Skip to comments.Socialism = NAZI (Hitler was a socialist)
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.
Main Entry: so·cial·ism Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m Function: noun Date: 1837 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
Main Entry: col·lec·tiv·ism Pronunciation: k&-'lek-ti-"vi-z&m Function: noun Date: 1857 : a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control.
The only thing Hitler advocated was obedience to the furher all others ideas were subordinate to that.
"He advocated racism over racial tolerance,(like Stalin?) eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist." This is what he really advocated.
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. "
Thus the USSR wasn't socialist either; everything was owned by the State, specifically Party members acting in the name of the State, and more accurately, Stalin. Not "the workers".
Same goes for Cuba. Effectively, everything is owned by Castro, not "the workers".
In fact no country has ever been or will ever be "socialist" if we insist on the definition you put forth. But then it can't be a very useful definition, can it? Especially since millions of people call themselves "socialists" and some of them get in power and do certain things while still insisting they are "socialists". Clearly there must be a better definition, one which actually covers the actual people who are de facto socialists by their own light.
private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state.
What is a "private capitalist individual"? Is that the same thing as "person"? If so, then we can make that replacement, and also replace the word "Nazi" by the word "Communist", and we get an equally good characterization of the USSR. Which, therefore, also "wasn't really socialist".
Again, it's a useless definition under which nothing is "really" socialist.
True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic.
Ah, "true" socialism! And socialism is based on what it "advocates"! So in the USSR the Communist party "advocated" ownership by "the workers" and pretended to be "democratic". The fact that in reality they (and not "the workers") simply controlled everything, and were not "democratic" at all, doesn't matter. They were socialist because of what they "advocated", while being fascist. Since Hitler had almost the same system, but didn't pay as much lip service to "the workers", he's not socialist at all! In fact, the opposite! I think I understand now, it's what they say, not what they do, which makes them "socialist".
Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance,
And what does this have to do with being on the right? How "tolerant" was Stalin of Ukrainians? How "tolerant" is Castro of blacks? How "tolerant" is Mugabe of whites? I guess all of these guys are on the right?
eugenics over freedom of reproduction,
See Sweden, as recently as the 1970's....
merit over equality,
Hitler advocated "merit"? Except for Jews, I guess. Stalin advocated "equality"? Except for kulaks, Ukrainians, other useless eaters, I guess.
This definition of socialism is becoming more and more detached from reality.
competition over cooperation,
USSR, Cuba, North Korea, they're all about "cooperation", don'cha know!
power politics and militarism over pacifism,
Ah, Mugabe that lovable "pacifist". Many here probably fondly remember Kruschev's (?) famous "pacifist" words, "we will bury you". There is also the wonder "pacifist" way in which the Bolsheviks rose to power using terrorism, slaughtered the Czar's family, purged people, and excused all form of murder and assassination because in their eyes "political terror" is perfectly justified. Gotta love those leftist "pacifists".
dictatorship over democracy,
So unlike leftists.
nationalism over internationalism,
Stalin, again, was so "international". That's why he had such love for Ukrainians. Not to mention Jews!
exclusiveness over inclusiveness,
USSR, of course, being so "inclusive". Everyone was "included" in the opportunity to be sent to slave labor camps.
common sense over theory or science,
By contrast the USSR advocated "theory or science" over common sense? Yup, that Lysenko.. such good "science".
What a worthless "summary". Does it have anything to do with reality?
I will bookmark your thread as it is well documented.
Hitler was not an Individualist.Only an Individualist could be opposed to racism since it is a primitive type of collectivism.The Eugenics Hitler was in favor of was mandated by the state, any one in favor of freedom would oppose that.Beacause some one favors merit does not mean they oppose equality but I think the equality you mean is outcome based.In other words mandated. (by the state I am sure)But here is the real crux of the argument.Hitler wanted to demand different things than the commies but they both bark orders and you must obey.Those who beleive in freedom don't want any master.
They were right-wing socialists.
The very distinction between "Right" and "Left" was a product of Enlightenment and hinges on the issue of equality. The Left believes in more; the Right believes in less.
A political system that would enslave entire races based upon genetics is hardly communist or left-wing. Socialist, yes. Left-wing? No.
Centrists favor selective government intervention and emphasize practical solutions to current problems. They tend to keep an open mind on new issues. Many centrists feel that government serves as a check on excessive liberty.
