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.
What about European Socialists?
Yes, we are. And what I'm saying is that they don't resemble the politics of the far right more than the politics of the left. What I'm saying is that they more resemble the politics of the left (as exemplified in well-known cases such as USSR, Cuba, etc) than the politics of the right. Was this not clear?
there is a bulleted list of beliefs that quite simply illustrate that point.
And I shot down this bulleted list one after the other. Should I do it again?
now look at that list and compare it to the beliefs of the far right in OUR country.
Sigh. Ok let's do it one more time. Your list of Right vs. Left ideas:
* Individualism over collectivism.
Probably correct. However, Hitler was no "individualist". He saw and treated people collectively, in terms of their race. Thus, Hitler was on the LEFT on this issue.
* Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
Incorrect. While it's true that some segregationists might feel comfortable on the Right, it's also true that the Left is not "racially tolerant" at all. What gave you the idea that it is?
* Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
Incorrect. The Left was (and arguably is) quite taken with eugenics. I gave you an example (Sweden till 70s). Another example could be the Left's obsession with population control in Third World countries full of brown people.
* Merit over equality.
This one isn't even logical. "Merit" and "equality" are not mutually exclusive terms. The Right wants both "merit" and "equality" (of opportunity) to apply. The Left is only interested in equality of outcome.
That being understood, Hitler was certainly on the LEFT on this issue. He was not interested in "merit" at all, you see. Just equality of outcome for German (or "Aryan") folk.
* Competition over cooperation.
I would say this is an inaccurate characterization. It's true the Right favors (wants to harness) competition. It's not accurate to say the Left wants "cooperation". Cooperation with their dictates, perhaps. Not the same thing.
That being understood, Hitler was definitely on the LEFT on this issue. It's very hard to argue that Hitler was laissez-faire economically or that he supported a thriving "competitive" democratic debate, isn't it?
* Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
Probably true. But based on this criterion, Hitler, Stalin, Castro have to all be placed together on the Right.
So Hitler is on the Right on the same issue as other well-known socialists. This doesn't exactly help disprove the claim that Hitler was a socialist.
* One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
If "democracy" is used in the generic sense (everyone votes on everything) then this is probably accurate. Of course, once again I'd have to place Hitler, Stalin and Castro together on the Right on this issue, since none of them were actually "democratic".
Yet again Hitler is on the Right when his other fellow socialists are too.
* Capitalism over Marxism.
Of course this is a true left-vs-right issue. Hitler was far from a "capitalist" (meaning laissez-faire) however, and he was also quite influenced by Marxist ideas (aside from just the anti-Semitism). On this issue Hitler obviously wasn't as far left as Lenin, but still leaned Left.
* Realism over idealism.
Perhaps a fair dichotomy. But Hitler was very idealistic and very unrealistic (he had strange grand ideas and bizarre ascientific racial theories which he tried to put into reality by, for example, slaughtering millions of people). Yet again he belongs on the LEFT here.
* Nationalism over internationalism.
A true left-vs-right issue, this one. Ok, we can agree Hitler was nationalistic thus belonging on the Right. So are his fellow socialists Castro and Stalin (despite whatever rhetoric they spouted..).
* Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
These are almost meaningless feelgood terms. I'm not sure what this dichotomy is supposed to mean, in practice. Hitler was exclusive, excluding Jews. Stalin was exclusive, excluding kulaks, Ukrainians, heck anyone he felt like. I'd say once again the two socialists were alike on this issue, whether it means they were both Left or Right.
* Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
Dumb. This has nothing intrinsic to do with Left vs. Right. And for the record, I think others have pointed out Hitler was a vegetarian anyway, so are you trying to help prove Hitler was a Leftist or what?
* Gun ownership over gun control
Fine. Hitler, like other socialists, favored gun control. Next?
* Common sense over theory or science.
I'd say just "Common sense over theory", because there's nothing "scientific" whatsoever about Leftist ideas. Anyway, Hitler like his fellow socialist Stalin sure lacked common sense but he sure had his "theories". Yet AGAIN two birds of a feather - two socialists. Next?
