Posted on 07/08/2002 1:02:47 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
In the course of my radio interview with self-described socialist professor Robert Jensen of U. Tex-Austin, (7/1) he predictably referred to me as "right-wing." I responded by pointing out that as an American conservative, I believe in limited constitutional government where rights emanate from the creator, not the state. I contrasted this belief with those of Hitler, traditionally called right-wing, and pointed out that Hitler didn't exactly personify limited government, but rather the socialistic idea that the State, acting on behalf of "the people," is the source of all rights. I told Jensen that I would be proud to accept the imprimatur "right-wing" if he would acknowledge that Nazism was left-wing.
Jensen responded with the conventional assertion that the Nazis were right-wing because "corporate interests" supported them. This contention is worth examining. It is true that the Nazis, and other Fascist regimes were supported by corporations but not in the free-market capitalist sense. Fascist regimes granted monopoly control over specific areas of industry to select corporations in exchange for their support. The corporation, therefore, actually became a part of the Fascist government by forming a legal and formal partnership with the executive branch. Fascist Italy, for example, had an assembly of corporations.
This is significantly different from the free-market capitalist system where the corporation, as a matter of principle, is separate from the government and must compete on the open market. While in a free-market system the corporation has influence, and often too much influence resulting in shades of socialistic fascism, nevertheless the corporation remains private and without direct legislative power.
The merge between corporations and government, the hallmark of the fascist system, is actually corporate socialism not free-market capitalism. This system differs with communism in that communism abolishes the corporation outright. The communist government itself becomes the corporation with monopoly control over all areas of industry. Among the first orders of business for a communist government is the abolition or "nationalization" of all corporations under their control along with their assets and property. Communism also calls for the abolition of all labor unions, as the communist government itself becomes one massive labor union operating in the name of "the worker." Private property " is also transferred to the communist state which assumes control in the interests of "the common good."
In a real sense, fascism is not as radically left-wing as communism, but both are socialist in that both govern on the principle of "public ownership of the mode of production," the dictionary definition of socialism. Fascism isn't as far left as communism to the extant that fascism allow for at least a pretense of private ownership while the government, de facto, controls everything through monopolistic corporate combines. In this regard, communism is the more honest of the two socialist systems. Communism makes no pretence regarding private ownership, they own everything openly and as a matter of state policy.
The other old left-wing canard Jensen tossed out during the interview was that America was the most militarily oriented society in history. To understand the absurdity of this accusation, especially in light of the records of both militant socialistic fascism and an international communist movement that was, according to the "Black Book of Communism" responsible for the deaths of over 100 million human beings, a brief examination of Marxist relativism is in order. To the authoritarian/utopian leftist, anything done to promote freedom, whether it is defending property rights, individual rights, free-market capitalism, morality, the family, or national sovereignty is bad while "progress" toward socialism is good. Therefore, communists can militarily conquer the world, and righteously encourage unspeakable brutality in the name of "the people" while America, when assisting a government in their defense against international totalitarian aggression, can be labeled "repressive."
Moreover, if you diagram the Nazi party (economically), you have the Party/state at top, a group of "corporate leaders" in the middle, and the economy at the bottom. BUT, the Party tells the "corporate leaders" what to make, and for whom. All they get is a "cut" for following orders. Now, in theory, if you diagram communism, the state owns the "economy" with no middleman. But we know that is not true: in fact, in the USSR in the 1970s and 1980s, a large group of party "middlemen" called the "nomenklatura" did exactly the same function as the "corporate leaders" did under Nazism, and received "profits" (i.e., benefits) for doing so.
THEREFORE, whether in economic structure, or in avowed goals, there is virtually no difference between the two. The only difference comes in demonizing the enemy that is to be eliminated---in Nazism, Jews, in Communism, the bourgeoise.
Obviously Jensen does not know history and is a revisionist; this adage is one of the biggest lies told by the left. As for the fascist charge, the word Nazi in itself is a slang term for "National Socialism". Today animals like Jensen want to "nationalize" the economy and "socialize" the culture without the "nationalism" of feeling proud of your western and modernized country. In fact, Jensen and his new Reichists want people to feel proud of being in the "international" socialist community. So I would put forth the notion that they are INAZI's; slang for "international socialists".
In the US it is those rich business owner, poluting (anti-environment), homophobic, racists, etc.... that animates the left!
And the actual book, if you don't read it all, make sure you read chapter 10, "Why the Worst Get on Top", written before Bill and Hillary were born.
The fundamental premise of Serfdom is that Hayek had seen Austria, thus the German scene, a generation before emigrating to Britain (after traveling in the US). And that having seen the development of socialist ideas in Germany, he got an overpowering sense of deja vu in Depression-era/wartime Britain. That Nazism was indeed socialism, and that Nazism and Communism fought precisely because of their similarities. He pointed out that the Nazis, particularly, had an inherent tendency to what I call the "iron whim"--gratuitously staking out an intellectual position on a matter of no intrinsic importance and then defending it to the death. He also pointed out that socialism creates a veritable feast of centralized power, and that siezing control of that power was irresistable toHillarythe worst sort of character, those ruthless enough to make sure no one else reaches that pinnacle.
