Say what you mean, and mean what you say
who is chatting on SOLO ChatThe Free RadicalPopular contentWho's onlineThere are currently 7 users and 5 guests online.
PollWhat should the government do about ailing financial institutions? Nothing, except to back off and get out—as any Objectivist knows, intervention is treating the disease with the disease 84% Intervene judiciously—enough to avert a catastrophe that is otherwise imminent 3% Intervene massively—as it's doing 3% Nationalize the whole economy and be done with it. Bring on the USSA! 1% Something else (specify) 9% Total votes: 76
 Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
 Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
|
Socialism and Fascism Submitted by Leonid on Sat, 2008-02-16 23:43.
I publish the conversation with one of my friends. All comments would be appreciated
There are few excerpts from Nazi party Manifesto ( Twenty five points)
. Even the title ‘national-socialism’ attest this point: you pointed out the socialist element but you ignore the ‘national’ prefix, why? I wonder. If you are interested in the ideological roots of Nazism I don’t think you can afford such biased selectivity. It is the luxury of fanatics everywhere to “prove” their points by attending only to the facts that fit the picture but we can do better, don’t we? “ Well, this is an honest question and I thing you deserve the full answer. National is an adjective which describes certain type of Socialism. As you undoubtedly know there are many different kinds of Socialism-National Socialism, Marxist Socialism, Russian, Chinese, Cuban, English, Swedish, Democratic Socialism, Christian Socialism and many other Socialisms. There is even Islamic Socialism of Libya and Syria. However Socialism is the essence of all these political trends and qua Socialism it has only one meaning: subjection of the Individual to the collective, society. Society can be based on different foundations : blood and soil as in case of Nazism or class of proletariat as in case of Marxist Socialism or Ubuntu as in case of African Socialism and so on. The basis is still the same: sacrifice. Does it really make any difference for what one’s freedom, happiness and very life has been throttled- race, class, future generations or “common good”? Socialism in every form as Ayn Rand once observed “is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good” (For The New Intellectual, 43). And that belongs to any kind of Socialism. That why I think the “national” prefix is insignificant as would be “African”, “ Democratic “, “Christian” or any other. .“Hitler was very much eclectic and adopted a motley crew of ideas from various sources – left, right, traditional, quasi-religious and so forth, whatever served the cause; second, and quite disturbingly I think, you ignore the contribution of European right wing ideology to Hitler’s twisted world – radical nationalism in the sense of aggrandizing the folk and the nation were part and parcel of traditional European right wing ideology, as are authoritarianism and militarism and, last but not least, xenophobia and rabid anti-Semitism " Your second objection also deserves to be checked thoroughly .I think that it is a lot of confusion exists in left-right terminology. Today every body means by these concepts whatever he or she pleases and mostly uses “right ideology” as derogatory term without to attach much meaning to it. For example your claim about traditional European right wing ideology begs a question. Bismarck was typical representative of authoritarianism and militarism but he created first per excellence welfare State and, therefore, according to today standards he was left-wing. Hitler, self-proclaimed Marxist (I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit) started WW2. Nietzsche, for example with his rabid individualism and will to power, according to any criteria was right-wing but that what he said about anti-Semitism and Nationalism: “About the Jews, for example: listen-I have never met a German who was favorably inclined toward Jews…The Jews, however, are beyond all doubt the strongest, toughest and purest race at present living in Europe…for which it would perhaps be a good idea to eject the anti-Semitic ranters from the country….If a people is suffering and wants to suffer from nationalistic nervous fever and political ambition, it must be expected that all sorts of clouds and disturbances-in short, little attacks of stupidity-will pass over its spirit..” (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil 1974, pgs 162-163) So much for right wing anti-Semitism. However, as I previously mentioned, I think that this terminology “left or right wing” unlike Socialism is poorly defined and cannot be used in proper discussion. I think I’ve done my best to avoid further accusations in biased fanatical approach. If you think I’ve missed something and you can contribute to this discussion I’d very much appreciate your comments.
( categories: )
|
User loginFeatured BookNavigationSyndicate  The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
 Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
|
Socialism and Fascism-part 2
"Hitler was very much eclectic and adopted a motley crew of ideas from various sources – left, right, traditional, quasi-religious and so forth, whatever served the cause; second, and quite disturbingly I think, you ignore the contribution of European right wing ideology to Hitler’s twisted world – radical nationalism in the sense of aggrandizing the folk and the nation were part and parcel of traditional European right wing ideology, as are authoritarianism and militarism and, last but not least, xenophobia and rabid anti-Semitism. "
I think that by using the term “right wing ideology” you commit what I’d call historical fallacy-that is-you apply modern political term to the historical period in which this term has had altogether different meaning or didn’t exist at all. The political distinction between “left” and “right” originated during French revolution. By that time “leftists” supported Republic and “rightists” were royalists. Then “leftists” became “rightists” (in modern meaning of the word) - that is- creators and supporters of almost lazier-faire capitalism. The 19th century, when “traditional right wing” was ruling Europe was also longest in history period of peace of this continent-from Napoleon’s wars till WW1-almost hundred years! During this period the State anti-Semitism and prosecutions of Jews completely disappeared in Western Europe. Jews became equal citizens even in Germany. The borders in Europe practically disappeared, trade and movement were free and the idea of united Europe was born. So much for “traditional right wing ideology” as a root of militarism and anti-Semitism. This situation changed when German Statism was born. His father was Bismarck-the creator of the first in the history welfare State and thus by modern standards “left wing” politician-pretty much as today’s American Democrats. That eventually leaded to WW1. His ideas Hitler adopted, not “European right wing” ideology. And from the West Hitler adopted very much "left-wing" ideas of social Darwinism and Eugenics. Nazism arises in the period between WW1 and WW2. In that period the only European country which could be called “left wing” was Soviet Russia. But this country in that period was literally bloody mess. Only in the civil war instigated by communists (“left wing”) more then 2 million people were brutally killed. Thereafter in Stalin’s purges, in his concentration camps perished roughly 25-30 million people (nobody knows exact numbers- it weren’t any Nuremberg trial for communists). You’ve said: “It is only natural that something as big, at the time, as Marxist socialism and the Russian revolution will make someone like Hitler take notes.” Indeed, Hitler was good student. His camps of extermination had been first constructed and tried in Soviet Russia. After WW2, during “Cold War” the “Left” was pro-Soviet and anti-West. Every “freedom fighter” against capitalist or Zionist oppression was considered as “Left Wing”. That included cold-blood murderers as Che Guevara and Yasir Arafat, tyrannical Fidel Castro and many other sundry terrorist organizations around the Globe. Paradoxically enough Soviet dissidents who were fighting communist regime (for example Soviet invasion to Czechoslovakia) also called themselves “Left-wing. After collapse of Soviet Union and then September 11 Socialism and “freedom fighters” lost their appeal and today’s “Left” is just amorphic conglomerate of ecological, anti-globalization, animal rights, feminist and many other loosely connected movements. Their ideas, however, still the same: sacrifice of actual human beings to potential ecological threats, to animals, to landscapes etc… Hopefully they’ll never acquire the power of Hitler and Stalin. You mentioned that “Hitler was very much eclectic and adopted a motley crew of ideas from various sources – left, right, traditional, quasi-religious and so forth, whatever served the cause”- and that true. One can trace ideological roots of Nazism to Kant and even to Plato’s “Republic”. But this is theme for another discussion. Leonid.