Bolsheviks Originated Myth That Hitler's Nazism Was Capitalism
ciceroii
Nothing is more detestable and embarrassing to the Left than
for people to know that Adolph Hitler and his Nazis were socialists.
But of course they were. To claim otherwise is simply
perverse stupidity or dissembling. Both the Nazis and
Commies were anti-capitalist and collectivist.
The great Austrian
economist and political scientist, Ludwig von Mises
makes the definitive statement
on this issue in his book "Socialism, An Economic and
Sociological Analysis, 1981 (reprinted edition).
"It is important to realize that Fascism and Nazism
were socialist dictatorships. The communists, both the
registered members of the communist parties and the fellow
travelers, stigmatize Fascism and Nazism as the highest and
most depraved state of capitalism. This is in perfect agreement
of calling every party which does not unconditionally surrender
to the dictates of Moscow--even the German Social Democrats, the
classical party of Marxism--hirelings to capitalism".--Ludwig von
Mises ("Socialism"), p.523.
Greg
"ciceroii" <cice...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B25FCCD...@home.com...
> Today this is, of course, socialism's big lie.
> Nothing is more detestable and embarrassing to the Left than
> for people to know that Adolph Hitler and his Nazis were socialists.
> But of course they were. To claim otherwise is simply
> perverse stupidity or dissembling. Both the Nazis and
> Commies were anti-capitalist and collectivist.
>
You are, of course, absolutely correct. The Nazi Party was the National
Socialist Workers Party of Germany. Hitler was a socialist through and
through. When the lefties sneer and call people "fascists" or "right-wing"
it reminds me of the Monty Python movie where the Judean Peoples' Front were
sneering at the Peoples' Front of Judeah.
Communism is where the government doesn't let you keep your property. They
confiscate it and make you work it, and then further confiscate the product.
They send in the jackbooted KGB with guns to ensure you comply. Fascism is
where they let you own (in name only) your property. The government makes
you work it and tells you how you will work it and sets the prices, profit
margins etc, then they confiscate the product. They send in the jackbooted
gestapo with guns to make sure you comply. As you can see there is very
little difference between these two. Left and Right are both slightly
different forms of exactly the same thing. Particularly from the point of
view of those of us that subscribe to the von Mises view. BTW, the second
version is the version that we have here in Australia, and in most other
parts of the Western world.
It would be comical if it didn't impact on us innocents so badly. We are
really obliged to fight against the pricks with every ounce of energy we can
muster.
Greg
RES
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
How does it feel to be wobbling along on three loose wheels and a hole
in your pink polka dot pants?
I don't know what condition you suffer from, but I bet it has a long
name. RES
ciceroii
RES wrote:
>
> I guess it's academia's big lie too.
Agreed. You are at least correct on one thing.
>
> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
>
> How does it feel to be wobbling along on three loose wheels and a hole
> in your pink polka dot pants?
Is this supposed to be a flame. Do you not have any ideas or material to
refute me, or is you intellect just too feeble?
>
> I don't know what condition you suffer from, but I bet it has a long
> name. RES
You should be careful here. You give yourself away. It was in the
old, defunct Soviet Union under Brezhnev that free-thinking dissidents
were arrested
and sent to psychiatric asylums. Just like you and your collectivist
ilk,
you cannot tolerate open debate--mainly because you don't have any
logical
arguments to defend your pernicious ideology.
RES
ciceroii wrote:
>
> RES wrote:
> >
> > I guess it's academia's big lie too.
>
> Agreed. You are at least correct on one thing.
> >
> > http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
> >
> > How does it feel to be wobbling along on three loose wheels and a hole
> > in your pink polka dot pants?
>
> Is this supposed to be a flame. Do you not have any ideas or material to
> refute me, or is you intellect just too feeble?
> >
> > I don't know what condition you suffer from, but I bet it has a long
> > name. RES
>
> You should be careful here. You give yourself away. It was in the
> old, defunct Soviet Union under Brezhnev that free-thinking dissidents
> were arrested
> and sent to psychiatric asylums. Just like you and your collectivist
> ilk,
> you cannot tolerate open debate--mainly because you don't have any
> logical
> arguments to defend your pernicious ideology.
> >
Open debate? No logical arguments? I cite source after source debunking
your lies. You are the ng 'joke'. RES
David Collier-Brown
>
> Today this is, of course, socialism's big lie.
> Nothing is more detestable and embarrassing to the Left than
> for people to know that Adolph Hitler and his Nazis were socialists.
> But of course they were. To claim otherwise is simply
> perverse stupidity or dissembling. Both the Nazis and
> Commies were anti-capitalist and collectivist.
Mr. Iconoclast's trying very hard to "revise"
history. See footnote!
> The great Austrian
> economist and political scientist, Ludwig von Mises
> makes the definitive statement
> on this issue in his book "Socialism, An Economic and
> Sociological Analysis, 1981 (reprinted edition).
>
> "It is important to realize that Fascism and Nazism
> were socialist dictatorships.
Please understand that Dr. Von Mises took a
extreme position in saying this: he regarded
both the left and the right as enemies of
liberalism, and equated them because they
both preferred to kill their opponents, rather
than argue with them.
A good example of this is in "The Argument of Fascism",
at http://www.mises.org/liberal/ch1sec10.asp, part
of his book "Liberalism".
This is, alas, not a good argument that Socialism
and fascism were the same thing, only that they
were both evil.
A better approach is to look at the economic
theories of the socialists and fascists, and ask
oneself if they were similar. I assume everyone
here already know socialism's "economics", so
let's look at Fascism's:
A good (if harsh!) critique of fascism's economics is
http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_3/ts213l.html
"Economic Fascism" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, who summarizes
it thusly:
But there was also an economic policy component of
fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and '30s as "corporatism,"
that
was an essential ingredient of economic totalitarianism as practiced
by
Mussolini and Hitler. So- called corporatism was adopted in Italy and
Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a "model" by quite a few
intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe.
In Mussolini's Italy, businesses were grouped by the government into
legally
recognized "syndicates" such as the "National Fascist Confederation of
Commerce," the "National Fascist Confederation of Credit and
Insurance,"
and so on. All of these "fascist confederations" were "coordinated" by
a
network of government planning agencies called "corporations," one for
each
industry. One large "National Council of Corporations" served as a
national
overseer of the individual "corporations" and had the power to "issue
regulations of a compulsory character."
and so on... (this is in part a critique of 30's-era
flirtations by the U.S. with corporatism, some
existing to this day).
Therefor, Fascism != Socialism Although they
may have many accidental similarities, they
are inherently different in nature.
--dave
[footnote:
Fascism
a.A system of government marked by centralization of authority
under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression
of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a
policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Socialism
1.Any of various theories or systems of social organization
in which the means of producing and distributing goods is
owned collectively or by a centralized government that often
plans and controls the economy.]
--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
Performance & Engineering Team | some people and astonish the rest.
Americas Customer Engineering | -- Mark Twain
(905) 415-2849 | dav...@canada.sun.com
ciceroii
RES wrote:
>
> ciceroii wrote:
> >
> > RES wrote:
> > >
> > > I guess it's academia's big lie too.
> >
> > Agreed. You are at least correct on one thing.
> > >
> > > http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
> > >
> > > How does it feel to be wobbling along on three loose wheels and a hole
> > > in your pink polka dot pants?
> >
> > Is this supposed to be a flame. Do you not have any ideas or material to
> > refute me, or is you intellect just too feeble?
> > >
> > > I don't know what condition you suffer from, but I bet it has a long
> > > name. RES
> >
> > You should be careful here. You give yourself away. It was in the
> > old, defunct Soviet Union under Brezhnev that free-thinking dissidents
> > were arrested
> > and sent to psychiatric asylums. Just like you and your collectivist
> > ilk,
> > you cannot tolerate open debate--mainly because you don't have any
> > logical
> > arguments to defend your pernicious ideology.
> > >
>
> Open debate? No logical arguments? I cite source after source debunking
> your lies. You are the ng 'joke'. RES
Then were are they. I don't see any valid references in this followup.
