I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other about the EU constitution being voted down by the French electorate. I have seen and heard a lot of sighing, sadness, back-slapping and whoops-for-joy as a result of the vote. I can't arouse an emotional response within me.
Just beneath Europe's egalitarian, socialist surface lies the bedrock of fascism, I believe. The caricature of the white-boy-Nazi-American-cowboy pales in comparison to Europe's practical experience with real fascism, which swept across the continent unabated until those cowboys showed up. Fascism flourished in Europe with the aid of a lot of accomplices, not just victims.
Europeans know this better than anyone. That's why their culture has become so tortured: obsessed with high-minded fairness, guilt and donning the mask of multicultural deference, Europeans do not strike me as secure with their self-image. They're covering their painful history as best as they can with EU paper. Quite understandable. Even their attempt at egalitarianism takes on the trappings of a utopian scheme, flirting with fascism. I really have no idea if Transnational Socialism and National Socialism are essentially the same kind of fascism, in different clothing. For all our sake, I hope not.
Europeans' close proximity to their sordid past of grand social experiments have naturally made them a bit touchy about their own identity. And maddenly preachy, to be sure. But for all their overwrought complexity, impotence and attitude, I remind myself that if their current egalitarian incarnation fails them, they can always revert to their time-tested fascistic roots -- which is never very far to go.
As I write this, it seems unfair to talk about 'Europeans' as though they are a contiguous body of like-minded people. They most certainly are not. However, the EU is a vision for a common European identity, promoted as a counterbalance to the United States. So group them together I must.
Europe by definition is multicultural. It always has been. It's a patchwork of abutting cultures, contained within a relatively small landscape. Their history is rich and bloody. Multiculturalism evolved to its current benign pacifist state on a staple of human catastrophe, over hundreds of years. Any European over 70 can reveal that multiculturalism, if managed improperly, has a severe, tragic proportions.
The EU experiment may be a victim of utopian overreach. It needn't have been: The EU could have concentrated on economic ties within the continent, and considered a loose confederation between sovereign states. It could've emphasized a transatlantic military alliance. The 'European Man' was the religious part. That's when the sunbeams supposedly cut through the clouds from Un-Heaven and illuminate Europeans as the Most Sublime Rational Ones.
This might be the period of history where overreaching meets backlash. Europeans can't muster the votes for constructing a mercurial European man, normalizing the continent with short work weeks and peace symbols; and American Neoconservatives may have over-stretched their idealistic commitment to spread democracy abroad. Idealists always overreach.
The lesson here might be that we are seeing history be history again: Expanding ideals that overreach followed by recoil is classic historical oscillation. No one's immune.
Whether or not France's rejection of the EU constitution puts Europe closer or further away from their fascist roots is anyone's guess. We should all wish them well, and hope that what has happened in France will keep the mask on a bit longer. Let's not applaud the mess over there -- the kettle's black on both sides of the Atlantic.
Ah, history. It always has the same refrain: "Gotchya."
which swept across the continent unabated until those cowboys showed up.
huh?
And what the heck is your definition of "multiculturalism" here? Seems alternatively synonimous with fascism, nazism and their current "soft" socialism, or in other words.. not very rigorous.
Europe is in no danger of fascist revival. For one thing Military expenditures are a joke. Essentially non-existent; and the pretend militaries cannot even stop killing in the Balkans much less anywhere else. Even tiny Serbia found the Europeans essentially useless.
The EU is not (dumb rhetoric aside) a solution to war-mongering or fascism. Germany and Italy are hard pressed to send any troops anywhere in NATO, their publics are profoundly pacifist and interested in living the good life, not military adventures.
The EU IS a resurgence of the old Catholic Heirarchy (pre-Reformation) or old Roman Empire elite. Given the huge lack of accountability or input ordinary folks have in the EU, rejection of things that take away what limited control or input they have with their own national governments is a non-starter.
Ive been arguing for some time that its the same thing, evolutionary stages and/or degrees of entry points into the same trajectory.
Ive been asserting that it is. the "Third Way" is exactly what it is.
Mousilini who named his flavor of Capitalist Roader socialism by the old roman facis he chose as his logo, was a socialist, who chided Stalin of not properlry folowing the doctrines of Marx.
Thats not to say that the progroms will return, I do think they are beyond that, as long as they tone down the intense nazi demogogery like Schroder has been using.
But somewhere on thje leftist autopilot to collapse, the bullet to the brain must replace the paycheck once it becomes worthless, which is part of the leftist failure trajectory.
Why not ? we told them so, and we was right.
But they laid the roots for this mess back about 1970
To futher illuminate things, Ulrich Speck has 3 items up with are a very probing political analisis.
the first item is on Kosmoblog and Parts one and two Of an essay he wrote for Chrenkoff that focuses on the task ahead for Angela Merkel. They are very good.
We didnt get gulags in Sweden and we wont see them reopened in Germany and France, this "Third Way" is the Friendly Fascism that Bertram Gross wrote about.
America dont seem to be diving into the abys that Mr Gross was warning about, we are in reversal mode, third way socialism probably died with the defeat of Al Gore and the lefts loss of power.
But Germany and France are in a roughter spot, and they dont have the Classical Liberal traditions that we do. They may indeed serve as the bad example, the big mistake that we avoided by throwing out the commie crats.
You dont need facisms name to have facism, what you call it is not whats important, its the ingredients that make it what it is. and the old roman axe surraunded by a bundle of sticks is totaly optional.
As for Mr Gross, a leftist was what makes leftism dangerous, the all powerfull goverment, controlling and regulating everything. the type of ecomomy, communist or Den Xao Peng/Hitler/Mousolini/Blare/Clinton/Schroder s capitalist Roader "Third Way", dont matter.
Its state power, the authority they gave to regulate your life. that is the danger. Its what makes leftism dangerous, because its just yet another excuse for a dangerous overbearing central authority.
America has a better idea, too bad more dont look to our example, they have certainly tried everything else. Its also a lesson for the American left, that wants to repeat their mistakes.
As for france, I think we should also think about the franophones obsession that i first noticed when they passed laws agaist using english words for computer technology. French words for our tech simply didnt exist, so they was using the english terms. They passed a law and a list of goverment approved words, it struck me as so 1984 at the time.
Here is another example, from No Pasaran
Excuse the google translation
Which is all about the Google Library Project and Google Print
Things like these really irratate the french, its just reminders of how our dynamisim and the freedom for the Google guys to do, whatever it is they feel like doing, is leaving the french behind.
Please, don't confuse France with Europe. It is what many French officials want. You are playing their game. Europe has always been much more than France.
JoeA
Well im not sure we are doing that ... the french, well, heh they are the french.
There are some common issues they share tho, like a large levithan welfare state, Germany Netherlands ..
I do like your Go - East vision tho, if enogh see it that way, those whos memory of the leftist iron boot is fresh could show the rest of them the way out.
Poland etc, and Angela Merkel certainly dont need any lessons on the evils of Socialism.
So I hope your right Joe, if they could get some traction with the Freedom message, who knows.
To see them turn around and start building a future instaed of destroying it would make every good and decent looker-on in the free world happy.
Hayek, a contemporary of Hitler and Stalin saind in "The Road to Serfdom" that socialism/communism must inevitably lead to fascism.
Once you start down the road of control you have to control everything including thoughts.
For the French, this is nothing new. Despite the fairy tale of resistance, a large segment of the French colaborated with the Nazis.
In any case Hayek wrote his book in the hope that the Brits would give up socialism. It took "Iron Lady" Thatcher to put them on the right road. Now they can see the results compared to France and Germany and the comparison is turning them more capitalist.
The rest of Europe knows what to do: they can read the economics figures as well as the Brits, but they are unwilling to give up their socialist culture.
But, for instance, Germany, (and Spain, and now Italy) are federal-like States. Regions tend to counteract the central power. France is a rara avis with its full centralized government, a total government. Cultural intolerance is a characteristic feature, in the other big European countries is not so acute. Moreover, France has a large public sector, and has fought liberalization in some markets, such as energy, unlike the UK, Germany and Spain. Moreover again, both french left and right wing parties are Socialist. It was so since before the Second World War. As a summary, France has many acute characteristics that are not share in the rest of Europe.
By the way, Fascism already exists. Check the Spanish regional Nationalists. Their ideology and actions fit perfectly in any treaty about Nazism. It is a fact that many ignore, but you can go to Catalonia or the Basque country and take photos, and study why the people of those regions support it. It is not a thing concealed in the History books, is alive and kicking.
Joe.
Thanks, I got a peep thru a narrow slot at that on Davids Medienkritik (excellent blog) and his coverage of elections there. As to the rest I must retreat into a claim of Ignorance.
As to turning things around, ya know, nothing is static, if your not growing your in decline, and the more they let things decline, the more difficult and painfull to turn it around.
Dependence on the welfare state is entrapment, and cutting it off is like tipping over the fishtank and watching em attempt to make it back to the lake on their own.
About the only way out is to cut taxes and regs, and let deficits run untill the economy grows back up to overtake it, and the longer you wait, the less viable that becomes too.
Which always makes it no time better than the present, because waiting for things to fold up will leave you in a state like Russia, who has a economy the size of Los Angeles county, and a long hard road back before they join the rest of us. a Robber Barron period to go thru and everything.
The hurdles sure seem high, how in the heck will there be political will to abolish socialized medicine ? that alone will block their excape.