No actually, Non-Sequitur has a point and we are wise to consider it.
Then by your definition, excessive lawfulness (e.g., the Nazi state or Fascist Italy) is right-wing.
Or are both sides -- lawful and lawless -- both left-wing?
The Nazis really don't fit into the typical left-right schema, but the streetfighting against their competitors, the Communists, made them be perceived as a right-wing group. Social Democrats, and then Lenininsts, preempted the Left, so those who opposed them came to be seen as rightists, even if there were some striking similarities, like those that existed between Communists and Nazis.
There's a standard political spectrum, that fits periods like our own, or the long days of the 19th century, that really doesn't apply, either to the French Revolutionary period or to the interwar, post-Russian revolutionary period. You can find similarities between the Jacobins of the French Revolution and the Nazis, yet the former are seen as leftist, the latter as rightists.
What I get out of this, though, is that too much talk of "left" and "right" can be a distraction from understanding what people actually believe or want or know to be true.
The language is hopelessly muddled.First, because as Hayek noted, socialist-minded Americans used the term "liberal" as camaflauge.
And second because there are few true "conservatives" in America--all Americans favor change. "Conservatives" favor change due to free indivual action, "liberals" favor change in laws for the actual purpose of aggrandising power to themselves, irrespective of any benefit or harm to we-the-people.
Hitler followed the same game plan. He openly acknowledged that the Nazi party was ``socialist'' and that its enemies were the ``bourgeoisie'' and the ``plutocrats'' (the rich). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler eliminated trade unions, and replaced them with his own state-run labor organizations. Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler hunted down and exterminated rival leftist factions (such as the Communists). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler waged unrelenting war against small business.
Hitler regarded capitalism as an evil scheme of the Jews and said so in speech after speech. Karl Marx believed likewise. In his essay, ``On the Jewish Question,'' Marx theorized that eliminating Judaism would strike a crippling blow to capitalist exploitation. Hitler put Marx's theory to work in the death camps.
The Nazis are widely known as nationalists, but that label is often used to obscure the fact that they were also socialists. Some question whether Hitler himself actually believed in socialism, but that is no more relevant than whether Stalin was a true believer. The fact is that neither could have come to power without at least posing as a socialist. A Little Secret About the Nazis
Joseph Goebbels own words: "Those Damn Nazis", long German propaganda piece defining intent and meaning of the Nazi's....National, Socialists....left-wing, "third way.".
If a Communist shouts "Down with nationalism!", he means the hypocritical bourgeois patriotism that sees the economy only as a system of slavery. If we make clear to the man of the left that nationalism and capitalism, that is the affirmation of the Fatherland and the misuse of its resources, have nothing to do with each other, indeed that they go together like fire and water, then even as a socialist he will come to affirm the nation, which he will want to conquer.
That is our real task as National Socialists. We were the first to recognize the connections, and the first to begin the struggle. Because we are socialists we have felt the deepest blessings of the nation, and because we are nationalists we want to promote socialist justice in a new Germany.
A young Fatherland will rise when the socialist front is firm.
Socialism will become reality when the Fatherland is free.
See also:
Socialist Origins of Neo-Nazi-ism
You Mean Hitler Wasn't a Priest?
All Socialism is National.
Silly - very silly - Sparta, and more appropriately Switzerland spring instantly to mind. I’m sure it would be very easy to come up with a long list of other nations if anyone wants to give it a little thought.
Yes but a major cost of our military is payroll for a very professional military. If we adopted the communistic/third world way, of relying on very low paid, highly-expendable draftees. Then our costs would be much less.
But I think that the real test of how militaristic a society is not the GDP, but the percentage of population in the military(or having been in). For example Israel and Switzerland have a much higher percentage of their population in the military. And the authority the military has over other aspects of society. For example can Army Generals veto election results??? In many nations they can.
Although anarchy always finds it self contrary to government regulating policies(the dominant left wing position), anarchy can be left wing.
There is a difference between left wing anarchists and right wing anarchists. Right wing anarchists, such as militias and what not, oppose goverenmnet control to leave the individual more freedom and to act on his own accord.
Left wing anarchists or utopians, believe that the proletariot can share the means of production without government intervention. Although this is supposedly the aim of the communists, leftwing anarchists prefer to establish their aims without the "dictatorship of the proletariot".
A rational mind would probably rule out left wing anarchism, as a serious political establishment, with about 30 seconds worth of thought. Which is probably why communists never succeed in "withering away the state"
It's no accident that as the size of the government, most especially the Federal one, has grown, the number of producers in given market has shrunk. When I was in high school we had the Big 4 automakers, and not long before that we had the Big 3 and serval little guys, now we have the Big 2, plus foreign owned companies. Will Chrysler go the way of American Motors? I wouldn't be too surprised it it did, even though the Germans are better managers and engineers than the French ever thought of being. (Renault bought American Motors. Have you seen a Rambler, Javelin, Marlin, Hornet or Gremlin lately? Or even a Renault for that matter?)
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.