RES
ciceroii wrote:
>
> RES wrote:
> >
> > ciceroii wrote:
> > >
> > > RES wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I guess it's academia's big lie too.
> > >
> > > Agreed. You are at least correct on one thing.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
> > > >
> > > > How does it feel to be wobbling along on three loose wheels and a hole
> > > > in your pink polka dot pants?
> > >
> > > Is this supposed to be a flame. Do you not have any ideas or material to
> > > refute me, or is you intellect just too feeble?
> > > >
> > > > I don't know what condition you suffer from, but I bet it has a long
> > > > name. RES
> > >
> > > You should be careful here. You give yourself away. It was in the
> > > old, defunct Soviet Union under Brezhnev that free-thinking dissidents
> > > were arrested
> > > and sent to psychiatric asylums. Just like you and your collectivist
> > > ilk,
> > > you cannot tolerate open debate--mainly because you don't have any
> > > logical
> > > arguments to defend your pernicious ideology.
> > > >
> >
> > Open debate? No logical arguments? I cite source after source debunking
> > your lies. You are the ng 'joke'. RES
>
> Then were are they. I don't see any valid references in this followup.
> >
I see you don't consider anyone in academia contradicting you as a valid
reference.
In case you are to mentally infirm to click on the url cited I will copy
and paste it for you below. You won't read it because it contains many
many sources and direct quotations from the man in question.
But to anyone else interested, it's a great summary of Hitler's
ideology. Allan Bullock, the most prominent Hitler historian is cited
and copious references to Hitler's own word are used by Prof. Young and
a careful and convincing manner. No wonder Hitler's fascism is not
disputed anywhere but within the right wing fringe groups which
Iconoclast/Ciceroii lurks. I as a Social Democrat and a student of
history acknowledge the excesses and crimes of Stalinism and other
deleterious variants of communism as having been born from 'socialism'
as a general and broad ideology. Communism is simply the totalitarian
variant of socialism.
It is the height of hypocrisy for the right wing extremists not to
acknowledge that fascism is the totalitarian variant of capitalism. I
and no other fair-minded person would ever blame the Holocaust on
'capitalism'. The complexities of history are too much for the author of
this thread.
Of course, having seen Ciceroii/Iconoclasts's pathetic posts everyone
can safely predict he will 'disqualify' any academic source on the basis
that they are historians and therefore 'socialist' and consequently lack
objectivity. This is the modus operandi of an intellectual leper.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
Here is Prof Young's article in its entirety:
Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that
his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker
ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany,
private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they
in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True
socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be
democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on
the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over
freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over
cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship
over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism,
nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness,
common sense over
theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly
relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.
Argument
To most people, Hitler's beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For
example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military;
carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler's warring
nationalism. This association has long been something of an
embarrassment to the far right.
To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a
counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore
belongs to the political left, not the right.
The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National
Socialist. The word "National" evokes the state, and the word
"Socialist" openly identifies itself as such.
However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term:
it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of
political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which
was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which
was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his
party "socialist," but whether or not it actually was.
In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere
in the world. This may surprise some people -- after all, wasn't the
Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political
parties have called themselves "socialist," but none have actually tried
socialism. To understand why, we should revisit a few basic political
terms.
Perhaps the primary concern of any political ideology is who gets to own
and control the means the production. This includes factories,
farmlands, machinery, etc. Generally there have been three approaches to
this question. The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned
the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their
orders in return for their livelihood.
The second is capitalism, which has disbanded the ruling elite and
allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of
production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford
to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded. The third
(and untried) approach is socialism, where everyone owns and controls
the means of production, by means of the vote. As you can see, there is
a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at
one end, to everyone owning it at the other.
Socialism has been proposed in many forms. The most common is social
democracy, where
workers vote for their supervisors, as well as their industry
representatives to regional or national congresses. Another proposed
form is anarcho-socialism, where workers own companies that would
operate on a free market, without any central government at all. As you
can see, a central planning committee is hardly a necessary feature of
socialism. The primary feature is worker ownership of production.
The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it was a
dictatorship over workers -- that is, a type of aristocracy, with a
ruling elite in Moscow calling all the shots. Workers cannot own or
control anything under a totalitarian government. In variants of
socialism that call for a central government, that government is always
a strong or even direct democracy… never a dictatorship.
It doesn't matter if the dictator claims to be carrying out the will of
the people, or calls himself a "socialist" or a "democrat." If the
people themselves are not in control, then the system is, by definition,
non-democratic and non-socialist.
And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of
production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a
combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private
businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi
"Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It
established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read:
"The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and
laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise." (1)
The employer, however, was subject to the frequent orders of the ruling
Nazi elite. After the Nazis took power in 1933, they quickly established
a highly controlled war economy under the direction of Dr. Hjalmar
Schacht. Like all war economies, it boomed, making Germany the second
nation to recover fully from the Great Depression, in 1936. (The first
nation was Sweden, in 1934.
Following Keynesian-like policies, the Swedish government spent its way
out of the Depression, proving that state economic policies can be
successful without resorting to dictatorship or war.)
Prior to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, worker protests had spread
all across Germany in response to the Great Depression. During his drive
to power, Hitler exploited this social unrest by promising workers to
strengthen their labor unions and increase their standard of living. But
these were empty promises; privately, he was reassuring wealthy German
businessmen that he would crack down on labor once he achieved power.
Historian William Shirer describes the Nazi's dual strategy:
"The party had to play both sides of the tracks. It had to allow
[Nazi officials] Strasser, Goebbels and the crank Feder to beguile the
masses with the cry that the National Socialists were truly 'socialists'
and against the money barons. On the other hand, money to keep the party
going had to be wheedled out of those who had an ample supply of it."
(2)
Once in power, Hitler showed his true colors by promptly breaking all
his promises to workers. The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective
bargaining and the right to strike. An organization called the "Labor
Front" replaced the old trade unions, but it was an instrument of the
Nazi party and did not represent workers. According to the law that
created it, "Its task is to see that every individual should be able… to
perform the maximum of work." Workers would indeed greatly boost their
productivity under Nazi rule. But they also became exploited. Between
1932 and 1936, workers wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an hour for
skilled labor, and from 16.1 to 13 cents an hour for unskilled labor.
(3) Yet workers did not protest. This was partly because the
Nazis had restored order to the economy, but an even bigger reason was
that the Nazis would have cracked down on any protest.
There was no part of Nazism, therefore, that even remotely resembled
socialism. But what about the political nature of Nazism in general? Did
it belong to the left, or to the right? Let's take a closer look:
The politics of Nazism
The political right is popularly associated with the following
principles. Of course, it goes without saying that these are
generalizations, and not every person on the far right believes in every
principle, or disbelieves its opposite. Most people's political beliefs
are complex, and cannot be neatly pigeonholed. This is as true of Hitler
as anyone. But since the far right is trying peg Hitler as a leftist,
it's worth reviewing the tenets popularly associated with the right.
These include:
Individualism over collectivism.
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
Merit over equality.
Competition over cooperation.
Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
Capitalism over Marxism.
Realism over idealism.
Nationalism over internationalism.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
Gun ownership over gun control
Common sense over theory or science.
Pragmatism over principle.
Religion over secularism.
Let's review these spectrums one by one, and see where Hitler stood in
his own words.
Ultimately, Hitler's views are not monolithically conservative -- on a
few issues, his views are complex and difficult to label. But as you
will see, the vast majority of them belong on the far right:
Individualism over collectivism.
Many conservatives argue that Hitler was a leftist because he subjugated
the individual to the state. However, this characterization is wrong,
for several reasons.
The first error is in assuming that this is exclusively a liberal trait.
Actually, U.S. conservatives take considerable pride in being patriotic
Americans, and they deeply honor those who have sacrificed their lives
for their country. The Marine Corps is a classic example: as every
Marine knows, all sense of individuality is obliterated in the Marines
Corps, and one is subject first, foremost and always to the group.
The second error is forgetting that all human beings subscribe to
individualism and collectivism. If you believe that you are personally
responsible for taking care of yourself, you are an individualist. If
you freely belong and contribute to any group -- say, an employing
business, church, club, family, nation, or cause -- then you are a
collectivist as well. Neither of these traits makes a person inherently
"liberal" or "conservative," and to claim that you are an "evil
socialist" because you
champion a particular group is not a serious argument.