* Pragmatism over principle.
I guess I'll accept this one, based on the idea that Right = conservative = pragmatic, while the Left has their "principles" which they stick to no matter how unrealistic. I'll even grant that Hitler was more "pragmatic", thus more to the Right, than Stalin on this issue. The reason for this is that he tempered or watered down his socialism so that business would feel less nervous supporting him and he could gain power. So he was a socialist, but a sell-out of sorts.
I guess that's why other socialists hated him so much and insist that his sell-out means that he moved all the way to the other side of the spectrum (which he didn't) and thus that he's on the Right (which he's not) - he looks like a Rightist if you're a disappointed true-blue-believer Socialist, I can imagine.... but to the rest of us? He looks like the socialist that he was.
* Religion over secularism.
Again, fine. Hitler was no believer. Stalin was presumably an atheist but at least went to seminary, and after all had the idea of creating that whole cult of Lenin.
I guess on this issue we find that Hitler was even further Left than his fellow socialist Stalin. Interesting.
So heck, on every single issue you list here (except possibly the ones which are inaccurate) we find that Hitler is on the same side as other socialists.
How exactly is Hitler different from socialists then?
What exactly were you trying to prove here?
Just like the socialist Mensheviks and socialist Bolsheviks were rivals. Or does that confuse you too?
Actually Nazism or more correctly Hitlerism (as he set the rules) was a mix of socialism, racism, and nationalism.
By Balint Vazsonyi
[First published July 15, 1997 in The Washington Times, under the title: "Behind the benign masks of socialism"]
PBS has begun to air a documentary series under the title "Russia's War: Blood Upon the Snow." Surprisingly, judging by an early segment, a belated exposure of Soviet bestiality under Stalin is on the minds of the makers. Belated, because the facts have been available since 1956 at the latest. Surprising, because American television generally conveys the sense - more and more each year - that Communists were martyrs, that the Soviet Union really meant well, and that anyone disagreeing with that view was either senile (President Reagan) or a pathological bigot (Senator Joseph McCarthy).
I must be forgiven for a measure of suspicion. It is not easy to believe that, of all networks, PBS would suddenly have a complete change of heart about Communism. I will therefore speculate about the real purpose of the series, with every intention of happily eating my words in the event of being wrong.
Not one, but two warning signals go off. The first is about World War II which, it appears, is a major focus of the series. There has been an unmistakable tendency in our media (culminating around the 50th anniversary of VE-Day) to chronicle the victory as largely the accomplishment of the Red Army, underplaying - if not ignoring altogether - the role of Britain and the United States. One wonders if our journalists ever visited the American graves, stretching as far as the eye can see, on the Western shores of Europe. One wonders if our journalists have heard of the Battle of Britain that broke the back of Luftwaffe, the German air force. That made all the difference for the Red Army, since the Soviets had no air force of their own.
The second alarm bell has been ringing since about 1994, when the Russians first put out word that they, too, were "victims of Communism." Could the PBS series, made with the wholesale participation and cooperation of the Russian Government, aim to hammer home just such a notion? Incessant references by the narrator to Stalin as "the Georgian" would point in that direction. Hitler, we are reminded, was Austrian. Yet, in 1945 and since, no one has sought to absolve Germany and Germans of their culpability. Not even the Germans themselves.
What harm, I hear you ask, can possibly come from the exposure of horrendous crimes, properly documented at last? The first concern has to do with the confusion already surrounding the word "communism." Technically speaking, Communism is simply the final phase, the ultimate goal of Socialism. In other words, it is a variant of Socialism. So is what we call Nazism. "Nazi" is short for National Socialist, merely another variant of Socialism. Stalin ordered Nazis to be referred to as "Fascists" only to avoid the obvious analogy with Soviet Socialism. Germans never were "fascists" - the Third Reich was ruled by the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Socialism, by whatever name and in all its forms, is the ultimate evil. Sooner or later, it destroys everything in its path: law, morality, family, prosperity, productivity, education, incentive - finally life itself. Portraying Stalin as the cause of evil puts the cart before the horse. Socialism creates the conditions for a Stalin; socialism creates the conditions for a Hitler.