Libertarians are self-governors in both personal and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility, and tolerate economic and social diversity.
Left-Liberals prefer self-government in personal matters and central decision-making on economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Leftists tolerate social diversity, but work for economic equality.
Right-conservatives prefer self-government on economic issues, but want official standards in personal matters. They want the government to defend the community from threats to its moral fiber.
Authoritarians want government to advance society and individuals through expert central planning. They often doubt whether self-government is practical. Left-authoritarians are also called socialists, while fascists are right-authoritarians.
Copyright © 1995-96 Advocates for Self-Government, Inc. OK to reprint quiz as-is with credit to the Advocates. The Self-Government Compass is adapted from an original idea by David Nolan.
Hitler was pro-abortion (for non-"Aryans), pro gun control, and believed schools should be strictly controlled by the state. He supported smoking bans and speech codes. He had a goal to destroy Christianity. He supported euthanasia. He inisisted the private sector should be strictly regulated by the state.
I'd say he was a lefty.
even held friendly relations with the Church
Sure, just as our own Democratic Party does -- just so long as the church doesn't make waves and serves a useful purpose.
I see, so I'm right: there have never been nor will there ever be any true "socialist" nations. What kind of definition of "socialism" is that?
Well I agree that you would be hard pressed to find a socialist state. You usually find a mixed bag.
Okay then. Well you see, that just proves your definition isn't very meaningful. We're trying to discuss who is socialist and who isn't, and to what extent. You coming along with a definition of "socialist" which is impossible to satisfy isn't very helpful. My response is to nod my head, say "I see, thanks for the proposed definition, and you've answered our question - No One Is Ever Socialist. Now goodbye." and continue the discussion using a more realistic definition of "socialist".
[replace "Nazi" with "Communist" and description is equally valid] Well that is an over simplification. They were both totalitarian but they were also ideologically opposed AND mortal enemies.
You're absolutely right. They were both totalitarian, they were ideologically opposed to each other (as were the "Mensheviks" and "Bolsheviks" - both socialists, you will notice), and they were mortal enemies.
And they were both socialist too.
[[eugenics over freedom of reproduction,]] > > See Sweden, as recently as the 1970's.... ] See the US 20/30's
Agreed, another good counterexample. The US, under leftists like Wilson, and activist judges like Holmes, also had a strong eugenics movement.
[ Hitler advocated "merit"? Except for Jews, I guess. Stalin advocated "equality"? Except for kulaks, Ukrainians, other useless eaters, I guess. ] That's right. If you weren't a german it didn't matter.
Exactly my point - you (or rather, your quote) claimed that rightists advocated "merit over equality". But Hitler, as you admit, didn't advocate "merit" at all. If you were German, it didn't matter. Thus Hitler was on the left (since he wanted equality for all true German folk). I'm glad we now agree.
Let's stay on topic, we are talking about the politics of nazism. And btw they are NOT socialist.
Yes, they are. Quite a bit.
[ dictatorship over democracy,] So unlike leftists. Socialism not tyrants
I'm starting to understand. A guy can be a socialist, call himself a socialist, advocate socialist ideas, gain socialist followers, and then rise to power. But if he does anything bad or unpopular, then he's "not a socialist", he's "a tyrant", and I'm not allowed to use him as an example of a socialist anymore.
Socialists, apparently, can only do good and nice things. Anything bad done by any socialist automatically kicks them out of the socialist club. So you can never use any bad socialist behavior to discredit socialists. Only good and perfect beautiful socialist behavior. The definition of socialists excludes all bad behavior and only includes utopian behavior.
I understand now. What I understand is that it's a loaded definition, and a propagandandistic one, designed only to help socialists advance their cause. What I don't understand is why you buy into it and are promulgating it. Are you a socialist?
[...several times] Stay on topic.
You keep telling me to stay on topic. You put forth a list designed to prove that Hitler was on the right, I knocked down every item on that list by showing either that the claim was wrong or that it could equally apply to well-know leftists. That's completely on topic, whether you realize it or not.
Again, you go off to the USSR. We are talking about the NAZI PARTY and how they MORE resemble the FAR RIGHT!
Yes, and what you don't understand is that they don't "MORE resemble the FAR RIGHT", they more resemble the USSR, which is acknowledged to be on the far left.
And that's why I kept bringing up the USSR. Don't you understand that? Apparently not.