Political scientists therefore do not label people "liberal" or
"conservative" on the basis of their individualism or collectivism. Much
more important is how they approach their individualism and
collectivism. What groups does a person belong to? How is power
distributed in the group? Does it practice one-person rule, minority
rule, majority rule, or self-rule? Liberals believe in majority rule.
Hitler practiced one-person rule. Thus, there is no comparison.
And on that score, conservatives might feel that they are off the hook,
too, because they claim to prefer self-rule to one-person rule. But
their actions say otherwise. Many of the institutions that conservatives
favor are really quite dictatorial: the military, the church, the
patriarchal family, the business firm.
Hitler himself downplayed all groups except for the state, which he
raised to supreme significance in his writings. However, he did not
identify the state as most people do, as a random collection of people
in artificially drawn borders. Instead, he identified the German state
as its racially pure stock of German or Aryan blood. In Mein Kampf,
Hitler freely and interchangeably used the terms "Aryan race," "German
culture" and "folkish state." To him they were synonyms, as the quotes
below show. There were citizens inside Germany (like Jews) who were not
part of Hitler's state, while there were Germans outside Germany (for
example, in Austria) who were. But the main point is that Hitler's
political philosophy was not really based on "statism" as we know it
today. It was actually based on racism -- again, a subject that hits
uncomfortably closer to home for conservatives, not liberals.
As Hitler himself wrote:
"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish
the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of
humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the
soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." (4)
"The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation
and advancement of a community of physically and psychically homogenous
creatures. This preservation itself comprises first of all existence as
a race… Thus, the highest purpose of a folkish state is concern for the
preservation of those original racial elements which bestow culture and
create the beauty and dignity of a higher mankind. We, as Aryans, can
conceive of the state only as the living organism of a nationality
which…
assures the preservation of this nationality…" (5)
"The German Reich as a state must embrace all Germans and has the
task, not only of
assembling and preserving the most valuable stocks of basic racial
elements in this people, but slowly and surely of raising them to a
dominant position." (6)
And it was in the service of this racial state that Hitler encourage
individuals to sacrifice themselves:
"In [the Aryan], the instinct for self-preservation has reached its
noblest form, since he willingly subordinates his own ego to the life of
the community and, if the hour demands it, even sacrifices it." (7)
"This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to
the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every
truly human culture." (8)
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
"All the human culture, all the results of art, science, and
technology that we see before us today, are almost exclusively the
creative product of the Aryan." (9)
"Aryan races -- often absurdly small numerically -- subject foreign
peoples, and then… develop the intellectual and organizational
capacities dormant within them." (10)
"If beginning today all further Aryan influence on Japan should
stop… Japan's present rise in science and technology might continue for
a short time; but even in a few years the well would dry up… the present
culture would freeze and sink back into the slumber from which it
awakened seven decades ago by the wave of Aryan culture." (11)
"Every racial crossing leads inevitably sooner or later to the
decline of the hybrid product…" (12)
"It is the function above all of the Germanic states first and
foremost to call a fundamental halt to any further bastardization." (13)
"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and
reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children
and the purity of our blood…" (14)
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction
"The folkish philosophy of life must succeed in bringing about that
nobler age in which men no longer are concerned with breeding dogs,
horses, and cats, but in elevating man himself…" (15)
"The folkish state must make up for what everyone else today has
neglected in this field. It must set race in the center of all life. It
must take care to keep it pure… It must see to it that only the healthy
beget children; that there is only one disgrace: despite one's own
sickness and deficiencies, to bring children into the world, and one
highest honor: to renounce doing so. And conversely it must be
considered reprehensible: to withhold healthy children from the nation.
Here the state… must put the most modern medical means in the service of
this knowledge. It must declare unfit for propagation all who are in any
way visibly sick or who have inherited a disease and therefore pass it
on…" (16)
Merit over equality.
"The best state constitution and state form is that which, with the
most unquestioned certainty, raises the best minds in the national
community to leading position and leading influence. But as in economic
life, the able men cannot be appointed from above, but must struggle
through for themselves…" (17)
"It must not be lamented if so many men set out on the road to
arrive at the same goal: the most powerful and swiftest will in this way
be recognized, and will be the victor." (p. 512.)
Competition over cooperation.
"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want
to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." (18)
"It must never be forgotten that nothing that is really great in
this world has ever been achieved by coalitions, but that it has always
been the success of a single victor. Coalition successes bear by the
very nature of their origin the germ of future crumbling, in fact of the
loss of what has already been achieved. Great, truly world-shaking
revolutions of a spiritual nature are not even conceivable and
realizable except as the titanic struggles of individual formations,
never as enterprises of coalitions." (19)
"The idea of struggle is old as life itself, for life is only
preserved because other living things perish through struggle… In this
struggle, the stronger, the more able, win, while the less able, the
weak, lose. Struggle is the father of all things… It is not by the
principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself in
the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle… If
you do not fight for life, then life will never be won."
(20)
Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
Allan Bullock, probably the world's greatest Hitler historian, sums up
Hitler's political method in one sentence:
"Stripped of their romantic trimmings, all Hitler's ideas can be
reduced to a simple claim for power which recognizes only one
relationship, that of domination, and only one argument, that of force."
(21)
The following quotes by Hitler portray his rather stunning contempt for
pacifism:
"If the German people in its historic development had possessed
that herd unity [defined here by Hitler as racial solidarity] which
other peoples enjoyed, the German Reich today would doubtless be
mistress of the globe. World history would have taken a different
course, and no one can distinguish whether in this way we would not have
obtained what so many blinded pacifists today hope to gain by begging,
whining and whimpering: a peace, supported not by the palm branches of
tearful, pacifist female mourners, but based on the victorious sword of
a master people, putting the world into the service of a higher
culture."
(22)
"We must clearly recognize the fact that the recovery of the lost
territories is not won through solemn appeals to the Lord or through
pious hopes in a League of Nations, but only by force of arms." (23)
"In actual fact the pacifistic-humane idea is perfectly all right
perhaps when the highest type of man has previously conquered and
subjected the world to an extent that makes him the sole ruler of this
earth… Therefore, first struggle and then perhaps pacifism." (24)
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
"The young [Nazi] movement is in its nature and inner organization
anti-parliamentarian; that is, it rejects… a principle of majority rule
in which the leader is degraded to the level of mere executant of other
people's wills and opinion." (25)
"The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion,
but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but
their master!" (26)
"By rejecting the authority of the individual and replacing it by
the numbers of some momentary mob, the parliamentary principle of
majority rule sins against the basic
aristocratic principle of Nature…" (27)
"For there is one thing we must never forget… the majority can
never replace the man. And no more than a hundred empty heads make one
wise man will an heroic decision arise from a hundred cowards." (28)
"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons,
and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely
every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made
by one man." (29)
"When I recognized the Jew as the leader of the Social Democracy,
the scales dropped from my eyes." (30)
"The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism…" (31)
"Only a knowledge of the Jews provides the key with which to
comprehend the inner, and consequently real, aims of Social Democracy."
(32)
Capitalism over Marxism.
Bullock writes of Hitler's views on Marxism:
"While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt,
towards Marxism he
showed an implacable hostility… Ignoring the profound differences
between Communism
and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between
the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the
embodiment of all that he detested -- mass democracy and a leveling
egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an
elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial
inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus
national unity; internationalism versus nationalism." (33)
As Hitler himself would write:
"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." (34)
"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the
question of the future of the German nation was the question of
destroying Marxism." (35)
"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the
political sphere." (36)
"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in
indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the
national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction." (37)
"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the
Jews." (38)
"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle
of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by
the mass of numbers and their dead weight." (39)
Realism over idealism.