Socialism was much the same before and after Stalin, before and after Hitler. In my native Hungary, a mere six months of Leninist rule during 1919 (years before Stalin) destroyed the national fabric to the point where its legacy tears apart the country even today. Socialism remained the same under Beria, Malenkov, Khrushchev, or Brezhnev. As for the murder of tens of millions, the torture and the gratuitous cruelty, they may have been ordered or sanctioned by leaders, but they were committed by people against other people. Russians committed them, just like Germans or Japanese. And Russia went on to enslave civilized nations with consequences we cannot as yet assess.
Yes, Stalin and Hitler, the prize disciples of Lenin, were twins. So were Communism and Nazism. In Budapest, when the Gestapo left, the NKVD (then GPU) did not even bother to change the building in which the tortures and murders took place. They kept the building, and the personnel.
Therefore, let us be clear about Stalin's role. He may have been top of the heap, but no "lone ranger." And let us, also, assess accurately the role of Russia's Red Army in the defeat of the Third Reich. Why did they fight? What were they after?
When Hitler came to power, Russia remained firmly at Germany's side. Such a tradition goes back many centuries, especially with reference to Poland - a favorite plaything of Prussian kings and Russian Tsars. Only after Germany's vicious attack on Russian civilians, as well as on the military, did Russian blood boil to the point of an all-out campaign. Subsequently, pursuing the enemy beyond their border provided feed for Russia's centuries-old appetite for expansion.
Thus, the Red Army was motivated by the triple passions of defending the beloved homeland, revenging unspeakable atrocities on its soil, and conquering fresh rich territories for Mother Russia.
By contrast, America's armed forces in Europe defended the cause of liberty for all. They responded to the suffering of others with righteous indignation.
Above all, they gave their lives without any expectation of gain.
On a Dutch forum a guy told me this:
He saw himself as a right/conservative. At a party he was refered to as 'ultra' right by some PvdA voters (PvdA is the socialist party in the Netherlands). But when he saw my posts, he felt himself a liberal/socialist.
You would be wrong to generalize about European Socialists based on one party that has never governed a country. Every mainstream European Socialist party has respected the democratic process.
On what grounds?
The evening before the election in the Netherlands, Wim Kok, prime-minister and PvdA (soclialists) leader, used the national tv to warn people of voting for Pim Fortuyn (LPF), Foruyn was a dangerous man. No evidence needed, he was dangerous. This was the second time he misused his position, earlier he used a cabinet meeting to send the same message. This was clearly a display of total disrespect for democracy.
Thom de Graaf (leader of the D'66, left-liberals) said that if Fortuyn would be in power, the Jews would have to hide again, like in WWII. This is a total lie, for Fortuyn is one of the biggest supporters of Israel and the Jews! Again, no evidence needed. Is demonizing and accusing people falsely to stop people from voting like 'respecting the democratic process'?
Paul Rosenmoller (leader of the Greenleft) wanted to stage an 'anti-racism' rally, using multiple organizations to stop people from voting Fortuyn.
Ad Melkert (the new and already stepped down PvdA leader, Wim Koks follow up) said Fortuyn was the strong man', comparing Fortuyn to Hitler! Is that how the socialists respect the democratic proces?
By demonizing people with false accusations, using the media in an all out effort to stop people from voting a man with an opposing view?
Pim Fortuyn was shot dead by an enviromentalist wacko, known in Greenleft circles. And even after Fortuyns murder the left continued the smear campaign, Paul Rosenmuller kept on refering to Fortuyn as 'extreme right'.
The socialists do not respect opposing views, those who speak out will be dealt with. Lies and false accuastions are amongst the arsenal of the socialists to destroy opposition.