I guess they can just free up the doctors and such to operare privatly and let the commie system wither, but thats gonna require the people accept reality. and support their politicos doing it.
Im so glad the USA didnt fall into that ditch.
M. Simon (#7)
Hayek, Austrian born classic liberal lawyer and economist, may have been a good candidate to write an authentic Constitution for Europe. If he should be French, then you have to go back to the 19th century, for Tocqueville and Bastiat. No classic liberals in France during the 20th.
Raymond (#9)
I agree.
how in the heck will there be political will to abolish socialized medicine ?
Be imaginative: try introducing private management in hospitals, and co-payment of certain drugs.
Im so glad the USA didnt fall into that ditch.
So am I, they are the rampant example that things can go better. The problem is that continental European peoples are isolated from America because of language, and they only pay attention to Socialist propaganda.
About the only way out is to cut taxes and regs, and let deficits run untill the economy grows back up to overtake it, and the longer you wait, the less viable that becomes too.
The spend and don't tax way. This fake Keynesisme is even worse than communisme as a way to organise the economy.
1. there was nothing particularly socialist about National socialism after 1935. It was a leftover name from an earlier period in the party. attempts to link social democracy to Nazism based on the name are idiotic - its on the level of michael moore types saying "bushitler"
2. Social Democracy is just that, an democratic attempt to bring about social change. Nothing fascist about it. And nothing particularly communist either - many social democrats, both in the US and Europe, were among the fiercest anticommunists during the cold war (of course some were not - the cold war split the social democratic movement in many countries)
3. For all the rhetoric about transnational socialism, AFAICT support for a European superstate is completely orthogonal to support for market reforms in Europe, outside the UK. In France socialists largely voted no - Chirac, OTOH, is a supporter of market reforms.
4. Market reforms or no, AFAIK there is NO significant call anywhere in Europe to move to a US type health care system. Nor is there in Canada. Of course many euro countries dont have "socialize medicine", except according the tortured definition used by rightists here. They have national health insurance - but privately supplied medical care - Canada, Germany, etc. Unlike the UK, which DOES have socialized medicine.
#10 The American way is used a doom scenario in countries like Belgium and Denmark. Places were the average blue collar worker speaks better english than most inhabitans of Los Angeles. Claiming that they are isolated from America because of language is simply foolish.
". . . their publics are profoundly pacifist and interested in living the good life, not military adventures."
Rockford,
No argument here, but did you see this item in today's Winds of War briefing:
ABU HAFS BRIGADES CALL SLEEPING EUROPEAN CELLS TO ACTION
What happens when the Islamists begin to meddle with the Euro-epicures "good life?" Sooner or later they will attempt to assert hegemony in Europe. They believe it's their destiny. What's your take? How will the Europeans respond? Will they bend over like the Spanish after 3/11, or will they get militant? or will they leave, like the Dutch?
The problem with utopian schemes is that they are often wildly reductionist-- kind of like this post.
Huh? So if this scheme fails, Europe will return to pre-EU bloodletting? Sounds like an EU pamphlet...
Most European countries have had Democracy for just a few decades. Note the following facts :
1) Spain was not a Democracy until 1978 or 1981 (depending on how you look at it).
2) France used the guillotine to execute people until 1977 (not 1877, 1977!).
3) The Berlin wall was up until 1989. People were shot dead trying to coss it as late as 1988.
4) France was not a Democracy unitl (I think) 1958.
5) Italy was not a Democracy until the 1960s.
Their ties distance from fascism is thin at best, and in terms of gaining traction with Democracy, they are only 40-50 years ahead of Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc.
By treating them as moral and cultural peers of the US, we give them far too much credit.
#12 LiberalHawk,
You said: "1. there was nothing particularly socialist about National socialism after 1935."
Actually there is. National Socialism, Socialism, and Communism all advocate central control of the economy. National Socialism does differ somewhat from the Marxist-Leninist theory in that there is no "collective benefit" from that control, but in practice Communism and Socialism deliver little "collective benefit" themselves.
You said: "2. Social Democracy is just that, an democratic attempt to bring about social change."
Sort of. Social Democracy is a political theory which advocates the use of democratic means to acheive a gradual transition from capitalism to socialism. In other words, use democracy to destroy itself from within.
You said: "3... In France socialists largely voted no"
This is largely due to the fact that since the economic conditions in Europe are NOT uniform, the French would have to take a step backward in order to level the playing field. Hence the "Polish Plumber" worry. The minimum wage in France is great for a Polish worker. So they are socialist, as long as it doesn't hit them even harder.
You said: "4... there is NO significant call anywhere in Europe to move to a US type health care system."
That's because it's not a socialized program... yet.
Bryan, for that discussion re: socialism and National Socialism, your best blog source may be our recent article on that subject - Germany's National Socialism
It also addresses a number of disturbing recent events in Germany that are directly on point to Cicero's piece.
I go back and forth on the characterization of Europe's default template as "fascist", though it also spawned Marxist-Leninism which is a distinction without a difference. Fascistic, aka. politicist ideologies have certainly been Europe's signature over the last century, overshadowing all else in their awful consequences.
And... and it goes deeper than that. Let me quote from George Egri, who suffered imprisonment among both Humgary's fascists (for being a Trotskyite) and communists (for being a Trotskyite) and sees little difference between the two. Instead, however, I'm going to highlight what he says about Canada, because it has a deeper reach and throws useful light on our subject:
LibHawk: nothing particularly socialist about National socialism
Thats bunk ...
As an example Salvador Allende
Nothing unusual for the CommuNAZIs of their time.
And what did Hitler have to say ?
And that without racist commitments his own political movement...
And Joseph Goebbels
And in policy, the limitation of income to a thousand Marks per head, the nationalization of trusts (business conglomerates) and department stores, agrarian reform, the confiscation of war profits, the elimination of "unearned income"
He implemented socialist program. Like Roosevelt, he provided employment by a much expanded programme of public works (including roadworks) and his Kraft durch Freude ("power through joy") movement was notable for such benefits as providing workers with subsidized holidays at a standard that only the rich could formerly afford. There was extensive compulsory reorganization of industry and tight party control over it.
This policy is broadly similar to the once much acclaimed Swedish model of socialism in more recent times so it is amusing that it has often been this policy which has underpinned the common claim that Hitler was Rightist. What is Leftist in Sweden was apparently Rightist in Hitler?
It might be noted that even in the post-war Communist bloc there was never total nationalization of industry. In fact, in Poland, most agriculture always remained in private hands.
There are of course many differences between postwar Sweden and Hitler's Germany but the point remains that Hitler's perfectly reasonable skepticism about the virtues of nationalizing all industry is far from sufficient to disqualify him as a Leftist.
The fact that Hitler appealed to the German voter as basically a rather extreme social democrat is also shown by the fact that the German Social Democrats (orthodox democratic Leftists who controlled the unions as well as a large Reichstag deputation) at all times refused appeals from the German Communist party for co-operation against the Nazis. They evidently felt more affinity with Hitler than with the Communists. Hitler's eventual setting up of a one-party State and his adoption of a "four year plan", however, showed who had most affinity with the Communists. Hitler was more extreme than the Social Democrats foresaw.
And what about the conservatives of Hitler's day? Both in Germany and Britain he despised them and they despised him. Far from being an ally of Hitler or in any way sympathetic to him, Hitler's most unrelenting foe was the arch-Conservative British politician, Winston Churchill and it was a British Conservative Prime Minister (Neville Chamberlain) who eventually declared war on Hitler's Germany.
Hitler found a willing ally in the Communist Stalin as long as he wanted it but at no point could he wring even neutrality out of Churchill.
Churchill therefore, despite his opposition to all socialist dictators, retreated eventually to the old wisdom that, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". But his loathing for both Hitler's and Stalin's forms of socialism is very much a matter of record.
In the European century that began in the 1840s, from Engels article of 1849 down to the death of Hitler, everyone who advocated genocide called himself a socialist and no conservative, anarchist or independent did anything of the kind.
Before World War I, socialists such as the novelist Jack London and the psychologist Havelock Ellis, saw socialism as leading both fortunately and necessarily to "the triumph of the white races over the black and the brown."
Hitler was not saying that he either was or ever had been a Marxist. From his first political activity, he had always been opposed to communism, but that was not because it was socialist, but because it was internationalist. Hitler, was a dedicated German nationalist.
Rudolf Hoess, commandant of the infamous Auschwitz death camp, recalled in his memoirs that even at the height of the Nazi-Soviet war of 1941-45, his colleagues had respected the socialist example of an exterminatory program based on forced labor.
The NAZIs had watched Russia fill mass graves with 10s of Millions in progrom after progrom for years before the first NAZI Euthenasia experiment took place at a German phyiatric hospital in 1940.
Mousulini, was born to two radical Socialist parents, wrtote for two Socialist News papers one his own, and came to power thru the Italian Socialist party, his logo, The roman facis, was his italian symbol for His flavor of national Socialism
On the death of Mao they brought back "Capitalist Roader" Deng Xao Peng from exile, and the "Third Way" Capitalist Roader Nationalistic "Socialism with Chinese Charateristics" is the Adolf / Benito invention.
Hitler's strategy for popularity was not lost on Stalin. Quite soon after Hitler invaded Russia, Stalin reopened the Russian Orthodox churches and restored the old ranks and orders of the Russian Imperial army to the Red Army so that it became simply the Russian Army and stressed nationalist themes (e.g. defence of "Mother Russia") in his internal propaganda.
As one result of this, to this day Russians refer to the Second World War as "the great patriotic war". Stalin may have started out as an international socialist but he ended up a national socialist. So Hitler was a Rightist only in the sense that Stalin was. If Stalin was Right-wing, however, black might as well be white.
Stalin showed that National Socialism could be used effectively against another National Socialist but it took Ho Chi Minh's regime and its Southern extension to demonstrate that National Socialism could even defeat the Great Republic (the United States).
That Ho Chi Minh was a socialist is hardly now disputable and it is also clear that he had Vietnamese nationalism working for him in his fight against the USA
Note that the Viet Cong were formally known as the National Liberation Front. Their primary ostensible appeal was in fact national, though their socialism was of course never seriously in doubt.
If nationalism is no proof of Rightism, what about racism? Does Hitler's racism make him Rightist? Hardly. The post-war exodus of Jews from the Soviet Union and the tales of persecution that they brought with them are surely proof enough of that.
Finally, it is clear that anti-Semitism was not a defining feature of Fascism. It was more a defining feature of Northern European culture. Both Mussolini in Italy and Mosley in Britain were Fascist leaders but neither was initially anti-Semitic. It is true that Mussolini was eventually pushed into largely unenforced antisemitic decrees by Hitler and it is true that Mosley was eventually pushed into doubts about Jews because of attacks on his meetings by Jewish Communists, but in the early 1930s Mosley actually expelled from his party Fascist speakers who made anti-Semitic remarks.
The contempt that Hitler had for Stalin and for "Bolshevism" generally should also not mislead in assessing the similarity between Nazism and Communism.
Leftist sects are very prone to rivalry, dissension, schism and hatred of one-another. One has only to think of the Bolsheviks versus the Mensheviks, Stalin versus Trotsky, China versus the Soviet Union, China "teaching Vietnam a lesson", the Vietnamese suppression of the Khmer Rouge etc. Similarity does not preclude rivalry
Look at the bloodbath between the Cultural revoluntionaries of Mao and the Capitalist roaders led by Deng Xao Peng, with the death of Mao, the Cultural revilution ended and Deng came to power, and its he that is the reason factories making western goods is the way now in China.
They still have their Gulags, called the Laogai.
As for the Holocaust, what leftist tyrant didnt commit holocaust ? mass murder was common to all of them, except for the man that gave facism its name, the roman facis, Benito. he had no mass extrermination program.
Hitlers antisemitism was only a minor part of his popular appeal to Germans. A seldom stressed fact is that there was nothing at all odd or unusual about a dislike of Jews almost anywhere in the world of the 1930s. Hitler was to a considerable degree simply voicing the conventional wisdom of his times and he was far from alone in doing so.
It was not just the Nazis who brought about the holocaust. To its shame, the whole world did. That part of the world under Hitler's control in general willingly assisted in rounding up Jews while the rest of the world refused to take Jewish refugees who tried to escape.
Hitler was not original in being both a socialist and a nationalist. The Italian nationalist leader, Mussolini, came to power much before Hitler and was even more Leftist than Hitler.
Mussolini was one of Italys leading Marxist theoreticians. He was an intimate of Lenin. He received his nick Il Duce (the leader) while he was a member of Italys Socialist (Marxist) party.
He even he gained power by essentially revolutionary means (the march on Rome).
After he had gained power, railing against "plutocrats" remained one of his favourite rhetorical ploys.
He was the first socialist to learn the lesson that Hitler and Stalin after him used to such good effect. Like Hitler, Mussolini allowed a continuation of capitalism in his country. (though the addition of strict party controls over it)
Mussolini justified this on Marxist grounds.
As with the Russian Mensheviks, it seemed clear to Mussolini that, on Marxist theory, a society had to go through a capitalist stage before the higher forms of socialism and communism could be aspired to.
He believed that capitalism was needed to develop a country industrially and, as Italy was very underdeveloped in that regard, capitalism had to be tolerated. What some see as Rightism, therefore, was in fact to Mussolini orthodox Marxism.
Mussolini held this view from the early years of this century and he therefore greeted with some glee the economic catastrophe that befell Russia when the Bolsheviks took over. He regarded the economic failure of Bolshevism as evidence for the correctness of orthodox Marxism.
Nor was Mussolini a socialist in name only. He also put socialist policies into action. Thanks to him, Fascist Italy had in the thirties what was arguably the most comprehensive welfare State in the world at that time.
That Nazism and Fascism are commonly called Right when in fact they were Right only in relation to Bolshevik "Communism" does tell us much about the dominant perspective of intellectuals in most of the 20th century.
But they are wrong, and to me, its just another one of the lefts Big Lies. the big LIE that Hitler was not one of their own wont fly. its a leftist rewrite and perversion of history that does not hold up when you study the actual record.
Colt,
Who says Third Way Socialism has to be bloody ?
(it has that potential, as all centraliszed powers do, and thats why they are dangerous)
But thats not what Bertram Gross 's Friendly Fascism/Third Way, we are talking about.
Political assasintions are targeted and done quietly etc ... Like under Benito, its inventor.
I'm talking about the reaction to it. Cicero wrote:
I'm pretty pessimistic about Europe, EU or not. But that sounds like the choice is between fascism or the EU. Quite a tough choice...
And a false one, too. If Europe descends in to the sort of bloodletting we're talking about, the EU will not stop it and may actually contribute to it.
Well, that though mankes my spine quiver too, and leftist radicals on a rampage show no mercy. there are none more dangerous.
But i think it will be a collapse like the Russian collapse, they had lost their willingness to murder, they had had their fill of blood.
We can hope that its also in mind in the population of Europe, and that a collapes will be not a Holocaust, but a fissle, like the collapse of the USSR.
That dont mean it wont be painfull, for millions and millions of russians, its not very much fun right now, that that it was any better the past 70+ years, but they still have so far yet to climb.
Jim Rockford: Europe is in no danger of fascist revival. For one thing Military expenditures are a joke.
Fascism doesn't require military expenditures or conquests. For many years before WWII, Oswald Mosley of the Union of British Fascists preached European unification - a Pan-Europe under the "scientific" rule of fascist corporatism. And at the same time he denounced war right alongside the loudest pacifists.
Mosley was a member of parliament, considered a major star in British politics, and was more mainstream than George Galloway has ever been.
Of course, Britain is not going to turn fascist. But Mosley was typical of a lot of elite thinking in Europe, then and now. Only in Britain did you have free rein to express it.
And apart from Britain, liberals (classical or otherwise) ought not to look on Europe with satisfaction. Free speech as we understand it barely exists. The European public is politically weak, and the parliaments they elect are increasingly weak - as de Villepin put it, "Thank God those people have no real power." And constitutional guarantees - what constitutional guarantees?
There are all kinds of unsettled things in Europe. There are all kinds of things that threaten to erupt. If Islamic violence there is disturbing, some of the reaction to it is disturbing, too.
The president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, says that the Dutch rejection to the European constitutional Treaty is "a victory for the freedom and the democracy in Europe" and questioned the legitimacy of the processes of ratification without referendum. Klaus, who frequently has criticized the Treaty, affirmed that the rejection of the text in the Netherlands and France reveals a "deep emptiness" between the people and the political class in Europe.
Sorry, I don't have the link in English.
1. Nazism involved central control? So, all dictatorhsips, and all war time economices involved central control. The fact is that Nazism left control of most production in private corporate hands. It did not advance social welfare coverage beyond what was in place at the time. It was in no meaningful sense of the word socialist.
2. Allende used to be an antisemite, and was later a socialist, and this somehow proves that socialism is connected to Nazism? First, not all antisemites were Nazis (I dont think Queen Isabella of Spain was a Nazi, forex) Second, and more important, what a person changes to doesnt prove anything about what they were before. Reagan was a trade union Democrat before he becamse a conservative Republican. Does this prove that conservative Republicanism is connected to trade union Democrats? Is neo-conservatism connected to Trotskyism? (Well Pat Buchanan thinks so, but I dont)
(BTW, Im not sure Allende was a true Social Democrat, I think of him more as a Communist)
3. Hitler said that what Nazism and Communism had in common was REVOLUTION. Maybe true. But Social Democracy is not revolutionary. He did NOT say that they advocated similar social systems.
4. Anything Goebbels said can be discounted. He was a lying propagandist par excellence.
5. Churchill was Hitlers biggest opponent, and im a big fan of Churchill (though not all his economic views) German conservatives, OTOH, generally supported Hitler, and in particular all the large industrialists did so. Hitlers biggest opponents domestically were all on the left, both Social Democrats and Communists. (the army became the center of opposition only after the Communists and SDs were killed, exiled, or imprisoned)
"The fact that Hitler appealed to the German voter as basically a rather extreme social democrat is also shown by the fact that the German Social Democrats (orthodox democratic Leftists who controlled the unions as well as a large Reichstag deputation) at all times refused appeals from the German Communist party for co-operation against the Nazis. They evidently felt more affinity with Hitler than with the Communists"
BS. The SDs were principalled opponents of both forms of totalitarianism. At the time it was not clear which form was more dangerous.
I would not that prior to 1933 Churchill also did not advocate alliance with the communists against Nazism. So your paragraph applies to WSC as well.
"That Nazism and Fascism are commonly called Right when in fact they were Right only in relation to Bolshevik "Communism" does tell us much about the dominant perspective of intellectuals in most of the 20th century"
if you go purely on economics, with full central planning on one end, and economic libertarianism on the other, the fascists were centrists - they didnt propose doing away with private industry, wealth inequality, or any other socialist goals. OTOH they were content to leave existing social welfare programs and state interventions in the economy as they found them, or expand them slightly.
But that misses the point. Economics was NOT central to fascism. Authority, tradition (sometimes combined with a militaristic modernism) , hierarchy, worship of force, worship of the nation state, etc were. In all those ways they were RIGHT wing, as right wing was used in Europe at the time. Sorry to break the news to you folks, but right wing and libertarian/hayekian are NOT synonyms.
Folks,
I was speaking loosely when using the term 'fascism' for Europe. As I understand it, the definition of fascism means it is a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government. It is genuinely arguable whether or not the EU is evolving towards an authoritarian form of governance. Europe's familiarity with authoritarianism is fresh, and repeated.
Jim Rockford is right to point out that a main ingredient of fascism is militarism, which is lacking. I meant that to be my point, though not stated well. The Europe that we have today might be leaning towards becoming an authoritarian hierarchical government, but lacks a military to make it complete. I think it is our saving grace with respect to contemporary Europe that tends to define itself as being a counterbalance to the United States, ranging from friendly competitor to enemy.
Can Europe unite under a single flag, with the force of arms? Maybe. Their socialist underpinnings are expensive, and prevent a serious military buildup. But things change. Crises can change that equation.
I find it difficult to refer to Europeans as a group. On some level, the idea of the EU confuses me, because it promotes the European Man myth, while somewhere within the European identity is the rich cultural heritage of the continent, which is also heralded -- presumably meaning that is good to be French, German, Dutch, Italian, etc. Personally, I think Europe is a geographical area with a few dozen cultures within it. The fact that we are generalizing them all as Europeans is their own doing. That's the identity that they promote.
I can't put my finger on it, because it is vague: Something about a Pan-European identity smacks of the whole Aryan obsession the Germans had. I know it isn't exactly analogous, because race isn't the factor; but they have a similar odor.
"I was speaking loosely when using the term 'fascism' for Europe"
after decades of the far left poisoning discourse by the loose use of the term fascism (starting with Trotsky calling Social Democracy "Social Fascism") you'd think we've learned something.
How about we all just use Fascism to mean, er, fascism. Nazism to mean Nazism. Communism to mean Communism.
If we want to refer to a Parliamentary system with a relatively high degree of elitism, and a relatively high degree of statism, lets just say so, alright?
If we want to decry Fundamentalist Christian influence on politics, lets do so without using the word "taliban"
If we want to criticize Bush, lets do so without calling him Bushitler. If we want to criticize Hillary, let do so without calling her Hitlery.
I mean, enough already.
"On some level, the idea of the EU confuses me, because it promotes the European Man myth, while somewhere within the European identity is the rich cultural heritage of the continent, which is also heralded -- presumably meaning that is good to be French, German, Dutch, Italian, etc. Personally, I think Europe is a geographical area with a few dozen cultures within it. The fact that we are generalizing them all as Europeans is their own doing. That's the identity that they promote."
I suggest you read some history of Europe. The middle ages, when Latin was the universal language of literacy. When most of Europe shared a common feudal code. I suggest you examine the history of Roman Cival Law (which DOES set Britain apart, of course - despite some efforts by the Tudors) I suggest an examination of Renaissance culture - read shakespeare, and note how many of his plots come from Italian sources. It goes on and on. Note that Newtons works were written in Latin, not English. So Europe could read them.
Whats somewhat arbitrary is the seperation of the US and the other anglophone settler states from Europe. On that both those asserting Europe, and many american conservatives would agree - the US is exceptional.
Most European countries have had Democracy for just a few decades. Note the following facts :
USA is a democracy since 68. Way shorter than Italy or France. Who's are both democracies for a much longer time than you say they are
and Canadian history is distinguished by the fact, almost unheard of in our civilization, that never has one section of the population burned and whipped another section out of their homes and driven them off to the slaughter house.
I assume the indians and the French Canadians think the same about this?
Can Europe unite under a single flag, with the force of arms
They did during the cold war so yes is the answer
liberalhawk: Nazism left control of most production in private corporate hands.
No, no, no.
The "corporations" of Fascism and Nazism were not private institutions, and publicly-owned corporations as we understand them barely existed then, anyway.
A Fascist Corporation is a government authority that directs (not merely regulates) a particular sector of industry. It is no different from the various Soviet ministries that served the same function. In Italy, the "Corporations" were in turn governed by the Grand Council of Fascism.
The British Fascist Mosley proposed that Britain (and eventually, all of Europe) be put under 16 state corporations, governing Coal Mining, Transportation, Medicine, etc.
Similar bodies would regulate Information and the media, education, labor, and so on.
The ultimate "Corporation" of Fascism is the State itself, in which all warring elements of society are absorbed and made to work in harmony - more in my Fascism for Idiots.
Thats an argument ? Leftism isnt the only reson for central control. the Tsar and Ceasar was central eh ?
But was they socilalist ? Was it mased on Marxist egalitarina thought ? was it the redistributive state ? or free market ?
Your clearly without an argument to be attempting that non argument.
Used to be ? later was ? your not paying attention.
No, but the National Socialists was, but, your point is ?
Thats a baseless assertion, there was no "change" the historical record proves it
When was Mien Kamph written ? Yes, and where, right, and he had Yet to even give his party its new name yet.
So was Benito, he was practicing orthadox Marxism in his view.
Again, pay attention.
He also saw the failure in the USSR, and rightly chose not to destroy his economy, he looked to Benito, and so did Deng Xao Peng.
Yes he did, with his modifications, different means to the same ends.
So far you have disproved nothing, and your overeaching for support where none exists.
As a less radical alternative to the communists.
It might also be noted that German monarchists were among Hitler's victims on "the night of the long knives".
His primary public appeal was always directed to "the masses" and their interests and his methods were only less Bolshevik than those of the Bolsheviks themselves.
And lastly you name two leftist parties that he sopposedly was no ally with (false) then use them as an argument that the nasis was not just another flavor of that THEY WAS.
Bzzt, total strikout.
And what would it mean to be "Right Wing" In germany ?
He certainly had no love for lazze fare markets and low taxes, he certainly didnt look back to the Kiser or the comic opera princes and the artistocracy, they was the Right Wing.
Look Ive made my case, you have none, nothin nadda, you advance obervations as exclusionary that are not, and are not even remote candidates to advance that point, if you could make it.
Hell, some of the most important leftist come form the pamperd idle rich children of the aristocracy.
Corportists and the feckless uber rich have been at the root of socialist causes since there was the socialist cause.
The only thing I have left to ask, in in the face of all, from where comes the denial ?
I argue that this is one of old-time Communisms most successful big lies and that the fact of the matter is that Hitlers National Socialism was RightWing only in relation to Communism.
Hitlers appeal to Germans was much as the name of his political party would suggest, a heady brew of rather extreme Leftism (socialism) combined with equally extreme nationalism.
Hitlers obsession with the Jews being a relatively minor aspect of Nazism's popular appeal.
Hitlers Jewish policies (as far as they ever became popularly known) were among his least controversial policies. The support for them needs no great explanation beyond a reference to the general attitudes of the times.
As far as the average German knew, Hitler was just running (yawn) a Pogrom. The Russians did it all the time, didn't they? It was Hitler's nationalist and socialist policies that were really interesting.
And the Democrat anti Communist Tax Cutter President Kennedy would be persona non grata in todays Commicrat Party
Reagan said he didnt leave the Democrats, he said they left him and they did, and lots of republican union workers object to their dues being used to politic against them to no avail.
Zell Miller, is perhaps the last of the old pre-commie Democrats ... He echoes the complaint of Reagan
It was the kind of people In the party that changed, not those whos party left them.
So thats all your arguments, none of them hold up.
And more importantly, not a single one refutes the detailed and extensive record ive laid out before you jeres and above. so even if they did hold up in some fashion, they would not change the virdict.
The middle ages, when Latin was the universal language of literacy
and the literacy rate was what -- one percent?
Methinks you overstate the pre-nation-state case for European universality.
At what point did they become totalitarian ?
Hitler stood for two normal elections befoe he was granted the referendum by the Reichstag.
Yes, Hitler did start out as a half-hearted revolutionary (the Munich Putsch) but after his resultant incarceration was able enough and flexible enough to turn to basically democratic methods of gaining power.
He was thenceforth the major force in his party insisting on legality for its actions and did eventually gain power via the ballot box rather than by way of violent revolution.
It is true that the last election (as distinct from referenda) he faced (on May 3rd, 1933) gave him a plurality (44% of the popular vote) rather than a majority but that is normal in any electoral contest where there are more than two candidates.
Britain's Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher never gained a majority of the popular vote either.
After the May 1933 elections, Hitler was joined in a coalition government by Hugenburg's Nationalist party (who had won 8% of the vote) to give a better majority (52%) than many modern democratic governments enjoy.
On March 24th, 1933 the Reichstag passed an Enabling Act giving full power to Hitler for four years (later extended by referendum).
The Centre Party voted with the Nazi-led coalition government. Thus Hitler's accession to absolute power was quite democratically achieved.
Even Hitler's subsequent banning of the Communist party and his control of the media at election time have precedents in democratic politics.
All they had to do is look at the Russian progrom, and the millions of murdered to get the support for that at a time when they had yet to harm a soul. (relativly, politics then quite a contact sport in places other than Germany, and it was certainly no less there.)
So once again, you are pushing at angles that are not exclusionary, leftist come on many flavors, the nazis are one of many.
a,
The Virginia House of Burgesses first held a meeting of elected representatives in 1619, which, to put in in perpective, is just 16 years after the start of the Tokugawa Shogunate in Japan. Of course at the time Italy and Germany weren't really "nations" and France and Spain were absolute monarchies.
I'll grant you that the end of slavery (1865), the expansion of the francise to women throughout the country (1920), and the Voting Rights Act (1964) were all important events in improving democracy, but I'm at a loss to understand why you think there was no democracy in the US until 1968. I mean, my father was voting before then. What happened that year that changed everything? The release of "Magical Mystery Tour"?
As for European unity during the cold war: have you forgotten France's withdrawal from NATO (I think in 1966)?
Marucs: It is genuinely arguable whether or not the EU is evolving towards an authoritarian form of governance.
Europe has tried on all of the grand ideologies for size at one time or another, and has failed to unite under any of them.
It is probably too much to hope that they will embrace federalism, democracy, and (inseparable) political and economic freedom as paramount ideals, but I don't see another Napoleonic empire, either.
If there is a true united Europe in the future, it will be a non-ideological one that asserts nothing, believes in nothing, and dreams of nothing except maintaining itself in the style to which it has become accustomed. Any violence or discontent will be ignored by elites, excused by non-European apologists, and suffered in silence by Europeans.
There something really poignant about the desire of some Europeans to vote in our last election. The Left thought it was just a fine bit of rabble-rousing, another agit-prop romp, but there was something more to it, I think.
Glen, what a nice essay, thanks, had not dicovered that one yet in your rather absorbing and entertaining writing.
I esp liked the Socraties skit, it was given me spasms.
As for why the left reacts to the facts of benito Deng and Adolph like you was reading vogon poetry, i think its an artifical support for the "everybody does it meme" to ballance out the remainder on their pile of skulls, a pile where Hitler comes in Third behind the USSR and Mao.
Why or how they think they can hang that in any way on the rather exceptional modern American rightist ethic of Individual Freedoms, Garranties of Rights to a Soverien individual, and limited Goverment with narrowly procribed Authority, ya know, the founding American Idea, and with the latter repairs to its contradictions ...
I mean. That puts American freedom 9 million miles away from all that, where all that leftist crap looks like a singularity from this end.
So, back to the point I made in the beginning, its state power, that is the danger, leftism isnt the only excuse for it, but it has been the latest excuse for it, and has wrought the most horrific result, of them all.
One wonders, just when,, just when, will we finnaly decide we are done and finished with ALL of that.
We have the best thing going thats ever been, so what wrong with this ?
And why dont we get the proper credit.
Anyhow, Facism For Dummies, Nice read.
re: Latin, literacy and a unified European culture .....
liberalhawk, you need to modify your assertions to make clear they apply only to WESTERN Europe. Not only are they untrue for Eastern Europe, the Eastern countries in or invited to join the EU would no doubt rightly take exception to your exclusion of them as Europeans.
Liberalhawk isn't wholly off base. The conclusion we pretty much came to in our discussions re: "Germany's National Socialism" and associated links, scholarship, etc. was that Naziism was an amalgam. The Right could not wholly disown it - but neither could the Left, which had tried to.
When Raymond comes in with the Benito - Deng comparisons, however, he raises a very good point himself. There's more than one way to do fascism.
For the righties out there, Franco was a fascist with much more of a traditional European right-wing slant (wayyy different than what North Americans call "right-wing"). Like I said earlier, I wouldn't argue that the Right can entirely disown even Mussolini's Fascism. But again, as noted earlier, the Left most certainly cannot - and unfortunately, as we watch the current poisonous cocktail that's brewing in Europe, that's starting to become a relevant contemporary point.
LiberalHawk,
Boy, do you have your economic and political history mixed up.
Germany’s economy was in a mess when Hitler was elected Chancellor in January 1933. Unemployment peaked at 6 million during the final days of the Weimar Republic.
In Hitler's 25 point national socialist program all income that does not arise from work was supposed to be abolished and profiteers and usurers were to be punished with death. Land, trusts and large stores were to be socialized. The Nazis wanted a strong state and an (at least partially) planned economy. They demanded a generous increase in old-age pensions, maternity welfare centers, school reform and prohibition of juvenile labor. Other program points were more nationalist than socialist: "lebensraum", jews, racial unity, duties to community and folk army. On February 24, 1920 Hitler went through his program in the first mass meeting of the party, ask the crowd for its approval on each point, and got it.
However, when Hitler more than a decade later got to power, he observed it more efficient to let the skilled businessmen keep and run their companies as long as they serve what the state dictates.
Hitler decreed that everyone should work in a Nazi Germany. A number of policies were introduced which caused the unemployment figures to drop.
Women were no longer included in the statistics so any women who remained out of work under the Nazi’s rule did not exist as far as the statistics were concerned.
The unemployed were given a very simple choice: do whatever work is given to you by the government or be classed as "work-shy" and put in a concentration camp.
Jews lost their citizenship in 1935 and as a result were not included in unemployment figures even though many lost their employment at the start of Hitler’s time in power.
Many young men were taken off of the unemployment figure when conscription was brought in (1935) and men had to do their time in the army etc. By 1939, the army was 1.4 million strong. To equip these men with weapons etc., factories were built and this took even more off of the unemployment figure.
The Nazis introduced public work schemes for men who worked in the National Labour Service (Reichsarbeitsdienst or RAD). Their work would have included digging ditches on farms to assist irrigation, building the new autobahns, planting new forests etc. The men of the RAD wore a military style uniform, lived in camps near to where they were working and received a small wage.
To ‘protect’ those in work, the German Labour Front was set up. This was lead by Robert Ley. The GLF took the role of trade unions which had been banned. To an extent, the GLF did this. Ley ordered that workers could not be sacked on the spot but he also ordered that a worker could not leave his job without the government’s permission. Only government labour exchanges could arrange for a new job if someone did leave his employment.
The GLF also increased the number of hours worked from 60 to 72 per week (including overtime) by 1939. Strikes were outlawed.
The leisure time of the workers was also taken care of. An organisation called "Kraft durch Freude" (KdF) took care of this. Ley and the KdF worked out that each worker had 3,740 hours per year free for pursuing leisure activities - which the state would provide.
The KdF also involved itself in introducing a scheme whereby the workers could get a car. The Volkswagen - People's Car - was designed so that most could afford it. The Beetle, designed by Ferdinand Porsche, cost 990 marks. This was about 35 weeks wages for the average worker. To pay for one, workers went on a hire purchase scheme. They paid 5 marks a week into an account.
Theoretically, when the account had reached 750 marks the worker would be given an order number which would lead to them receiving a car. In fact, no-one received a car. The millions of marks invested into the scheme were re-directed into the rapidly expanding weapons factories. This accelerated as World War Two approached.
Now, you can legitimately argue that the Nazis are not true socialists... but if you look at what socialism is "supposed" to be, there has never been a true socialist government (that lasted any significant period; I think there was an early colony here in the Americas but they starved to death or were killed). However, the Nazi policies were about the same as any other government that has been termed socialist.
True socialism can't work because once you get more than about five people in a venture, somebody needs to be in charge or nothing will get done. A socialist society is supposed to be class-less. And usually what happens is the guy who had the idea to have a class-less society sets himself above the "single" class. After all, somebody has to direct the society toward the workers paradise because otherwise you would never get there.
Another dificulty when discussing socialism is that there is no one standard for socialism. Some forms of socialism are actually in direct conflict with others.
There are a few questions that point out some of the big differences among socialisms:
Do advocates of this ideology say that socialism should come about through revolution (e.g. Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, revolutionary Marxism) or through reform (e.g. Fabianism, reformist Marxism), or do they view both as possible (e.g. Syndicalism, various Marxisms) or do they fail to address the question of how a socialist society would be achieved (e.g. utopian socialisms)?
Do they advocate centralized state control of the socialized sectors of the economy (e.g. Leninism), or control of those sectors by workers' councils (e.g. syndicalism, left and council communism, Anarcho-communism)? Almost all Social-Democratic parties hold that state control of certain sectors of the economy is vital for the general public interest.
Do they advocate that the power of the workers' councils should itself constitute the basis of a socialist state (coupled with direct democracy and the widespread use of referendums), or do they hold that socialism entails the existence of a legislative body administered by people who would be elected in a representative democracy?
Do they advocate total or near-total socialization of the economy (e.g. revolutionary Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Left and Council Communism, anarcho-syndicalism and syndicalism), or a mixed market economy (e.g. Bernsteinism, reformism, reformist Marxism)?
The list of questions is nearly endless.
National Socialists are BOTH Nationalist AND Socialist. Just because SOME of what they believe does not coincide with "socialism" does not mean they are not socialist.
That's in dispute? Marcus, have you heard of the Solana decision? For those that read the link, bear in mind this comment from the EU when you consider the meaning of 'defence and security':
Bureaucrats as a group have never given a damn about what the people they claim to be serving think. The EU is heading down one road, and only firing the bulk of the politicians and eurocrats could change it.
And when they stepped out of line, the Nazis nationalised them. See: Reichswerke Hermann Goering.
#43 Colt,
I am aware of the Solana decision.
I think Europe heading towards authoritarianism is disputable because, unlike Nazis, Euros don't live in abject fear of their governments. I know, I know -- there's less free speech every day, and there's PC-group-speak, and their socialist machinery is such that it can be an obstacle to freedom. But I know enough Europeans to believe that, on the whole, they're free-thinking, and don't behave as though they live under the yoke of oppression. There's no gulags there for political prisoners, as far as I know.
You're right about bureaucrats. One look at planet Earth and it's reasonable to conclude that they're everywhere. I think Bush and company have had their own fair share of adding to bureaucracy too, for better or for worse. One concern I have about combatting terror is that fighting it relies heavily on creating systems that must be manned by bureaucrats, and mindless people doing their jobs in the name of security.
I have a friend who called me from the SFO airport recently who told me that an old man and woman were taken aside as a part of a random security check. He said the old lady had a foot cast on, and the whole scene was pathetic, really putting these people out. Everyone in line just felt sorry for two senior citizens who obviously weren't terrorists. So, there's your authoritarianism in America, too, under the flag of security. Perhaps it has to be there, I dunno. Perhaps its a small price to pay. But there's authoritarianism practicing sheepherding, plain as day. Is the US heading towards authoritarianism? Arguable -- and plenty of people do argue the case. Same for Europe.
Bryan, tnx, fills in some details I did not have.
Its also important to note what Rightist was in Germany.
And a Rightist in the USA had and has, as the ONLY thing in common with the German Right (and Europe in General at that time), that it was not Leftist.
The American Right looked not to the Tsars Kings and Princes, but to the Classical Liberal Founders.
And Classical Liberalism never had enough traction in Germany
Come to think of it, American Rightness now,, is basically defined as "Not Left" as its only common trait with what across the pond.
Sure, Thatcher came kinda close, but she was quite exceptional, not just for britain, but for the Tories too.
And American "Liberals" the commie Liberals, they are about as much a liberal as th American right are Royalists.
The only "Liberals" that dont push planks out of the communist manifesto, right down to the progressive income tax, are the Classical Liberal Republicans, than cant say we are Liberals, let people be confused.
To me the whole commie-liberal is a "Liberal schick is about as honest as the leftist bullcrap that Hitler was "Right Wing" and wanted to being back the Bavarian Crown and those comic opera princes, He damn sure was no advocate of Classical Liberal Republican democracy.
Germany could use some Classical Liberal Republican Democracy. they have never tried that for very long, they had a republic, but it wasnt Liberal except for a breif period under Ludwig Erhard. But it still had a freedom deficit.
They did that got rich then the left came along and trashed it.
Perhaps they should try it again, more this time and stick with it this time.
Liberal John Howard down under, comes to the USA, he would join the republicans and wonder why our Labor party(Democrats) call themseves Liberals like he did, but as he can clearly see they are not.
I wonder if there will come a day when we will untangle these mangled terms, its like a deliberate polt to confound the language so that nobody can tell what anyone is talking about.
So perhaps we can allow some confusion about Germany, but "Right Wing Socialist" ? heh.
They have those in france, dont they ? they have a Left wing, and a really left wing. and a really really left wing. one of those i head referred to as "the right".
Perhaps we should not look to the french for definitons to our discourse.
From the Charter of Fundamental Rights:
Democracy, my ass.
Future tense :-)
#47 Colt,
Fair 'nuff -- future tense.
I think we're really in agreement about all of this. I don't think we should be too big in our britches on this side of the Atlantic, s'all. Lots of busy beavers in the halls of power.
Marcus:
I think we are, too. My fear is that a popular reaction will only come when things are very bad. You can imagine the situation if the U.S. gov't erased the Second Amendment. Here, there's no armed citizenry, and little remaining in the way of bottom-up government. My concern is that the bureaucrats will take a step too far. Civil wars have been fought over less.
Someone referred to the "fairy tale" of the French Resistance. While it is true that many Frenchmen collaborated, the Resistance was by no means a fairy tale. Lots of people took lots of risks. And the campaign of 1940 wasn't the complete walk-over it is sometimes made out to be, either...French casualties were 100,000 killed.
Colt
Yip quite libertine socialy and with so much subsidy regulation taxes and mangling all of that state control of the economy smacks of facism without really getting there.
they can avoid bloodshed. thats not the kind of doom im talking about, but plenty of misery,, lots and lots of that, because they strangled controlled and manipulate everything (like the facists) that the thing tips over.
And lots of pain before it gets up again, if they can even do what it takes (let go) for it to get up again.
Colt, let say some where in a pipe dream they wake up after having a astral encounter with Heyek, lets say france, and those schools named after "Karl Marx" have people attacjing them to pull the names down like that statue of lenin in red sqare.
They abolish the welfare state taxes and regs at once, i wonder if their labor pool would dry up, changing the perception on the immigration issue
Heh,, now one potential problem gets worse.
They are not too good on the intergration thing.
Ricks -- I think the Europeans will simply deport those who won't accept the basic principles of their societies. The Islamists take the Euros desire to live in peace for weakness which it is not, IMHO. Already Ayan Hirsi Ali and others in the Dutch Parliament are calling for requirements such as speaking Dutch and sharing values for citizenship and residency. I believe other such calls will come in France, Germany, and the UK.
There are politically correct efforts to link resistance to Islamism with racism, however those efforts IMHO will be doomed when Islamists overplay their hand with something akin to Beslan or 3/11, and provoke anger and outrage. Crime and security are linked to this issue as well, and IMHO underlies support for extremists like Le Pen or the British NP, only because ordinary centrist politicians won't talk about it for fear of alienating bloc voters or appearing racist.
Ultimately however the desire for the European good life (the Pistols's "Safe European Home") will run smack up against Islamism. There's no middle to finesse or compromise so I expect a lot of deportations which is the usual European solution when pressed. Europeans can be quite ruthless as can other modern societies when their fundamental peace and security are threatened. It's often misread by non-Westerners as weakness when it's not.
I fundamentally disagree with Glen Wishard on the Europe as fascist idea. During the post-WWI era the Freikorps that ran around explicitly endorsed strong militarism which found a receptive audience. Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch may have ended badly, but the amount of street violence and assassinations of perceived "traitors" including prominent Jewish-extraction politicians was everywhere. During the same period (the Twenties) the German Army had secret re-armament programs and agreements with the Soviets, much of Germany's later tanks and aircraft came out of that era. There was within Germany a general appetite to "do it right" this time wrt WWI and Hitler's aggressive moves in the Rhineland, Sudentland, Czechoslovakia, and Poland met with widespread internal approval. German civilians had observed what to them was an inexplicable collapse of their inevitable victory in WWI; and felt that this time they'd win. They never saw a downside to war and conflict.
But to me the biggest thing is the horrible slaughter and destruction wrought in WWII, the scars clearly evident in major cities today, provide a grim reminder for Europeans of the cost of conflict and the need to avoid fascism. Given that possible enemies are very close by and could obliterate whole cities even without nukes, Europeans have very good reasons as well as historical memory to reject fascism, militarism.
I do agree that much of Europe is profoundly anti-Democratic and not responsive to ordinary people's concerns, but this doesn't make them fascist. Not in the way that Franco's Spain or the Argentina of the Generals. I am also guardedly optimistic about the reaction to Islamism and the idea of elitism. I don't think the reaction will be bloody and horrible to a new atrocity, just ruthless ala Sherman's march to the sea (tough but killed very few people).
a: USA is a democracy since 68.
Okay, I can't contain my curiosity any longer.
Do you mean since 1768? What happened in 1768, did Boston elect its Postmaster or something?
Do you mean 1868? True, at that time many blacks were voting for the first time, thanks to the efforts of Abraham Lincoln and William Tecumseh Sherman, but surely there was a democratic stirring or two before that.
I know you can't mean 1968, because if Richard Nixon was the first democratically elected President of the United States, it's going to look funny in the history books.
Governmental power exercised by unaccountable elites IS authoritarianism. And the E.U. is nothing if not the exercise of governmental power by unaccountable elites.
Almost all Social-Democratic parties hold that state control of certain sectors of the economy is vital for the general public interest.
Not only social democratic parties. I don't think there are parties outside of the loony Libertarians, this does not include mainstream libertarians, that believe that some sectors, like for example the public road, should be not state controlled
#53 I was responding to somebody who claimed that France was a democracy since 1968 and as such i made an absolutely correct statement 68 (make that 64 as i don't know exactly when the blacks got the vote)
Marcus
Nice Topic, enjoyed the turn to hash it out again.
I must admit, despite the fact that we dont really think the facist Logo is on the way back and Duce is comming back from his swing off the lamp post
It is indeed kinda unnerving to the extent that this is topical with what we see out there.
things dont need to reconverge very close for it to make you feel unconfortable.
And Yeah Joe,
The Euro elite are no doubt looking at the current Socialist- ... Facist gee close enough ... creation of Deng Xao Peng with some amount of envy.
They would love that setup just fine, cheap worker slaves, fresh organs brought to you still warm,
And the donors familly still pays for the bullet.
... that was timed to coincide with the first cut over the destinations for all the assorted harvested body parts.
Not that the donor did anything wrong, but, he must have done something, the tissue match was evidence of that eh ?
O well beats that Loagai slave labor camp he been in since his family spent their first night of worry 3 years back.
When they get the bill for the Bullet, they will know where he has been.
Those EuroSocialist elite think thats cool, esp if they need a Liver. sure seems the model to emulate for them.. no bother with that messy stuff like democracy.
Benito would look on in approval, his vision of the mandantory industrialsation phase of his brand of orthadox Marxism well underway, he would laud them for being such good students of Scentific Socialism
When Benito decribed the next step along the way, decribing it as similar to the cultural revolution, and learn they had already had that, Im sure he would have some words about thier improper timing.
Sure, if you look at Glens technically accruate version of what facism is. ... but im saying Deng qualifies as well, and so does Hilter.
Course perhaps somewhere during the war or leadup his arbitarty decrees show he had lost the plot for the socialist model ... but he sure ran and got elected as a socialist.
what can you say about hitler that you could not say about Stalin. Few things, its not like the black harvest of the Ukraine was part of the stuff out of the communist internationale.
liberalhawk: dont agree with you in the slightest, but nothing wrong with making the argument, I didnt dismiss it out of hand.
Umm
Liberalhawk:
How about this angle, that does not focus on technical details.
From the soft Euro or Dem Socialist, all the way to hard liners of Deng Benito Mao and so on.
What matters to an American rightist is his Personal Freedom and Economic Liberty
The same things the Classical Liberals wanted for themselves 200 years ago.
Thats what is important, and all those varios flavors of slime want to take it away.
So from where we are, theres not a dime worth of difference.
Liberalhawk, you keep trying to "break the news" to us but you simply fail because you have a large number of false ideas about National Socialism. When these are pointed out to you, you invent the false myth that suddenly economics were not an important part of the National Socialist ideology - thereby inventing an excuse for ignoring the socialist aspects of National Socialist theory. But that is simply rewriting history for their economic program was a large part of the appeal of the party in Germany in the middle of the worldwide depression.
This is all very old Bolshevik propaganda points that got old three-quarters of a century ago. That propaganda line required everything that was not purely marxist-leninist to be redefined as "right wing". As Joe stated above, it simply isn't honest to deny the Leftist blood lines of National Socialism.
Rockford
Thanks for your comment. I will need some time to think about what you say. I am not as sanguine about the European ability to awake from the slumber of softness and simply eject the unpalatable and incorrigible--the Islamist are capable of a kind of breathtaking barbarity that Europe hasn't seen in two generations. The Inuit lost their hunting skills in one. The Spanish response to 3/11 suggests a kind of pathetic childishness of character that suprised and disappointed me--perhaps I should have expected it--and as Europe continues to define deviancy down and prop tolerance up--it becomes more and more difficult psychologically and sociologically for them to find grounds for outrage. The Romans could not manage an appropriate response to the challenge from the Evangelical Zealots of their day. Softness--the pursuit of ease and pleasure--takes its toll over time.
I hope there will be another opportunity to continue this discussion. In general, this has been one of them most provocative and intersting threads I have seen on WOC--or anywhere. Caught me short on time, though. I would have liked to have argued 1) that Western Europe did have a single coherent culture--very clearly evident in its arts, including its theology--in the Middle Ages. They called their EU "Christendom" and it was a conceptual and occassionally military reality despite the constant internal warfare. (Also feudalism was not a monolith across Europe) 2) Literacy wasfar more widespread in the Middle Ages than the pop histories suggest, 3) Franco was not a facist. If anything he was a monarch manque and a monarchist--which is why the transition to constitutional monarchy IMHO was so successful--that and the extraordinary character of Juan Carlos.
Good night and thanks for a superb discussion.
Ricks
ricksamerican
Yes, we should remember it was all part of the roman and greater Byzantine Empire
They brought books and learning, and the reason we have so many xlated copies of the Alexandrea Library, is because the brits and the iris was copying them, going south to roman schools and comming back educated and romanized
That they taught latin and greek in the english traditional western schools was to study our heratage of works leftover from rome and the byzantines. our bit, of the Alexander Library.
Thanks to those irish monks who kept transcribing those works, preserving them untill the enlightenment.
"except for the Nazi period" ?
How about "Including the NAZI period",,, simply delete the communist big lie, and the aberration of a digital state change during the nazi period, that did not happen, is not required.
Occams razor, anyone ?
The Capitalist Jews was part OF, the Right. part of the aristocracy, doctors, lawyers, Scientists like Einstien, who himself, was a bit of a leftist (typical for the achedemics), how little things change.
"As socialists we are opponents of the Jews because we see in the Hebrews the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation's goods." Joseph Goebbels
How about the idea that some nonsensical binary flip during the nazi period is a fraud, there was no flip.
Is it not more credible that it was more of a continuum than a flip ?
Referring back to WOC post that featured article
Frome where comes the quote at top re: Aliance of Islam and the Left
Joe K (#41)
I don't think Franco was himself a Fascist. He was just, unlike Hitler and Mussolini, an army general. It is true that he used the previous Falange party, Fascist, to fill the political vacuum of his authoritarian regime, but he was beyond that. For instance, his economic policy was clearly Socialist, a controled economy from the top, several public monopolies, fixed wages, great benefits for workers...
Cicero (#45)(#29)
unlike Nazis, Euros don't live in abject fear of their governments.
An average German lived very well under the Nazi regime. It offered him a better standard of living: higher wages, worker security... the problem of that system is that it is need to source money from abroad or otherwise State bankrupcy comes in a few years. Hitler declared so soon the war on economic grounds. He needed countries to plunder.
You see Regional Nationalists in Spain, they are voted into office again and again. The majority of those people don't mind if ETA kills one or one hundred (as the Germans didn't bother for the Jews), as long as the money from Madrid flows.
Cicero, don't underestimate Fascism.
the idea of the EU confuses me, because it promotes the European Man myth,
I don't think so. Some may promote an European identity but, for instance, Britons have more in common with Americans than with Germans, and Spanish with Argentinians than with Swedish. In my opinion there is no common identity beyond Christianism, some Latin traditions, and a shared history of killings. The EU was set up to solve common problems, and must not go beyond that. The European identity is a marketing issue, if you use it, you are helping those who set it up, you are playing their game.
as long as the money from Madrid flows.
The regions that want independence are almost always also the regions that are wealth and from which money flows out because it is the number one reason for a region too want more independence. This is especially true in places where they really could win a referendum on independence, like in Catalonia and the Basque country. So claiming that they don't mind as long as the money keeps coming from Madrid is simply wrong.
ps. The Basque country was a region with a lot of heavy industry so it probably is that they have started to become a net recipitent in the last twenty years
#60
Hunting is something you learn. Etnic cleansing is something you learn to surpress. Any comment about Europeans having lost their bloodlust simply doesn't know human nature.
Spain was in Iraq to kiss America's ass and absolutely not because they believed that they were doing "the right thing". The oppostite is more true in that they believed that they were fighting on the side of evil (as in most wars both sides are evil and the good guys don't fight).
So when the cost became to high with 3/11 they made the rational decision to leave.
Look a, the Basque region has a special fiscal policy which grants them several privileges that the rest of the Spaniards don't have. Without the money from Madrid not only the Basque regional government, fiercely anti-Spaniard, but the Basque Social Security would collapse within months. They don't want the independence, they want money.
From that Basque country, that land of wealth, you say, have fled 300,000 people in the last twenty years (now the population is around 2 million). Catalonia is suffering a severe economic crisis, with its collapsing textile sector and its rampant Nationalism, that frightens any foreign investors. Those are the advanced regions you say (of course, advanced in the Nationalsocialist sense).
And now that we are talking about Spanish Regional Nationalists, please tell me why ETA military wing is based in southern France.
Spain was in Iraq to kiss America's ass
And France was kissing Saddam's to get cheaper oil. They believed in what they were doing.
You mentioned 3/11, OK let's talk about it:
So when the cost became too high with 3/11 they made the rational decision to leave.
A manipulative description of a coup d'Etat now that we know that the Spanish police was controlling 3/11 perpetrators more than one year before the attacks. That is, because the Spanish people keeps voting pro-American, classic liberals, let's change it allowing the killing of 192 persons three days before national elections, and then blame AlQaeda.
That is the way Continental European politics work. Cicero, Fascism is far from over, it has adapted to the new times, with a big propaganda unit, but it kills people as it has always done.
To talk about guilt is a good start. Europeans have had to face up to their past. It's not smelling of roses.
To be frank humankind's past pretty much stinks looking back - they've been some great moments but overall it's been rape and pillage, fear and dogma, politics and manipulation.
We can't be too proud of ourselves - we are an ugly lot at best.
That said I think we're arriving at the age where everyone would really like to try and get along - the problem is that we're not in control - we're not able to make things fair, just and most of all we want to make this world a place we all want to live in but when wealth is protected by capitalism and promoted via celebrity culture it is very hard to educate our children as to what we expect of them let alone ourselves.
People have to make a choice - peace and equitable means or personal wealth and war.
a,
Your knowledge of American history is, ah, shall we say, less than complete.
Blacks got the (guaranteed) vote in 1870, with the 15th Amendment to the Constitution. The first black congressman was elected in 1870 and re-elected four times.
After Reconstruction, the South eliminated or reduced the black vote in a variety of ways. But that doesn't mean that blacks outside of the south were disfranchised; the Voting Rights Act was principally about suppressing the minority of states that insisted on denying civil rights. This should be obvious: if a majority of states or of the population at large wanted to deny blacks the vote, then the VRA would never have been passed by Congress or signed into law.
But even supposing there were a substantial minority of citizens denied the vote arbitrarily today, that wouldn't mean the US was somehow "not a democracy." It would just mean it was an imperfect (and, plausibly, an illegitimate) democracy. Certainly denying minorities the vote is different from, say, being an absolute monarch.
Human freedom is the most important principle. Any deviation from this is a step towards tyranny and should be taken only with MUCH consideration. Socialist ideas, especially when taken to the extreme, of redistribution pander to the lowest motives of humankind, envy and sloth. Don't hold your breath waiting for a socialist utopia. It's looking more and more like a mirage.
Turn of your TV. Home school you children or send them to a private school.Abolishing corporations would violate fundamental human rights
I'm a capitalist free-market type, but that's a tad extreme. Corporations are creatures of statute, and needn't exist or have the legal status they do (i.e., legal existance as persons, with attendant taxation, plus limited liability for officers, etc) for "human rights" to be respected. There's always partnerships, sole proprietorships, unincorporated associations, etc.
Abolishing corporations is a (very) bad idea, but not a violation of rights.
Rob, I understand your point. I take the view that human rights are based in natural law. They are not granted by the government. So, the basic right of organiazing the ownership of an enterprise by issuing stock falls under the right of association.
Given this, the legal treatment of corporations shouldn't be substantially different from that of other groups and businesses. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't talk to how corporations may be privledged over other types of groups or businesses. There is certainly room for disagreement in the details without violating any rights of association.
All this talke of history, its interesting to look at the age breakdown of the French voters :
18-24: 56% No
25-34: 55% No
35-44: 61% No
45-59: 62% No
60-69: 44% No
70+ : 42% No
Only the age-group born before or during WWII favored the Constitution. I know there were probably a million justifications for voting one way or the other, but is it possible that one of the compelling reasons for the EU (to preclude more wars) was not compelling to those who have lived peacefully for years without a EU?
PD Shaw, please, don't identify that 200 pages work of Socialburocrats called Constitution to a united Europe. They are completely separate things.
For instance, young people are free to move, live and work in any EU country, a right that we use constantly. That is, being against Brussels is not being against the Union. We enjoy it.
Coalition soldiers are evil? Let me guess: Amnesty International spokesperson?
lurker,
The nature of a corporation is that it has a seperate legal existance from the individuals operating and controlling it. It is an artificial person. If a corporation were merely an association of people, it would be a partnership or joint venture.
States could repeal the right to incorporate, which would merely be a return to the status quo of 100-200 years ago (depending on the state). The earlier historical precedent would be the type of public corporation that was really more of a public agency / chartered monopoly (think Massachusetts Bay Colony). If anything, this older public corporation (dating back to the Roman Empire) is closer to the fascist model discussed by Glen Wishard above.
Sorry to nitpick. I agree with everything else you've said.
Pd Shaw:
No worries about nitpicking.
It IS merely an association of people. It has a mutually agreed charter detailing how ownership will be divided and exercised.The principles of it's legal existence arose from regulation and common law that evolved as mechanisms to resolve disputes.
As far as I know, corporations would have been free to form via private contracts at any time within the US had anyone thought of them sooner. Certainly the government had no authority to ban private arrangements.If I misunderstand and the laws back then did explicitly ban corporations, then I disagree with those laws and support their repeal! Why ban something that has never existed anyway?
lurker,
"Corporation" is a term of art that denotes a very specific form of organization with specific legal rights and obligations. Lots of "companies" are not corporations.
Some key features include taxation as a separate entity (Partnerships are "pass-through" entities where only the partners, not their company, pay tax), limitation of legal liability to third parties (If a partner in an ordinary partnership hurts someone in the pursuit of your common business, you could potentially be personally liable for the judgement), and the (unalienable) ability of minority shareholders to file derivative lawsuits claiming the speak for the corporation, as distinguished from its officers.
All of those rights flow from statutes, cannot be created by private contract, did not exist in the common law, and could easily be abolished.
But of course you are right that many other forms of association could probably not be abolished or otherwise attacked by statute.
Incorporation is fine with me, as long as well have the same protections and rights that this remote-robotic droid creation of personage has.
since he is immune to the biological clock and will never suffer the inheritance tax, then we should all be free of that right ?
So every family should be a corporation to begin witb, and never have their property cut up by a govt as long as the family lives, and rights of transfer and so on.
Yup corps are as cool as cops, just as long as i have the same licence as both the corp and the cop.
as long as none are more equal than others, im fine with it.
#74
Yes, they are worse then Zarqawi IMHO and that says a lot. They certainly killed more innocent people
It is said that probably tomorrow Jack Straw will announce that Britain won't carry out the referendum on the wrong named European Constitution.
From Aznar till Vaclav Klaus, finishing it has been a great common task. Let's see what comes out of the British presidency of the Union.
Vaclav Klaus is against the EU so he would also be against this by default.
Interesting post over at The Gates of Vienna about Germany, called The Big Deja Vu
Wolfgang Munchau, in The Spectator:
And this:
If anything, the second quoted paragraph is more alarming than the first. When a generation grows up not only uneducated in its civilization's workings, but not even realizing what it has forgotten, the seeds of Dark Ages are sown.
Dymphna sees what is happening all oover Europe in these linked area as of a piece. It does appear that way sometimes.
In a way, our mutual incomprehension offers me a bright spot. If our visions of them are as skewed as I know Europe's vision of North America to be, it may be that unseen reserves of hope yet exist. Or perhaps the flaccid, ineffectual socialism that grips Europe's throat will spawn the same kinds of freedomist counter-critiques that took root within a similar environment in 1960s-70s America.
All we can do is watch and see, and reach out to bloggers across the Atlantic. While remembering what we know, advancing the intellectual critique of statism, and working to keep our own corner of the planet as tidy as possible by comparison.
Did he really return. Germany was in the 90's the most pro capitalistic ever.
Most Germans do not negotiate their wages. They are paid according to fixed-rate tariffs set in negotiations between trade unions and employers’
I guess he left Germany when it still had a Kaizer.
When a generation grows up not only uneducated in its civilization's workings, but not even realizing what it has forgotten, the seeds of Dark Ages are sown.
You clearly show that the Germans know how their civilization should work
More of that inverted reality perception of yours ?
What is this backwards problem you have ?
The root of the German collapse was laid during the 70's the same way Clinton surfed the Kennedy/Reagan boom while sewing the minefilds of its destruction.
The left have an almost perfect track record id comming along and destroying everything that early efforts had built.
The lesson is, the next time tax and regulation cuts work a decade and generate another boom, and good times arrive and wealth begins to pile up again ... this time.. tell the left to go fisk themselves. dont let them destroy it again.
Instead, keep on with the tax cutting and extermination of government burocratic kingdoms untill it is shrunk to near its WWII size, omitting war related expenditures.
Germany, et al, can follow our example and prosper (remembering the Erhard German Miracle of the 50s and 60s) or thay can continue, and sink into leftist misery and dispair, and perhaps bloodshed.
Reality cand be denied and ignored, but its physical effects will assert themselves immune to the wishfull delusion of man.
Darwin will sort it all out, what is superior will fourish and the inferior will perish.
Reality is immune to dogma, and cares little about mans silly meritless opinion.
Now even the Euro is in doubt, because the failures of socialism cant be covered up temporarily by printing more money.
(devaluing the currency and evaporating the value of Euro denominated holdings.)
They want to jump fully into the pool of Carters malaise and stagflation ....
Fine, let them, wont work any better for them than it did for us.
They will have to learn, like man always seems doomed to learn ,, via pain and suffering, intill pain suffering and misery washes away the last baked on stains of denial.
Lets hear it for the physical laws of the universe, objective reality, the biological facts of man, and the self inflicted folly and greif of those that refuse to accept them.
So the German "collapse" has nothing to do with East Germany or China & Eatsern Europe sucking up all the work.
ps. You seem to believe that regulations make doing business a priori more difficult but this is simply not true. Would the economy really work better if everybody could decide for themself how much a pound would weight
Correct, as the build out from the ruin of war into the German miracle showed the whole world ....
East german result of socialism, and the socialists in west germany extending more of the same failure east when they needed the opposite, both for the east and themselves, did accelerate the leftist decline, that was happening anyway, they got more leftist and declined faster.
What they need was the opposite, but what they got what the opposite of what they needed.
They certtainly didnt need more of why east germany was a basket case to begin with,
But thats what they got.
Its really dirt simple stuff...
Perhaps UNreality based community is a better fit,, hmmm ?
Well except for you, your plain backwards
So how come Germany is exporting every year more and more while the only thing America seems to export is IOU's. Is there really a German collapse or is the simply a slow patch in the German economy due to East Germany and its complete lack of work
That reality inversion again?
And is that export per capita, per unit of energy ? net value ?
None of those can be twisted into supporting your inverted statment.
And you dont seem to understand the leftist failure program of collapse.
Lost jobs, requiring welfare state support, that requires more taxes, that exterminate more jobs, that require more support ....
When its low productivity (high tax burden, lavish benifits) thats causing the decline, once the decline starts its unending.
East germany was in th ditch for the same leftist reasons west germany was going there.
Going there because they forgot the opposite of what they are doing now that created the West German economy.
[Deleted: A full text dump of someone else's article, bare URLs, and five paragraphs of concluding text in all caps with too much punctuation. This is not what we try to foster here. If you want to provide substantive content of your own, and engage in dialog, great. Doing what you did again will be grounds for a ban. --NM]