Hitler was hardly an "idealist" in the sense that political scientists
use the term. The standard definition of an idealist is someone who
believes that cooperation and peaceful coexistence can occur among
peoples. A realist, however, is someone who sees the world as an
unstable and dangerous place, and prepares for war, if not to deter it,
then to survive it. It goes without saying that Hitler was one of the
greatest realists of all time. Nonetheless, Hitler had his own twisted
utopia, which he described:
"We are not simple enough, either, to believe that it could ever be
possible to bring about a perfect era. But this relieves no one of the
obligation to combat recognized errors, to overcome weaknesses, and
strive for the ideal. Harsh reality of its own accord will create only
too many limitations. For that very reason, however, man must try to
serve the ultimate goal, and failures must not deter him, any more than
he can abandon a system of justice merely because mistakes creep into
it…" (40)
"The same boy who feels like throwing up when he hears the tirades
of a pacifist 'idealist' is ready to give up his life for the ideal of
his nationality." (41)
Nationalism over internationalism.
"The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when… their
international poisoners are exterminated." (42)
"The severest obstacle to the present-day worker's approach to the
national community lies not in the defense of his class interests, but
in his international leadership and attitude which are hostile to the
people and the fatherland." (43)
"Thus, the reservoir from which the young [Nazi] movement must
gather its supporters will primarily be the masses of our workers. Its
work will be to tear these away from theinternational delusion… and lead
them to the national community…" (44)
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
"Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature;
they imagine that they know practically everything and yet with few
exceptions pass blindly by one of the most patent principles of Nature:
the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on earth."(45)
"The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in
this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which,
fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will
against all others." (46)
Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
It may seem ridiculous to include this issue in a review of Hitler's
politics, but, believe it or not, conservatives on the Internet
frequently equate Hitler's vegetarianism with the vegetarianism
practised by liberals concerned about the environment and the ethical
treatment of animals.
Hitler's vegetarianism had nothing to do with his political beliefs. He
became a vegetarian shortly after the death of his girlfriend and
half-niece, Geli Raubal. Their relationship was a stormy one, and it
ended in her apparent suicide. There were rumors that Hitler had
arranged her murder, but Hitler would remain deeply distraught over her
loss for the rest of his life. As one historian writes:
"Curiously, shortly after her death, Hitler looked with disdain on
a piece of ham being served during breakfast and refused to eat it,
saying it was like eating a corpse. From that moment on, he refused to
eat meat." (47)
Hitler's vegetarianism, then, was no more than a phobia, triggered by an
association with his niece's death.
Gun ownership over gun control
Perhaps one of the pro-gun lobby's favorite arguments is that if German
citizens had had the right to keep and bear arms, Hitler would have
never been able to tyrannize the country. And to this effect, pro-gun
advocates often quote the following:
"1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized
nation has full gun registration.Our streets will be safer, our police
more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." -
Adolf Hitler
However, this quote is almost certainly a fraud. There is no reputable
record of him ever making it: neither at the Nuremberg rallies, nor in
any of his weekly radio addresses. Furthermore, there was no reason for
him to even make such a statement; for Germany already had strict gun
control as a term of surrender in the Treaty of Versailles. The Allies
had wanted to make Germany as impotent as possible, and one of the ways
they did that was to disarm its citizenry. Only a handful of local
authorities were allowed arms at all, and the few German citizens who
did possess weapons were already subject to full gun registration. Seen
in this light, the above quote makes no sense whatsoever.
The Firearms Policy Journal (January 1997) writes:
"The Nazi Party did not ride to power confiscating guns. They rode
to power on the
inability of the Weimar Republic to confiscate their guns. They did
not consolidate their power confiscating guns either. There is no
historical evidence that Nazis ever went door to door in Germany
confiscating guns. The Germans had a fetish about paperwork and
documented everything. These searches and confiscations would have been
carefully
recorded. If the documents are there, let them be presented as
evidence."
On April 12, 1928, five years before Hitler seized power, Germany passed
the Law on Firearmsand Ammunition. This law substantially tightened
restrictions on gun ownership in an effort to curb street violence
between Nazis and Communists. The law was ineffectual and poorly
enforced. It was not until March 18, 1938 -- five years after Hitler
came to power -- that the Nazis passed the German Weapons Law, their
first known change in the firearm code. And this law actually relaxed
restrictions on citizen firearms.
Common sense over theory or science.
Hitler was notorious for his anti-intellectualism:
"The youthful brain should in general not be burdened with things
ninety-five percent of which it cannot use and hence forgets again… In
many cases, the material to be learned in the various subjects is so
swollen that only a fraction of it remains in the head of the individual
pupil, and only a fraction of this abundance can find application, while
on the other hand it is not adequate for the man working and earning his
living in a definite field."(48)
"Knowledge above the average can be crammed into the average man,
but it remains dead, and in the last analysis sterile knowledge. The
result is a man who may be a living dictionary but nevertheless falls
down miserably in all special situations and decisive moments in life."
(49)
"The folkish state must not adjust its entire educational work
primarily to the inoculation of mere knowledge, but to the breeding of
absolutely healthy bodies. The training of mental abilities is only
secondary. And here again, first place must be taken by the development
of character, especially the promotion of will-power and determination,
combined with thetraining of joy in responsibility, and only in last
place comes scientific schooling." (50)
"A people of scholars, if they are physically degenerate,
weak-willed and cowardly
pacifists, will not storm the heavens, indeed, they will not be
able to safeguard their existence on this earth." (51)
Pragmatism over principle.
"The question of the movement's inner organization is one of
expediency and not of
principle." (52)
Religion over secularism.
Hitler's views on religion were complex. Although ostensibly an atheist,
he considered himself a cultural Catholic, and frequently evoked God,
the Creator and Providence in his writings.
Throughout his life he would remain an envious admirer of the Christian
Church and its power over the masses. Here is but one example:
"We can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its
doctrinal edifice… comes into collision with exact science and research,
it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little
syllable of its dogmas. It has recognized quite correctly that its power
of resistance does not lie in its lesser or greater adaptation to the
scientific findings of the moment, which in reality are always
fluctuating, but rather in rigidly holding to dogmas once established,
for it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of
faith. And so it stands today more firmly than ever." (53)
Hitler also saw a useful purpose for the Church:
"The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers;
precisely for the masses, [religious] faith is often the sole foundation
of a moral attitude… For the political man, the value of a religion must
be estimated less by its deficiencies than by the virtue of a visibly
better substitute. As long as this appears to be lacking, what is
present can be demolished only by fools or criminals." (54)
Hitler thus advocated freedom of religious belief. Although he would
later press churches into the service of Nazism, often at the point of a
gun, Hitler did not attempt to impose a state religion or mandate the
basic philosophical content of German religions. As long as they did not
interfere with his program, he allowed them to continue fuctioning. And
this policy was foreshadowed in his writings:
"For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions
of his people must always remain inviolable; or else he has no right to
be in politics…" (55)
"Political parties have nothing to do with religious problems, as
long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and
ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the
scheming of political parties." (56)
"Worst of all, however, is the devastation wrought by the misuse of
religious conviction for political ends." (57)
"Therefore, let every man be active, each in his own denomination
if you please, and let every man take it as his first and most sacred
duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by word or deed steps outside
the confines of his religious community and tries to butt into the
other." (58)
Hitler was raised a Catholic, even going to school for two years at the
monastery at Lambauch, Austria. As late as 24 he still called himself a
Catholic, but somewhere along the way he became an atheist. It is highly
doubtful that this was an intellectual decision, as a reading of his
disordered thoughts in Mein Kampf will attest. The decision was most
likely a pragmatic one, based on power and personal ambition. Bullock
reveals an interesting anecdote showing how these considerations worked
on the young Hitler. After five years of eking out a miserable existence
in Vienna and four years of war, Hitler walked into his first German
Worker's Party meeting:
"'Under the dim light shed by a grimy gas-lamp I could see four
people sitting around a table…' As Hitler frankly acknowledges, this
very obscurity was an attraction. It was only in a party which, like
himself, was beginning at the bottom that he had any prospect of playing
a leading part and imposing his ideas. In the established parties there
was no room for him, he would be a nobody." (59)
Hitler probably realized that a frustrated artist and pipe-dreamer like
himself would have no chance of achieving power in the world-wide,
2000-year old Christian Church. It was most likely for this reason that
he rejected Christianity and pursued a political life instead. Yet,
curiously enough, he never renounced his membership in the Catholic
Church, and the Church never excommunicated him. Nor did the Church
place his Mein Kampf on the Index of Prohibited Books, in spite of its
knowledge of his atrocities. Later the Church would come under intense
criticism for its friendly and cooperative relationship with Hitler. A
brief review of this history is instructive.
In 1933, the Catholic Center Party cast its large and decisive vote in
favor of Hitler's Enabling Bill. This bill essentially gave Chancellor
Hitler the sweeping dictatorial powers he was seeking. Historian Guenter
Lewy describes a meeting between Hitler and the German Catholic
authorities shortly afterwards:
"On 26 April 1933 Hitler had a conversation with Bishop Berning and
Monsignor
Steinmann [the Catholic leadership in Germany]. The subject was the
common fight against liberalism, Socialism and Bolshevism, discussed in
the friendliest terms. In the course of the conversation Hitler said
that he was only doing to the Jews what the church had done to them over
the past fifteen hundred years. The prelates did not contradict him."
(60)
As anyone familiar with Christian history knows, the Church has always
been a primary source of anti-Semitism. Hitler's anti-Semitism therefore
found a receptive audience among Catholic
authorities. The Church also had an intense fear and hatred of Russian
communism, and Hitler's
attack on Russia was the best that could have happened. The Jesuit
Michael Serafin wrote: "It
cannot be denied that [Pope] Pius XII's closest advisors for some time
regarded Hitler's armoured
divisions as the right hand of God." (61) As Pope Pius himself would say
after Germany
conquered Poland: "Let us end this war between brothers and unite our
forces against the
common enemy of atheism" -- Russia. (62)
Once Hitler assumed power, he signed a Concordat, or agreement, with the
Catholic Church.
Eugenio Pacelli (the man who would eventually become Pope Pius XII) was
the Vatican diplomat who drew up the Concordat, and he considered it a
triumph. In return for promises which Hitler increasingly broke, the
Church dissolved all Catholic organizations in Germany, including the
Catholic Center Party. Bishops were to take an oath of loyalty to the
Nazi regime. Clergy were to see to the pastoral care of Germany's armed
forces (regardless of what those armed forces did).
(63)
The Concordat eliminated all Catholic resistance to Hitler; after this,
the German bishops gave Hitler their full and unqualified support. A
bishops' conference at Fulda, 1933, resulted in agreement with Hitler's
case for extending Lebensraum, or German territory. (64) Bishop
Bornewasser told a congregation of Catholic young people at Trier: "With
our heads high and with firm steps we have entered the new Reich and are
ready to serve it body and soul." (65) Vicar-General Steinman greeted
each Berlin mass with the shout, "Heil Hitler!" (66)
Hitler, on the other hand, kept up his attack on the Church. Nazi bands
stormed into the few remaining Catholic institutions, beat up Catholic
youths and arrested Catholic officials. The Vatican was dismayed, but it
did not protest. (67) In some instances, it was hard to tell if the
Church supported its own persecution. Hitler muzzled the independent
Catholic press (about 400 daily papers in 1933) and subordinated it to
Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment. Yet soon the
Catholic Press was doing more than what the Nazis required of it -- for
example, coordinating their Nazi propaganda to prepare the people for
the 1940 offensive against the West. (68) Throughout the war, the
Catholic press would remain one of the Third Reich's best
disseminators of propaganda.
Pacelli became the new Pope Pius XII in 1939, and he immediately
improved relations with Hitler. He broke protocol by personally signing
a letter in German to Hitler expressing warm hopes of friendly
relations. Shortly afterwards, the Church celebrated Hitler's birthday
by ringing bells, flying swastika flags from church towers and holding
thanksgiving services for the Fuhrer. (69) Ringing church bells to
celebrate and affirm the bishops' allegiance to the Reich would become
quite common throughout the war; after the German army conquered France,
the church bells rang for an entire week, and swastikas flew over the
churches for ten days.
But perhaps the greatest failure of Pope Pius XII was his silence over
the Holocaust, even though he knew it was in progress. Although there
are many heroic stories of Catholics helping Jews survive the Holocaust,
they do not include Pope Pius, the Holy See, or the German Catholic
authorities. When a reporter asked Pius why he did not protest the
liquidation of the Jews, the Pope answered, "Dear friend, do not forget
that millions of Catholics are serving in the German armies. Am I to
involve them in a conflict of conscience?" (70) As perhaps the world's
greatest moral leader, he was charged with precisely that
responsibility.
The history of Hitler and the Church reveals a relationship built on
mutual distrust and
philosophical rejection, but also shared goals, benefits, admiration,
envy, riendliness, and ultimate alliance.
Return to Overview
Endnotes:
1. William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, (New York:
Simon & Schuster, 1960),
p. 263.
2. Ibid., p. 143.
3. Ibid., p. 264.
4. Hitler, quoted in Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, abridged
edition, (New York:
HarperCollins, 1971), p. 228.
5. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, trans. by Ralph Manheim (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company,
1962), pp. 393-4.
6. Ibid., p. 398.
7. Ibid., p. 297.
8. Ibid., p. 298.
9. Ibid., p. 290.
10. Ibid., pp. 291-2.
11. Ibid., p. 291.
12. Ibid., p. 401.
13. Ibid., p. 402.
14. Ibid., p. 214.
15. Ibid., p. 405.
16. Ibid., p. 404.
17. Ibid., p. 449.
18. Ibid., p. 289.
19. Ibid., p. 516-17.
20. Quoted in Bullock, pp. 11-12.
21. Ibid., p. 230.
22. Hitler, p. 396.
23. Ibid., p. 627.
24. Ibid., p. 288.
25. Ibid., p. 344.
26. Ibid., p. 465.
27. Ibid., p. 81.
28. Ibid., p. 82.
29. Ibid., p. 449.
30. Ibid., p. 60.
31. Ibid., p. 78
32. Ibid., p. 51.
33. Bullock, p. 228-9.
34. Hitler, p. 535.
35. Ibid., p. 155.
36. Quoted in Bullock, p. 102.
37. Hitler, p. 376.
38. Ibid., p. 382.
39. Ibid., p. 65.
40. Ibid., p. 437.
41. Ibid., p. 299.
42. Ibid., p. 338.
43. Ibid., p. 340.
44. Ibid., p. 340.
45. Ibid., p. 284.
46. Ibid., p. 351.
47. The History Place, "The Rise of Adolf Hitler: Success and a
Suicide,"
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/success.htm
48. Hitler, p. 418.
49. Ibid., p. 429.
50. Ibid., p. 408.
51. Ibid., p. 408.
52. Ibid., p. 346.
53. Ibid., p. 459.
54. Ibid., p. 267.
55. Ibid., p. 116.
56. Ibid., p. 116.
57. Ibid., p. 268.
58. Ibid., p. 563.
59. Bullock, p. 35.
60. Guenter Lewy, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (London and New
York) 1964,
p. 50ff.
61. Friedrich Heer, God's First Love (New York: Weybright and Talley,
1967), p. 320, citing
Lewy, pp. 249-250; see also Falconi, Carlo, Il silenzio di Pio XII
(Milan) 1965.
62. Heer, p. 319.
63. Lewy, p. 57 ff.
64. Ibid., p. 94 ff.
65. Ibid., p. 100f.
66. Ibid., p. 105.
67. Heer, p. 310.
68. Heer, p. 110.
69. Giovannetti, A., Der Vatikan und der Krieg (Cologne) 1961.
70. Lewy, p. 304.
ciceroii
> a careful and convincing manner. No wonder Hitler's fascism (snip)
But fascism is socialism. How many times do have to be hit over the
head with this truth?
If you have anti-capitalism and social regimentation, then you have
fascism, nazism and communism. Examine this quotation:
"It is important to realize that Fascism and Nazism
were socialist dictatorships. The communists, both the
registered members of the communist parties and the fellow
travelers, stigmatize Fascism and Nazism as the highest and
most depraved state of capitalism. This is in perfect agreement
of calling every party which does not unconditionally surrender
to the dictates of Moscow--even the German Social Democrats, the
classical party of Marxism--hirelings to capitalism".--Ludwig von
Mises ("Socialism"), p.523.
>
> It is the height of hypocrisy for the right wing extremists not to
> acknowledge that fascism is the totalitarian variant of capitalism.
Marxism, Fascism and Nazism are all anti-capitalist. Read Von Mises
little book "The Anti-Capitalist Mentality". And no ivory-tower leftist
intellectual can contradict him. He was there in Europe for the whole
period. He made it a life long study.
> Irrelevant gibberish has been snipped.
RES
You quote a dubious source in von Misses - an appeal to an ostensibly
higher authority who is rather ignorant about ideology and history.
Young's article contains actual arguments and analysis which are
accepted by the rest of the planet who knows something about fascism -
credible sources and quotations for people to view and make up their own
minds.
You obviously are an idiot, albeit a tendentious one. Von Misses is a
joke. He'd be laughed out of every University in the world (except maybe
for Purdue). RES
> >
> > It is the height of hypocrisy for the right wing extremists not to
> > acknowledge that fascism is the totalitarian variant of capitalism.
>
> Marxism, Fascism and Nazism are all anti-capitalist. Read Von Mises
> little book "The Anti-Capitalist Mentality". And no ivory-tower leftist
> intellectual can contradict him. He was there in Europe for the whole
> period. He made it a life long study.
>
Poor guy. Why don't you write a book and cite it. RES
> > Irrelevant gibberish has been snipped.
Here's what the idiot snipped.
ciceroii
Corporatism is state capitalism, which is socialism, the opposite of
free market capitalism.
But all of the above were present in Lenin's and Stalin's Soviet Union.
The invasion of Poland by Trotsky's Red Army would be an example of
belligerent nationalism also the conquest of the Baltic states.
Stalin's reign was anti-Semitic and the anti-Semitism continued until
the fall of the Soviet Union. This would show the racism.
The racism of socialism is brought out by the Bieder-Meinhof gang
of German Marxist-Leninist terrorists. We see from the following
quotation the racism, anti-Semitism and anti-capitalism so
prevalent in the Left:
"The more recent extreme left, of course, incorporated the irrational
element of Nazism. It was the Red Brigade's Ulrike Mienhof who
said at her trial , "Auschwitz meant that six
million Jews were killed, and
thrown onto the waste heap of Europe
for what they were, money Jews". -Robert Conquest, "Reflections
on a Ravaged Century". p.65
>
>
RES
Ivan Satori
news:3B262595...@canada.sun.com...
> . . .
> Fascism
> a.A system of government marked by centralization of authority
> under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression
> of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a
> policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
>
> Socialism
> 1.Any of various theories or systems of social organization
> in which the means of producing and distributing goods is
> owned collectively or by a centralized government that often
> plans and controls the economy.]
> --
David, the two definitions are incompatible. The first describes a system of
government (really existing or having existed) while the other a theory of a
system. If you remember, we had such situation before.
If you really took each of the definitions item by item, you'll find that
between the Soviet Russia and the National Socialist Germany, there is
absolutely no difference in terms of the first definition (if we look at
reality, not official propaganda), and only superficial one according to the
second.
We might dispute what name we want to call the ugly reality. We might agree
that the Nazi Germany wasn't socialist. But applying the same criteria, then
neither was Soviet Russia.
It doesn't really matter what we call it. The foundation of those regimes
and the way they worked were in essence the same, and the differences were
inconsequential technical details, merely reflecting different
historio-geographical situations in different countries.
RES
ergo their definition as totalitarian regimes. go figure. RES
Bruce Mills
: Communism is where the government doesn't let you keep your property. They
: confiscate it and make you work it, and then further confiscate the product.
: They send in the jackbooted KGB with guns to ensure you comply. Fascism is
: where they let you own (in name only) your property. The government makes
: you work it and tells you how you will work it and sets the prices, profit
: margins etc, then they confiscate the product. They send in the jackbooted
: gestapo with guns to make sure you comply. As you can see there is very
: little difference between these two. Left and Right are both slightly
: different forms of exactly the same thing. Particularly from the point of
: view of those of us that subscribe to the von Mises view. BTW, the second
: version is the version that we have here in Australia, and in most other
: parts of the Western world.
That is why the so-called "political spectrum" is a fallacy: they are all
just different forms of "statism". The opposite of "statism" is
"freedom".
Bruce
--
There is nothing to take a man's freedom away from him, save other men.
To be free, a man must be free of his brothers.
- Ayn Rand
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
Excellent post, David. They also shared a strong anti-capitalist
philosophy, as is obvious in Hitler's speeches as well as their canned
propaganda.
>
>
>
>
Ivan Satori
> Ivan Satori wrote:
> > . . .
> > We might dispute what name we want to call the ugly reality. We might
agree
> > that the Nazi Germany wasn't socialist. But applying the same criteria,
then
> > neither was Soviet Russia.
> >
> > It doesn't really matter what we call it. The foundation of those
regimes
> > and the way they worked were in essence the same, and the differences
were
> > inconsequential technical details, merely reflecting different
> > historio-geographical situations in different countries.
>
> ergo their definition as totalitarian regimes. go figure. RES
Exactly. And each of the totalitarian regimes originally started as a
genuinely well intentioned attempt to build a Socialist Utopia.
The points at which the two attempts went wrong were somewhat different, the
results to which they ultimately led were fairly similar.
S.Benedikt
RES <resc...@home.com> wrote in message news:3B264D47...@home.com...
You are both arguing semantics - it is academic....There is a very teen line
separating the dogmas of Fascism/Nazism and Communism.
Marxist dialectic materialism romanticised by socialist in every utopias has
failed.
It created ruling class of butchers, people users and abusers. That is why I
equate Communism as the next step from socialism, with Fascism.
You can quote works of genius academic literati and argue the subject as
much as you like but if you would have had misfortunes to live under any of
those ideologies/demagogies I am sure you would have thought differently as
I do.
The only system which has had good innings so far throughout the history of
mankind has been capitalism and democracy. Perhaps the next ledge in our
civilisation is extension of western democracy to humanism with capitalism
founding it in tow.
|
| You quote a dubious source in von Misses - an appeal to an ostensibly
| higher authority who is rather ignorant about ideology and history.
| Young's article contains actual arguments and analysis which are
| accepted by the rest of the planet who knows something about fascism -
| credible sources and quotations for people to view and make up their own
| minds.
|
| You obviously are an idiot, albeit a tendentious one. Von Misses is a
| joke. He'd be laughed out of every University in the world (except maybe
| for Purdue). RES
| > >
| > > It is the height of hypocrisy for the right wing extremists not to
| > > acknowledge that fascism is the totalitarian variant of capitalism.
| >
| > Marxism, Fascism and Nazism are all anti-capitalist. Read Von Mises
| > little book "The Anti-Capitalist Mentality". And no ivory-tower leftist
| > intellectual can contradict him. He was there in Europe for the whole
| > period. He made it a life long study.
| >
|
| Poor guy. Why don't you write a book and cite it. RES
|
| > > Irrelevant gibberish has been snipped.
|
| Here's what the idiot snipped.
|
| > > > > > http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
And why such personal uncalled for denigrating attacks on a person
expressing an opinion?
With such approach you could certainly make a good and faithful Lieutenant
in Siberian Gulag...
S.Benedikt
My mind is personalization of my brain. Although my brain is always with me
it is working for someone else!
Dave The Impaler
> Nothing is more detestable and embarrassing to the Left than
> for people to know that Adolph Hitler and his Nazis were socialists.
> But of course they were. To claim otherwise is simply
> perverse stupidity or dissembling. Both the Nazis and
> Commies were anti-capitalist and collectivist.
Typical Libertarian thought put Maoist China, Nazi germany etc all in
the same box as each other.
It seems the German corporations also profited out of Nazi
"socialism".
DAVE
David Collier-Brown
> That is why the so-called "political spectrum" is a fallacy: they are all
> just different forms of "statism". The opposite of "statism" is
> "freedom".
You can also put this on multiple dimensions, with
statism on one of them and the beiefe that people
act in their own interest on the other, and you
find Socialism and Fascism opposites in one sense,
and the same in the other.
[Stolen from a psyc paper by Jerry Pournelle, actually]
--dave
David Collier-Brown
ciceroii wrote
> > > Then were are they. I don't see any valid references in this followup.
RES wrote:
> > I see you don't consider anyone in academia contradicting you as a valid
> > reference.
...
> > But to anyone else interested, it's a great summary of Hitler's
> > ideology. Allan Bullock, the most prominent Hitler historian is cited
> > and copious references to Hitler's own word are used by Prof. Young and
> > a careful and convincing manner. No wonder Hitler's fascism (snip)
[Cicero then snipped the disproof of his claim]
Cicero replied:
> But fascism is socialism. How many times do have to be hit over the
> head with this truth?
Sorry, lad, you can't just re-state your claim when
someone disproves it, and use that as a 'proof'
that his disproof is false.
This is called "Circulus in demonstrando"
See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#circulus
This fallacy occurs if you assume as a premise the conclusion which
you wish to reach. Often, the proposition is rephrased so that the
fallacy appears to be a valid argument. For example:
"Homosexuals must not be allowed to hold government office. Hence
any government official who is revealed to be a homosexual will
lose his job. Therefore homosexuals will do anything to hide their
secret, and will be open to blackmail. Therefore homosexuals cannot
be allowed to hold government office."
Note that the argument is entirely circular; the premise is the same
as the conclusion. An argument like the above has actually been cited
as the reason for the British Secret Services' official ban on
homosexual employees.
Circular arguments are surprisingly common, unfortunately. If you've
already reached a particular conclusion once, it's easy to
accidentally
make it an assertion when explaining your reasoning to someone else.
> > Irrelevant gibberish has been snipped.
I'll believe that when I see it!
David Collier-Brown
> | Here's what the idiot snipped.
> |
> | > > > > > http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
> And why such personal uncalled for denigrating attacks on a person
> expressing an opinion?
[insult in reply snipped]
Because Mr. Iconoclast loves to insult folks.
This, by the way, is a common tactic in these
newsgroups: if you manage to get someone into
a flamewar, most readers will killfile both
of you. You thereby remove not only yourself,
but also your opponents from the conversation (;-))
David Collier-Brown
> > But there was also an economic policy component of
> > fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and '30s as "corporatism,"
>
> Corporatism is state capitalism, which is socialism, the opposite of
> free market capitalism.
If you would be so kind as to refer to the following
paragraph **from the message you replied to*** ...
> > In Mussolini's Italy, businesses were grouped by the government into
> > legally
> > recognized "syndicates" such as the "National Fascist Confederation of
> > Commerce," the "National Fascist Confederation of Credit and
> > Insurance,"
> > and so on. All of these "fascist confederations" were "coordinated" by
> > a
> > network of government planning agencies called "corporations," one for
> > each
> > industry. One large "National Council of Corporations" served as a
> > national
> > overseer of the individual "corporations" and had the power to "issue
> > regulations of a compulsory character."
... then you will see that the coorporatism of the
day was in fact the rule of corporations.
In fascist economics, the companies elected a board,
which had lawmaking power. This was the structure of
the government that Mussolini wanted, with himself at
the top, and was partially implemenented in pre-war
and immediately intra-war Italy.
[Source: the above, and my old teacher, Dr. M.V.
Corsini, who lived through the war in Italy before
moving to Canada]
--dave
David Collier-Brown
> David, the two definitions are incompatible. The first describes a system of
> government (really existing or having existed) while the other a theory of a
> system. If you remember, we had such situation before.
That's why it was a footnote to the substantiative
discussion about the differences. The footnote was
to illustrate that Mr. Icon was, as usual, trying
to impose his own definitions on the discussion.
--dave
David Collier-Brown
> Exactly. And each of the totalitarian regimes originally started as a
> genuinely well intentioned attempt to build a Socialist Utopia.
>
> The points at which the two attempts went wrong were somewhat different, the
> results to which they ultimately led were fairly similar.
I'll argue the opposite: that they were aimed at
different ends, and they they resembled each other
was accidental to their efforts.
I claim that the Socialist were hoping for an Utopia,
created a system that necessarily failed, and fell
fully into totalitarian rule under Stalin and his
successors.
I claim that Mussolini was always a totalitarian,
and worked consistently to place himself in a position
of power, using a corporatist economics to give
his financial supporters a claim to political
power under his overall rule.
I claim that Hitler was the same, using racism
as a motivator and justification for his followers.
All three are tragedies: the latter two were
intentionally tragedies.
--dave (who somewhat dislikes tyrants) c-b
David Collier-Brown
> Typical Libertarian thought put Maoist China, Nazi germany etc all in
> the same box as each other.
> It seems the German corporations also profited out of Nazi
> "socialism".
if you're fare enough out on the right-hand-end of the
spectrum, **everyone** else looks like some kind of
evil pinko.
Conversely, to a convinced communist, everything
else is capitalism.
--dave
ciceroii
RES wrote:
>
> ciceroii wrote:
> >
> > RES wrote:
> > >
> > > I guess it's academia's big lie too.
> >
> > Agreed. You are at least correct on one thing.
> > >
> > > http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
> > >
> > > How does it feel to be wobbling along on three loose wheels and a hole
> > > in your pink polka dot pants?
> >
> > Is this supposed to be a flame. Do you not have any ideas or material to
> > refute me, or is you intellect just too feeble?
> > >
> > > I don't know what condition you suffer from, but I bet it has a long
> > > name. RES
> >
> > You should be careful here. You give yourself away. It was in the
> > old, defunct Soviet Union under Brezhnev that free-thinking dissidents
> > were arrested
> > and sent to psychiatric asylums. Just like you and your collectivist
> > ilk,
> > you cannot tolerate open debate--mainly because you don't have any
> > logical
> > arguments to defend your pernicious ideology.
> > >
>
> Open debate? No logical arguments? I cite source after source debunking
> your lies. You are the ng 'joke'. RES
Then were are they. I don't see any valid references in this followup.
>
> > > ciceroii wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Today this is, of course, socialism's big lie.
> > > > Nothing is more detestable and embarrassing to the Left than
> > > > for people to know that Adolph Hitler and his Nazis were socialists.
> > > > But of course they were. To claim otherwise is simply
> > > > perverse stupidity or dissembling. Both the Nazis and
> > > > Commies were anti-capitalist and collectivist.
> > > >
> > > > The great Austrian
> > > > economist and political scientist, Ludwig von Mises
> > > > makes the definitive statement
> > > > on this issue in his book "Socialism, An Economic and
> > > > Sociological Analysis, 1981 (reprinted edition).
> > > >
> > > > "It is important to realize that Fascism and Nazism
> > > > were socialist dictatorships. The communists, both the
> > > > registered members of the communist parties and the fellow
> > > > travelers, stigmatize Fascism and Nazism as the highest and
> > > > most depraved state of capitalism. This is in perfect agreement
> > > > of calling every party which does not unconditionally surrender
> > > > to the dictates of Moscow--even the German Social Democrats, the
> > > > classical party of Marxism--hirelings to capitalism".--Ludwig von
> > > > Mises ("Socialism"), p.523.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3B262A5E...@home.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.denews.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B262A5E...@home.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B262...@home.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:38:15 GMT
Approved: You bet
Lines: 2
RES
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
How does it feel to be wobbling along on three loose wheels and a hole
in your pink polka dot pants?
I don't know what condition you suffer from, but I bet it has a long
name. RES
ciceroii wrote:
>
> Today this is, of course, socialism's big lie.
> Nothing is more detestable and embarrassing to the Left than
> for people to know that Adolph Hitler and his Nazis were socialists.
> But of course they were. To claim otherwise is simply
> perverse stupidity or dissembling. Both the Nazis and
> Commies were anti-capitalist and collectivist.
>
> The great Austrian
> economist and political scientist, Ludwig von Mises
> makes the definitive statement
> on this issue in his book "Socialism, An Economic and
> Sociological Analysis, 1981 (reprinted edition).
