: BillinDenver
And how many capitalists do you know want to be controlled by government? Hitler was no capitalist. He hated America and the conservative ideals she stood for. He hated free enterprise. He was the government and he wanted government to have complete control over business. Some people made money under Hitler for sure, as long as they did what he wanted them to. That isn't capitalism -- that's fascism.
194 posted on 06/24/2002 8:16:28 PM PDT by tabsternager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: My Identity
BTW, I forgot to mention that a strict constitutionalist would be a liberal. See John Locke's writings. Compare Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau. These are the philosophical writings upon which the American Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were founded, and they stand in stark contradiction to the writings of Edmund Burke. Burke was therefore labelled conservative and Locke, liberal. Hence, what we today call a conservative is actually an historical liberal, and is considered such in political philosophy.
195 posted on 06/24/2002 8:17:30 PM PDT by stryker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: stryker
Sweden, like the US, is in transistion,

Sweden is generally considered to be a "socialist democracy." The most dominent force in Swedish politics over the last century has been the Social Democratic Party. It advanced causes -- generally considered to be socialists -- such as nationalized health care, wage and price controls, wage and price controls, and a state-controlled agricultural policy.

The Nazis supported and expanded these things too, although many of these policies existed in Germany long before the Nazis came to power.

You could argue that the Nazis were not as dogmatically anti-free market as the Soviets. But they were still socialists.

196 posted on 06/24/2002 8:44:04 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: stryker
I forgot to mention that a strict constitutionalist would be a liberal.

I agree with you here :-)

Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1819
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party

---From Merriam-Webster OnLine.

197 posted on 06/24/2002 8:47:38 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: freeforall
Interesting article at Enter Stage Right on language and labels in politics.
198 posted on 06/25/2002 11:57:00 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stryker
Thanks for a good post to MI.I would agree with you that some of us are " trying to impose a new definition of the left and the right on a social science".The reason for this is to advance the notion that a political spectrum should include classic Liberals and Libertarians.This would show the contrast to the statists.

Perhaps the historical model of the left/right is associated with the self interest of those who preserve it in the ivory towers.

The problem I think we might be having is not so much one of definitions as one of the classification of concepts.Perhaps we are using an incorrect genus.If the proper genus were used I think we would then be able to agree on the species that follow.

Perhaps the genus should not be Socialism.Perhaps Collectivism should be the genus and that Socialism,Communism,Facism and Nazism are the species.The other contrast would be Individualism as the genus with Libertarianism,Classic Liberalism etc as the species.

199 posted on 06/25/2002 5:32:43 PM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Whether socialism exists depends upon whether the means of production has been nationalized. Either fascists or socialists in ascension or descent can practice mere progressive tax rates, price controls, favoritism in the marketplace, etc. Fascists do not nationalize the means of production, although they often direct the private owners in how it will be used. Nevertheless, the owners get the profits and the power that goes with them. The only nationalization that occurs is the theft of property from minorities, which is given over to party members as their private property. Most everyone seems to be getting this point now, and distinguishing the two forms of statism, but you are beating a dead dog.
200 posted on 06/25/2002 9:43:03 PM PDT by stryker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-244 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson