Raymond, you'll enjoy this one. German blogger Ulrich Speck, co-editor of this important collection of essays on the "new" anti-Semitism, has an interesting post up called Höchste Volksgemeinschaft. In Putting the Socialism Back in 'National Socialism', Transatlantic Intelligencer translates:
Whoever has read Götz Aly's new book – Hitlers Volksstaat. Raub, Rassekrieg und nationaler Sozialismus [Hitler's "Volk"-State: Plunder, Racial War and National Socialism] – can no longer claim that National Socialism was a "right-wing" project. Aly cites Eichmann: "My political sympathies were on the Left, with the 'socialist' being at least as important as the 'nationalist'." His book provides an impressive demonstration that Eichmann's statement is not a curiosity, but rather typical. The specificity of National Socialism consisted precisely in the conjugation of Race/Nation and socialism. In Hitler's words, it was a matter of "constructing a social 'Volk'-State".
This "national community" [Volksgemeinschaft] was defined by opposition: notably, by the opposition to the imagined principal enemy, "the Jews". Götz Aly on the early years of the NSDAP:
"The complementary fears of war-profiteers and revolutionaries were easily projected upon a common phantom for the purposes of propaganda. It was the "Jewish plutocrat", who in his thirst for profit played into the hands of the equally greedy "Jewish Bolshevik". Whereas the one supposedly destroyed the middle class and drove the rural and proletarian underclasses into the bondage of big money, the other was made responsible for the commune...". Building on such propaganda, the authors of later anti-Semitic state policies could always justify their measures as 'self-defense'. The final chapter of Mein Kampf is titled "The Right to Self-Defense [Notwehr]." "The longer the war went on, the more consistently it was represented in German propaganda as 'Aryan resistance' against the attacks of 'World Jewry'..." (p. 31).
His reminder of the origins of the "Fascism was right wing" meme are also timely:
"Even if the "wishy-washy" party program of National Socialism was drawn from many, and often contradictory, sources, with the passage of time a dominant interpretation gained currency. According to the latter, National Socialism had been a "right-wing" project. National Socialism equals Fascism, Fascism equals the final stage of capitalism. After 1968, this interpretation, whose origins go all the way back to the 1930s and which was continuously propagated by the GDR [JK: East Germany, then under Soviet control], became the dominant interpretation also in West Germany.
From this point on, if you called yourself "left-wing", you were spared any responsibility. You were on the side of the good guys and therefore did not need to pose any agonizing questions. The others were at fault: the capitalists, the reactionaries, the Fascists. Whoever was on "the Left", shared his genealogy with the persecuted, the victims. Thereby he had the right to blame others and to call them to accounts. Whoever was on the Right was suspect. Whoever was on the Left, on the contrary, could sit in judgment and condemn.
It is the merit of Götz Aly's book to have convincingly slammed shut this way of "overcoming the past". Starting now, those on the Left must also start to reflect upon the origins of their thought."
In "A Bit More On Socialism And "National Socialism" John adds more ifnormation re: the importance of the materially socialist elements on the Nazi Party to its popular appeal, even as he notes the critical importance of the fusion of socialist doctrines with the Volk-racial aspects. Hence the Volksgemeinschaft element.
Davids Medienkritik also follows up with coverage that generates a lively, interesting, and informed discussion in their comments section.
On to the modern era.
As some of you know, Germany's economy hasn't been too good lately (then again, the EU as a whole hasn't been great), and the SPD (socialist party) has been losing state elections at an astounding clip. By the time Monday rolls around, North Rhine Westphalia will probably be without an SPD government for the first time in 40 years.
In response, the SPD has begun to sound off about global capitalist "locusts," a term with echoes of use that back to an earlier era. One of Germany's largest unions has also started to sound some of these themes, in a campaign that has a lot of internal and foreign observers creeped out.
Of course, Jews are ineligible as open targets in Germany these days, so they prefer to focus on the Americans but use almost identical themes in doing so.
I'm not surprised. The Bourgeoisphobes of our day often express it in an anti-Americanism that shares many of the same tropes and forms of expression with classic anti-Semitism - and not infrequently, in outright anti-Semitism as well.
The fact that this sort of thing has a number of Germans creeped out is a good and healthy sign. Germany isn't returning to Fascism just yet.
With that said, Germany's heavily regulated economy has high base unemployment rates and lackluster growth, even as the average population ages. Medical care, pensions, social programs - the demands on the state are rising, while the number of potential providers will be dropping over the next few decades.
A reckoning is coming across Europe, and attempts to introduce even mild reforms have been largely stymied to this point. Meanwhile, the electoral strength of extremist parties left and right is rising. These kinds of situations often make extremism much more thinkable, especially if it receives official tolerance and encouragement.
Seeing these kinds of memes at work in today's Germany is an unsettling experience. It may not be cause for an all hands alert at this point - but it is something that bears watching.
It was right wing.
Ah yes, let's project characatures of American politics onto 30's Germany. Of course if in "leftist" you mean anyone who bought in (even remotely) to the project of modernism, well then by all means Nazis were leftists. Leftists like.. well just about everyone in the U.S. today-- sans the Straussians and theocrats (you're safe, Joe!).
praktike makes a convincing point.
Wow, Joe, I was going to compliment you on a nicely written article, full of supporting links and rational analysis, but having read praktike's extensive, credible rebuttal and SAO's revelation that you're a Straussian theocrat, I've changed my mind.
I mean, really, who needs to look at history and facts of the matter when I have people like praktike and SAO available to police my thoughts and tell me what's right and what's wrong, despite what I see with my own lying eyes?
Right, 'cause the German historian is probably America-centric.
Thank you, Joe, for your interest in my post on trans-int and for that great round-up!
I especially appreciated this point:
"The fact that this sort of thing has a number of Germans creeped out is a good and healthy sign."
Yes, we do our best.
Here is more from those people, in English.
Wolfgang Munchau, commentator for Financial Times (german and english edition)
www.spectator.co.uk/article_pfv.php?id=6136
Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, Correspondant for the weekly Die Zeit in Washington
zeus.zeit.de/text/2005/20/aussenpolitik_englisch
(discussion of this article here:
americanfuture.typepad.com/american_future/2005/05/germany_freedom.html)
My own post on the reasons for the transatlantic clash:
americanfuture.typepad.com/american_future/2005/05/european_sentim.html
Another post of mine, about German anti-Americanism:
americanfuture.typepad.com/american_future/2005/05/a_germans_view_.html
I have much more of that stuff on my own blog, but only for those who read German (kosmoblog.blogspot.com)
This is immature semantic squabbling devoid of content, just bending labels like 'left' and 'right' for the sake of concocting some chimeric 'left' that ends up standing as the root of all evil by definition. For one thing, the terms 'left' and 'right' are in part defined by the idea of communist totalitiarism as leftist and fascist totalitarianism as rightist. Leftist anti-fascists before and during WWII are another, and fascist demonization of domestics leftists is another. Probably the major reason fascism is called right-wing is because it is defined by ultra-nationalism.
Also - Hitler was a vegetarian.
The German Nazi party was originally a coalition of German opposition parties:
- German Worker's parties and "petty bourgeois" parties from Bavaria and southern Germany. Their main preoccupations were resentment over Germany's "betrayal" in WWI, and alleged Jewish control of banks which they thought kept everyone from getting a fair break. In the Worker's parties, most were unemployed.
- The brownshirts, who were nominally Catholic and monarchist (two things the mature party would oppose) and led by the weird homosexual libertine Ernst Rohm (another thing they would oppose).
- The "National Bolsheviks" from northern Germany, led by Josef Goebbels. "National Bolshevik" was not the term they used to described themselves, but it was coined by the Bolshevik Karl Radek who helped organize them in the 20s. Goebbels favored industrial pacts with Russia, in order to help the Soviet Union to industrialize and Germany to socialize. He preached a "Germanized" version of Marxism, where "revolution" was replaced by "national revolution".
There were two overwhelming things that all of these people had in common with in each other, and with the Soviets. Without them, you can't understand either Nazism or the Nazi-Soviet Pact:
- Opposition to the Versailles Treaty. The Soviet Union was the only nation on earth to openly oppose Versailles, and it used this opposition to forge ties with German right-wing parties in the 20s.
- Absolute hatred of the German Social Democrats (SDP). The Soviets undertook to destroy the SDP as "social traitors", and they came very close. The rightist and other proto-Nazi movements hated the SDP for acquiesing to Versailles.
The Soviets, by the way, had little use for the German Communist Party. They were much more interested in the hordes of brownshirts and hungry war veterans. Some Russian Communists were not happy at the prospect of a German communist revolution, which would move the World Capital of Socialism from Moscow to Berlin.
Anti-Semitism was NOT something that they all shared at first. Goebbels and the National Bolsheviks (Nabos?) were very close to Russian Jews like Radek before Hitler co-opted them.
"Also - Hitler was a vegetarian."
Now that I can agree with.
From Speck:
There was a very important factor that produced this interpretation. In the 50s and 60s, German and European intellectuals began to closely study Nazism for the first time. Among them were Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno.
They came to a shocking conclusion: Nazism was not the enslavement of the German masses by a capitalist-militarist elite. Nazism was a popular movement.
In my opinion, this sounded the death knell of the Old Left. It didn't matter whether Nazism was "right" or "left" - if the masses supported it, there was something seriously screwed up with Marxist dialectic.
This was the beginning of the elitist left, in which the exploited masses were students, intellectuals, and Hollywood creeps. The worker (who once stood as the undisputed champion and hero of all left-wing politics) became a redneck, a hard-hat, a bigot, and a FASCIST.
Adorno went on to write The Authoritarian Personality, which set out to prove that anyone who wasn't a left-wing intellectual was a Nazi.
In reading the above comments, all I can say is that I'm very disappointed.
All this work, and not one comment from Raymond!
BTW - This needs to to developed further, but here are couple of theorems:
- Socialism is deader than Alchemy. No surprise there.
- The modern far left is no longer socialist. Not in any sense of the word understood by many previous generations of socialists, Marxist or non-Marxist. They are less socialist than the Nazis and Italian Fascists were.
More on that second one later ...
Hayek wrote a book about this in 1944.
He showed how the German system was a direct result of German Socialist Policies. They differed from the Communists in that they did not favor communes.
The book is "The Road to Serfdom"; besides being good economics it is good history. Written when events were still very fresh.
The Italian Fascist Mussolini was at one time a Communist. He did not give up socialism. He nationalized it.
I blame the French.
Hitler was clearly a Socialist. His Volkswagen or People's car was a creation of the State to the people, unlike Henry Ford's model T, which was a private invention, fruit of capitalism. Goering directed German economy as a Caesar, it was a commanded economy, such as the Socialist wanted.
For Hitler, the worst thing about Socialism was that Marx may have had jewish ancestors, but he agreed in almost everything. Read Ludwig von Mises, his best books are free.
Ein sehr gutes Job, Ulrich. Herzliche Grüsse aus Spanien!
Friederick August von Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" should be an obliged reading in High School, leave Steinbeck for later. It opened my mind, and his "The Constitution of Freedom" opened Margaret Thatcher's
Hayek was Mises disciple. May God bless them, lone freedom fighters.
"The Road to Serfdom" in Cartoons here
It was always my understanding that fascism was "right-wing" because the means of production remained in the hands or private enterprise, as opposed to the state, and that ultra-nationalism was the vehicle for giving the state comparable levels of totalitarian control. A difference in economic models that probably has no practical difference.
Not really correct, PD. There were very many forms of socialism that didn't per se nationalize fully the means of production.
It is an intentional Marxist propaganda myth to read out all the forms of socialism except Marxism as "of the right".
PD Shaw: the means of production remained in the hands or private enterprise,
But control of production belonged to the state, which is the only relevant consideration to socialism.
Marx built up huge theories around "ownership" because he attributed quasi-magic properties to Property itself, after the manner of the French idealists who influenced him: Proudhon, Rousseau, Fourier.
While I think I agree that property ownership might be a distinction without a difference, that is the distinction I learned. Still . . .
Oskar Schindler used party loyalties, a German invasion and Jewish capitol to acquire a factory in which he appears to have operated with a certain degree of autonomy, so long as he met quotas, and greased a few wheels, but most importantly, ran a profitable enterprise that made this possible. If Germany had fallen under a Marxist revolution, one could see Schindler joining the party, eventually rising in rank to be assigned command of a worker's factory, greasing a few wheels to protect his status and preferences, but would he have enjoyed the same degree of autonomy or would a jealous party rival contrive to have Schindler "promoted" to a new position?
Glen, isn't it also an Anglo-economic perspective to believe that ownership of property is a basis of individual liberty?
Since praktike is apparently above arguing the bare kernel of a point embedded in his sweeping assertion, I shall do so for him.
For one thing it should be remembered how Hitler was introduced into the German Workers party – as an informant for the German military. Hitler hated communists and took an opportunity to infiltrate and rat on them; when he went to the party meetings however he found he liked at least some of what he heard. I’m not an expert but of what I recall reading, Hitler was originally pretty kaisertreu and militarist and if the German imperial system wasn’t “right wing” then what the heck is? I feel Hitler’s original (anti-Left) political leanings had at least some bearing on what Nazism stood for; call me silly if you must.
Further, the racial and nationalist aspects of Nazism are in direct opposition to the authentically leftist dogma of internationalism and egalitarianism. That same racialism and nationalism is a feature of authentically right wing traditions of imperialism.
A classification of the Nazis a pure child of “the Left” is unsupportable in my view. [This is as close as I’ll get to agreeing with praktike on this one].
That said, classification of the Nazis as a pure child of “the Right” is also unsupportable, for the reasons cited in the post. I found Glen Wishard’s comment pretty insightful as well.
lewy14,
That would put Stalin on the far-right, wouldn't it?
#20 PD Shaw
Schindler made equipment for the Wehrmacht. German businesses were allowed a certain degree of autonomy so long as they didn't cross the Nazis'. When they did... Well, the Reichswerke Hermann Göring were privately owned until 1937.
lewy14, in fact, the German imperial system had a lot of social programs. Germany was the first to introduce mandatory state-sponsored old-age insurance, workers' compensation insurance and an early form of medical insurance in the late 1800's under Bismarck.
You do have a point in that what Hitler held as ideologies probably differed from official National Socialist platforms. Hitler wasn't a deep ideologue on economic matters. His concerns were elsewhere. However, the fact remains that National Socialist economic and social platform contained a lot of non-marxist socialist material.
lewy also wrote:
"Further, the racial and nationalist aspects of Nazism are in direct opposition to the authentically leftist dogma of internationalism and egalitarianism. That same racialism and nationalism is a feature of authentically right wing traditions of imperialism."
Frankly, that is just Marxist-Leninist propaganda about what was "authentic" socialism. It doesn't change the fact that there were a large varieties of socialist thought in the 19th and early 20th century. Using that to "read out" of the "Left" all but Bolsheviks is very problematic, lewy, since what you are doing - intentionally or not - is adopting the Bolshevik theme that everyone who wasn't pure Bolshevik ( and that varied by the week ) was "right-wing" counter-revolutionaries.
Robin,
It certainly isn't my intention to "read out" of the Left any but the Bolsheviks. My point is that internationalism and egalitarianism is part of the dogma of the broader Left, not just Bolshevism.
That Stalin and others didn't exactly implement this dogma, as Colt rightly points out, doesn't chage that it was the dogma.
What I'm objecting to is an attempt to "read out" of the Right any possibility of contribution to Nazism (and to be clear, I don't think this is what Joe was trying to do with his post, but instead to underline the oft elided contribution of the Left).
Yes, the German Imperial system had social programs - does this preclude the existence of the influence and inspiration of the Right in the imperial system?
Racialism and militarism had old, sad histories in Germany, and these traditions found their way into the Nazi program - I'm disinclined to attribute this evolution entirely to "the Left".
I'm glad to hear that it isn't your intention, nonetheless, you are looking at these ideologies from a point of view influenced by the intentional propaganda of one segment of the "Left". Germany had a very active non-marxian socialist tradition for quite a long time. Marx himself probably devoted more words to these internecine battles than the actual justification of his form of socialism to outsiders.
Italian fascism was a distinct ideology that is incorrectly lumped into national socialism. It had a very elaborate theory of how the state worked through various industrial cooperatives to control the nation's economy.
Von Mises' book on Socialism is an interesting survey of the various forms.
"Further, the racial and nationalist aspects of Nazism are in direct opposition to the authentically leftist dogma of internationalism and egalitarianism. That same racialism and nationalism is a feature of authentically right wing traditions of imperialism."
Engels: "Upon the whole it is, in our opinion, very fortunate that the Arabian chief has been taken. The struggle of the Bedouins was a hopeless one, and though the manner in which brutal soldiers, like Bugeaud, have carried on the war is highly blamable, the conquest of Algeria is an important and fortunate fact for the progress of civilisation."
Marx: "England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindoostan, was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution."
Marx: "Marx to Antoinette Philips, March 24, 1861: “This young lady, who instantly overwhelmed me with her kindness, is the ugliest creature I have seen in my entire life, with repulsive Jewish facial features.”"
Marx, The Russian loan: "So we find that behind every tyrant stands a Jew just as there is a Jesuit behind every Pope. Truly, the lusts of the oppressors would be hopeless and the possibility of war unimaginable if it were not for an army of Jesuits to throttle thought and a handful of Jews to pick pockets"
Marx to Engels. "The Jewish nigger Lassalle who, I'm glad to say, is leaving at the end of this week, has happily lost another 5,000 talers in an ill-judged speculation. The chap would sooner throw money down the drain than lend it to a `friend', even though his interest and capital were guaranteed. In this he bases himself on the view that he ought to live the life of a Jewish baron.... And on top of it all, the sheer gluttony and wanton lechery of this `idealist'! It is now quite plain to me - as the shape of his head and the way his hair grows also testify - that he is descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses' flight from Egypt (unless his mother or paternal grandmother interbred with a nigger). Now, this blend of Jewishness and Germanness, on the one hand, and basic negroid stock, on the other, must inevitably give rise to a peculiar product. The fellow's importunity is also nigger-like".
You simply must read this one as well.
Fabulous! "The chief mission of all other races and peoples, large and small, is to perish in the revolutionary holocaust."
I've been reading this blog called Dissecting Leftism off and on for some time. There's lots more where that came from, including racist statements against Jews, black people, Russians, etc from Marx and friends. He made statements approving of the slavery of black Americans in the South. One example from his writing talks about how he thought the Russians should be chased out of Russia because they were really Asiatic. There are quite a few good links off that page. Here's one: Hitler was a socialist.
Not only did Germany have many social traditions predating modern ideology, which could be retrospectively identified as “socialist”, my understanding is that in fact there were few proponents of Liberal (as in Liberty) laissez fare capitalism to be found in Germany. Various forms of collectivism, communalism, social welfare, and government control had support in the German populace; the disputes were around who was doing the controlling and who was collecting from whom.
A proof of Nazi origin from the Left could therefore be constructed as follows: virtually all Germans supported programs which could be construed as Socialist, Socialism is Leftist, therefore all Germans were Leftists, and since Nazism arose in Germany, Nazism is derived from the Left. QED. [This is an intentional strawman, and I’m not saying this is your view, Robin].
To this, I would answer with a carefully calibrated restatement of praktike’s original riposte: what part of “militarism and racialism has authentically (but not exclusively) right wing origins” is disputed? Does anyone really want to argue that the entire lineage of these elements of Nazism originate on “the Left”? I can’t see how to do this except as a kind of tautological circularity.
Believe me, I fully support the idea that the culpability of the Left in the horrors of the 20th century is underappreciated and insufficiently scrutinized. What I don’t support is a tautological exoneration of the Right.
lindsey, that Marx and Engles were racist a--holes does not negate my statement. Internationalism and egalitarianism do have authentic foundations in leftist thought. (Authentic, but not exclusive).
PD Shaw: Glen, isn't it also an Anglo-economic perspective to believe that ownership of property is a basis of individual liberty?
Sure, and it is. But a state has no need to guarantee its liberty by securing property. Also, it's the freedom to gain property through work that makes you free, not the property itself.
To Marx, material property has value derived from the the amount of labor that is expended on it. Possession of fossilized labor has a kind of superstitious significance.
Superstitions about property, BTW, are about all that's left of the modern leftist's "socialism". He wants the state to acquire (and redistribute, of course) as much property as possible - not as a coherent program of socialism, but out of a fascination for punishing people by taking things away from them.
I would encourage a closer read of the articles and discussions linked above in the post.
They quite explicitly do NOT argue that German Naziism had no right-wing roots - so if that's your argument, it's a straw man.
What they argue - and they do so with evidence that includes flat-out statements by Nazi leaders - is that Naziism also had left-wing roots that should be acknowledged as part of the historical record.
Joe, I hope you noted that for my part I identified my strawman as such, and stated explicitly that I didn’t think you were out to whitewash the Right.
It occurs to me that I’m making the error of demanding "balance" of a post designed to restore balance to a previously unbalanced (Left-exonerating) narrative. I’ll concede as much.
Let me cut to the chase, and crawl out on a limb. Gedanken experiment: assume that in an instant everyone was given a perfect epiphany of insight into the respective culpability of the Left and Right for the horrors of the 20th century. Would we all then completely understand the nature of the poison that runs through your enumerated bullets? I’d say not.
What framework is sufficient to grasp the nettle of the coming ugliness? The hint lies I think in your characterization of modern Arab Nationalism as “Volkisch”, which is dead on. I’ll frame a debate I think would get beyond the Left/Right divide. Collective Identity – where does legitimacy end and toxicity begin? I’d posit that it is in the nature of the Volkisch itself that the source of dehumanizing conflict can be found. (And I don’t mean to pick on Germans; that word just fits so perfectly). That debate would be long and involved, but hardly academic.
France is a socialist state that is attempting through the EU to more fully internationalize its system.
Ownership of the means of production is just one route to the socialist state.
Taxes are another.
Directives from government bureaucrats is another means of controlling economies without direct ownership.
The EU has bananna inspectors.
They are not looking for spiders and other bugs. They are not looking for diseases.
They are checking length and curveature.
No need to control the means of production when you control what is bought and sold.
lewy14,
if the German imperial system wasn’t “right wing” then what the heck is?
Read Mises. The German Imperial system was aristocratic, traditionalist, the right wing denomination is a propaganda issue. The German Imperial system bribed Socialists with a Welfare State in order to isolate and crush German classic liberals, because it had more in common with Socialism than with liberals, that is, with individual freedom. That process was followed in the other Continental European countries.
There have never been right wing or left wing. That is a falacy, a propaganda issue well spread by the Socialists. From the very begining there have been serfs and liberals, the serfs leave his freedom in the hands of a lord, aristocratic or, now, ideologic; liberals are free men with individual opinions built by themselves.
The struggle is about freedom, not about "wings".
The German economy could not be more socialized because it would have affected its performance. Don't forget the effect of socialization in agriculture in the USSR. Even Lenin had to stop it for a while when its population was starving to death. The Nazi party had to left the managers of the German industry in their post, otherwise such a complicated economical system would have collapsed, but all of them were directed from Goering, and then Spree, offices. Germany was a much deeply industrial country, Socialism there acquired a different face, but it was indeed Socialism.
Read Mises, it is free
M Simon, I agree, another face, the same ideology.
Mises was one of the first analysts to show that nazism and fascism were totalitarian collectivist systems which had far more in common with communism than with free-market capitalism. And, what is more, they were the logical out of the galloping statism and militarism of the pre-fascist societies. Mises's linkage of fascism with Marxian socialism was a shocker in the Marx-laden intellectual world of the 1940s… but his linkage of the totalitarian countries as common examples of aggravated statism remains, of course, perfectly sound, as does his insight that the only viable alternative to the interventionist-collectivist path is laissez-faire capitalism, the free-market economic and free society.
Murray Rothbard, Libertarian Review, June 1975.
A practical example:
French Socialist President Miterrand fostered during the 1980's the, lewy14 would say, far right party of Le Pen in order to take away votes from Chirac. Who vote today Le Pen's party? The ones that voted then the Communist party, that is, the ideologically extremist wing of the Socialist. Miterrand efforts have yield a damage to the potential voters of his own party.
Conclusion:
Extremes come close together, you would say. My opinion is that there are no important differences between what is commonly know as far right and far left.
Another (dangerous) conclusion:
Socialist leaders belive in their own lies.
I'm amazed about the level of discussion here. Some comments.
One point on German liberalism: Yes, there is only a weak liberal tradition in Germany. The corporatist-collectivist tradition has always been dominant. There are different stades: It begins with small communities with guilds that organize the entire life. In 19th century, this has been transformed to a system of trade unions, in 20th century people became highly related to the central state who has been transformed in a kind of giant guild: welfare state.
Another point on Hitler and Nazism. It has been a mix of different influences. Different faces for different people. What is indeniable is that the nazis did a lot for the "aryan" masses. That's a major point in Alys book: In WWI the masses had the burden of the war, therefore they did, at the end, oppose the war. In WWII the war was paid by the occupied and exploited countries. The Nazis in fact built a lot of support by upgrading the welfare-state.
I think it's hard to classify. They wanted to build something new, neither socialist nor old-style monarchist. And they hated liberalism. If one thing is sure is that Nazism and Stalinism were both the enemies of liberalism. For both it was the party which occupied the state, and it was the state who commanded the society. Look at their parades, on the "ornament of the masses" (Kracauer). That's the totalitarian dream: a collective body.
That's the historical part. My post was indeed, as Joe Katzman pointed out, a political one. Two weeks ago, Franz Müntefering, the chief of the ruling SPD, the social-democratic party (chancellor Schröder is SPD), did attack capitalism in a language that came directly from the not so glorious thirties. He talked about "international financial capital" and "locusts", he constrasted good German entrepreneurs who first think about their workers with a damaging capital that comes from outside and endanger our community. It was disturbing. The social democrats are in decline, the loose members, will lose the next regional election and so on. They needed someone to blame. A scapegoat. And they chose to go back on the old anti-capitalist, anti-western imagery and language.
Most people thought this would be only old leftist rhetorics. Only some did point out that this came directly from the Nazis. For example, in "Jud Süß", a Nazi film, the expression "locusts" is used to "describe" jews.
At the same time, the same SPD did open the Holocaust memorial in Berlin. At the same time, they don't stop to fight the "extremist of the right" who are seen as "Nazis". "Nazis" in todays Germany are branded as entirely right wing. If you call yourself leftist, you are immediatly excused. You are on the right side. On the side of the resistance.
That has been a major attraction in Germany to join the left. The entire leftist movement from 1967 to the eighties (anti-atom, anti-Pershing and so on) had the strategic advantage that it could not be blamed for nazism. It was a way to jump on the good side of history.
So these people have no problem with the "coming to terms with history". Because, yes, they are socialists.
That has been the political background of my post. I just wanted to say: take care. Your anti-capitalism and anti-liberalism is not innocent.
These people are not nazis, to be sure. Not at all. They are desperated, and they have no idea where to lead this country. They know that people are afraid of changes. They themselves are afraid. So they use a language which they think might help them get reelected.
PS: For those people who are interested in what I'm writing on Germany (in my broken English): Tomorrow (22.) I will open a section with some English stuff, you will find it on my blog.
Urich,
It IS pretty good, isn't it? Thanks to all our commenters and to our marshals, who help keep it that way.
Urich: in my broken English
Are you kidding? Your English is excellent. Thank you for your contributions and I look forward to tommorow's blogging.
Joe A,
A reading of political history which posits “there is no Left and Right, only Liberal and (many flavors of) anti-Liberal” is fine by me! When I asked if the German imperial system wasn’t “right wing” then what the heck is?, “Nothing” is a perfectly acceptable answer – as long as “the Left” is similarly denied.
What I object to is a discussion which enumerates the (very real) sins of “the Left” as an entity, and then denies that “the Right” exists. I think that getting beyond the Left/Right divide is key to understanding the social sickness of our times.
On the other hand, the terms Left and Right do have a certain utility in describing the evolution of political history. Case in point, the “three card Monty” that the German Left uses to whitewash it’s anti-Liberalism, as Ulrich Speck describes.
Well Prak didnt disapoint, Yes Joe, excellent, I admit I held back here, the commentary was just too good.
In fine Prak tradition, national socialism is leftist.
......
Dont work either huh ? Well ok, so what did Left and Right mean in Germany then, what does it mean now, and what does it mean in America ?
In France to be a Liberal is a Right winger, same in Austriala, so what is happening here ?
And Facism, the product of a man with Socialist parents, who wrote for two socialist newspapers, one his own, came to power thru the Italian Socialist party, and chose the roman facis as his symbol (how so very italian eh ?) for his Socialist party is "Right Wing"
Right wing how ? his idea of a strongman to speed up socialist goals is "Right Wing" how ?
What socialist state didnt have the strongman ?
All of this is the product of the egalitarian crap that came from france, and it came up thru the chattering classes, the aristocrat intelectuals.
Marc has talked about skybox Liberals, the Limosine Liberals (commie-liberals), In 20s and 30s Germany they drove cars with handmade fenders that cost as much as a house, In france they rode in guilded carrages. whats the difference ?
Lindsey, thanks, Sanger founded planned parenthood as a Eugenics project, and especially targeted blacks. Socialist Racism was fundamental in those days. as it was to use (usefull idiots) race warfare as a tool of atvantage.
Also as old was the observation that the left "eat their own children" as the usefull idiots soon found themselves herded into mass graves they themselves had helped fill, after they served their usefullness.
All thru history we have seen rich aristocratic leftist intelecuals at the core of all leftist projects, and then they selectivly tell us the participation of the disaffected pampered children of the aritocracy is evidence of "Right Wing"
But the left has a history of ducking responsibility of their crimes agaisnt humanity by twisting history.
I wonder how many of those aristocrats came to realise they was the cause of their own demise as they was marched to the French head chopping machine, right behind those they spent their pampered years writing screeds about.
At the core of leftist evil, is the all powerfull state, and its the all powerfull state, that is the danger.
The all powerfull state does not need to be a leftist creation, But it has been the reason for its creation for all of the 20th century.
When I made my claim here that the national Socialists were quite typical Socialists, and quite typical for the left, using the above quote, the reaction here by many showed the legacy of years of the leftist Big Lies being incorporated onto the conventional wisdom.
In light of the time and reserch thats been expended by many on the subject,and reflected on the really excellent commentary in support of my position since, and above, perhaps we are closer to the day when those twisted leftist distortions will no longer be so conventional.
The study of how the left evade and deny responsiblity for their crimes, that extends far past their escape of the moral virdict for their bloody work in National Socialist Germany, is an expansive study in itself.
No longer should we allow the left to group their opposition of the day in among one side or the other of their old left vs left indoctrinare disputes.
To a freedomist, they are all microns apart in a vanishing point perspective, at the total opposite end of the freedom line. just flavors of leftist politicism just more of that bane of humanity that wants to "fix" "problems" using govt thugs with guns.
lewy14 (#40)
if the German imperial system wasn’t “right wing” then what the heck is?, “Nothing” is a perfectly acceptable answer – as long as “the Left” is similarly denied.
That is the problem, it was "something". It was a collectivist system were the serfs' freedom was in the noblemen's (junkers') hands. I deny that that aristocratic regime was the opposite of Socialism, it had many points in common, which is what explains why Socialism is so well accepted in Continental Europe.
Both systems are collectivist. In them, individual freedom is put in a second place, behind the "collective". The excuses to do so vary, but the result is the same.
...the social sickness of our times
The social sickness of our times is that classic Liberal principles have been forgotten, and classic Liberalism is the cornerstone on which a Democracy and a healthy capitalist system are built. In the countries where its population remembers more about it, Democracy is truly the rule of the people and economy performs better, such as America and Britain. The effects when those principles are not followed can be seen in France, probably in Germany, and perfectly in Spain. Without Liberal principles democracies often become just the dictatorship of the majority.
the terms Left and Right do have a certain utility in describing the evolution of political history
Indeed, they have been very useful... in manipulating political history, as Ulrich points out.
Ulrich (#37)
Yes, when I heard that phrase about "locusts" and "international financial capital" I thought that those excuses were pretty close to Nazism's arguments: "the international jewish conspiracy", etc.
Joe A:
That applies for America, but not to Britain. At least, not any more.
Public Announcement
German language Kosmoblog, from where this discussion originated, has a new daughter. Her name is
kosmoblog-english.blogspot.com
I have to admit that I'm proud of her. Visits are welcome.
Thank you for your attention.
Thanks Ulrich,
A fine addition to Davids Medienkritik, which has had claim to my eyes for a while.
It really is a shame that the German Miracle market economy of Ludwig Erhard, that made even the American left look like fools, has given way to a socialist death spiral of tax and decline.
Germany could have the same Miracle all over again, the same market based Classical Liberalism that created Europes leader out of the destruction of war could have raised the lands of the former communist terratory out of the Soviet ditch.
As long as the poeple see themselves as little more than irresponsible hedonistic wards of the state, where resposibility is punished and the irresposible rewarded, things will get worse not better.
And the longer they delay, the more painfull it will be. ther is already, plenty of pain in the forecast.
The same lag factor that allows dishonest democraps to take credit for the booms caused by republican tax cuts and deregualtion here in the USA, will make it exceedingly difficult for Europe to stick with a Classical Liberal market long enough.
I can tell you that most Americans had no idea of the leftist hate program that has been gripping Germany, many still have the frame of mind of Germany and its Ludwig Erhard prosperity, a time when America and Germany had more in common than differences, or so we thought.
As for the reactions here when people find out, its more concern based on sorrow than anger.
We went thru what Germany is going thru During the Carter years, when taxes and regulations was strangling us much like what Germany is experincing now.
But as long as Germans see more answers in Karl Marx than Ludwig Erhard, Untill they have their own Ronald Reagan ... it dont look good for Germany that no such voices have any currency there.
More intelligent commentary on fascism and socialism, though it focuses on the original Mussolini variety of fascism. Since this was an important imspiration and source for National Socialism, of course, it remains highly relevant.
It also addresses a quote that is often taken to mean something 180 degrees different from what Mussolini meant by "corporate." It had a very different and specific meaning to Italians, namely a production planning board made up of workers, owners, and others involved in production advocated by the syndicalist school of socialism.