>
> "It is important to realize that Fascism and Nazism
> were socialist dictatorships. The communists, both the
> registered members of the communist parties and the fellow
> travelers, stigmatize Fascism and Nazism as the highest and
> most depraved state of capitalism. This is in perfect agreement
> of calling every party which does not unconditionally surrender
> to the dictates of Moscow--even the German Social Democrats, the
> classical party of Marxism--hirelings to capitalism".--Ludwig von
> Mises ("Socialism"), p.523.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3B261F93...@home.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!newspump.sol.net!newsengine.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B261F93...@home.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B261...@home.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:23:20 GMT
ciceroii
RES wrote:
>
> I guess it's academia's big lie too.
Agreed. You are at least correct on one thing.
>
> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
>
> How does it feel to be wobbling along on three loose wheels and a hole
> in your pink polka dot pants?
Is this supposed to be a flame. Do you not have any ideas or material to
refute me, or is you intellect just too feeble?
>
> I don't know what condition you suffer from, but I bet it has a long
> name. RES
You should be careful here. You give yourself away. It was in the
old, defunct Soviet Union under Brezhnev that free-thinking dissidents
were arrested
and sent to psychiatric asylums. Just like you and your collectivist
ilk,
you cannot tolerate open debate--mainly because you don't have any
logical
arguments to defend your pernicious ideology.
>
> ciceroii wrote:
> >
> > Today this is, of course, socialism's big lie.
> > Nothing is more detestable and embarrassing to the Left than
> > for people to know that Adolph Hitler and his Nazis were socialists.
> > But of course they were. To claim otherwise is simply
> > perverse stupidity or dissembling. Both the Nazis and
> > Commies were anti-capitalist and collectivist.
> >
> > The great Austrian
> > economist and political scientist, Ludwig von Mises
> > makes the definitive statement
> > on this issue in his book "Socialism, An Economic and
> > Sociological Analysis, 1981 (reprinted edition).
> >
> > "It is important to realize that Fascism and Nazism
> > were socialist dictatorships. The communists, both the
> > registered members of the communist parties and the fellow
> > travelers, stigmatize Fascism and Nazism as the highest and
> > most depraved state of capitalism. This is in perfect agreement
> > of calling every party which does not unconditionally surrender
> > to the dictates of Moscow--even the German Social Democrats, the
> > classical party of Marxism--hirelings to capitalism".--Ludwig von
> > Mises ("Socialism"), p.523.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3B2622DC...@home.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.denews.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B2622DC...@home.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B262...@home.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:08:08 GMT
David Collier-Brown
>
> Today this is, of course, socialism's big lie.
> Nothing is more detestable and embarrassing to the Left than
> for people to know that Adolph Hitler and his Nazis were socialists.
> But of course they were. To claim otherwise is simply
> perverse stupidity or dissembling. Both the Nazis and
> Commies were anti-capitalist and collectivist.
Mr. Iconoclast's trying very hard to "revise"
history. See footnote!
> The great Austrian
> economist and political scientist, Ludwig von Mises
> makes the definitive statement
> on this issue in his book "Socialism, An Economic and
> Sociological Analysis, 1981 (reprinted edition).
>
> "It is important to realize that Fascism and Nazism
> were socialist dictatorships.
Please understand that Dr. Von Mises took a
extreme position in saying this: he regarded
both the left and the right as enemies of
liberalism, and equated them because they
both preferred to kill their opponents, rather
than argue with them.
A good example of this is in "The Argument of Fascism",
at http://www.mises.org/liberal/ch1sec10.asp, part
of his book "Liberalism".
This is, alas, not a good argument that Socialism
and fascism were the same thing, only that they
were both evil.
A better approach is to look at the economic
theories of the socialists and fascists, and ask
oneself if they were similar. I assume everyone
here already know socialism's "economics", so
let's look at Fascism's:
A good (if harsh!) critique of fascism's economics is
http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_3/ts213l.html
"Economic Fascism" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, who summarizes
it thusly:
But there was also an economic policy component of
fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and '30s as "corporatism,"
that
was an essential ingredient of economic totalitarianism as practiced
by
Mussolini and Hitler. So- called corporatism was adopted in Italy and
Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a "model" by quite a few
intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe.
In Mussolini's Italy, businesses were grouped by the government into
legally
recognized "syndicates" such as the "National Fascist Confederation of
Commerce," the "National Fascist Confederation of Credit and
Insurance,"
and so on. All of these "fascist confederations" were "coordinated" by
a
network of government planning agencies called "corporations," one for
each
industry. One large "National Council of Corporations" served as a
national
overseer of the individual "corporations" and had the power to "issue
regulations of a compulsory character."
and so on... (this is in part a critique of 30's-era
flirtations by the U.S. with corporatism, some
existing to this day).
Therefor, Fascism != Socialism Although they
may have many accidental similarities, they
are inherently different in nature.
--dave
[footnote:
Fascism
a.A system of government marked by centralization of authority
under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression
of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a
policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Socialism
1.Any of various theories or systems of social organization
in which the means of producing and distributing goods is
owned collectively or by a centralized government that often
plans and controls the economy.]
--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
Performance & Engineering Team | some people and astonish the rest.
Americas Customer Engineering | -- Mark Twain
(905) 415-2849 | dav...@canada.sun.com
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3B262595...@canada.sun.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!spool0-chcgil.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.denews.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B262595...@canada.sun.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B262...@canada.sun.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:23:22 GMT
ciceroii
> a careful and convincing manner. No wonder Hitler's fascism (snip)
But fascism is socialism. How many times do have to be hit over the
head with this truth?
If you have anti-capitalism and social regimentation, then you have
fascism, nazism and communism. Examine this quotation:
"It is important to realize that Fascism and Nazism
were socialist dictatorships. The communists, both the
registered members of the communist parties and the fellow
travelers, stigmatize Fascism and Nazism as the highest and
most depraved state of capitalism. This is in perfect agreement
of calling every party which does not unconditionally surrender
to the dictates of Moscow--even the German Social Democrats, the
classical party of Marxism--hirelings to capitalism".--Ludwig von
Mises ("Socialism"), p.523.
>
> It is the height of hypocrisy for the right wing extremists not to
> acknowledge that fascism is the totalitarian variant of capitalism.
Marxism, Fascism and Nazism are all anti-capitalist. Read Von Mises
little book "The Anti-Capitalist Mentality". And no ivory-tower leftist
intellectual can contradict him. He was there in Europe for the whole
period. He made it a life long study.
> Irrelevant gibberish has been snipped.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3B2643A2...@home.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.denews.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B2643A2...@home.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B264...@home.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:38:24 GMT
RES
You quote a dubious source in von Misses - an appeal to an ostensibly
higher authority who is rather ignorant about ideology and history.
Young's article contains actual arguments and analysis which are
accepted by the rest of the planet who knows something about fascism -
credible sources and quotations for people to view and make up their own
minds.
You obviously are an idiot, albeit a tendentious one. Von Misses is a
joke. He'd be laughed out of every University in the world (except maybe
for Purdue). RES
> >
> > It is the height of hypocrisy for the right wing extremists not to
> > acknowledge that fascism is the totalitarian variant of capitalism.
>
> Marxism, Fascism and Nazism are all anti-capitalist. Read Von Mises
> little book "The Anti-Capitalist Mentality". And no ivory-tower leftist
> intellectual can contradict him. He was there in Europe for the whole
> period. He made it a life long study.
>
Poor guy. Why don't you write a book and cite it. RES
> > Irrelevant gibberish has been snipped.
Here's what the idiot snipped.
> > > > > http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3B264D47...@home.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.denews.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B264D47...@home.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B264...@home.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:53:23 GMT
RES
ciceroii wrote:
>
> RES wrote:
> >
> > I guess it's academia's big lie too.
>
> Agreed. You are at least correct on one thing.
> >
> > http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
> >
> > How does it feel to be wobbling along on three loose wheels and a hole
> > in your pink polka dot pants?
>
> Is this supposed to be a flame. Do you not have any ideas or material to
> refute me, or is you intellect just too feeble?
> >
> > I don't know what condition you suffer from, but I bet it has a long
> > name. RES
>
> You should be careful here. You give yourself away. It was in the
> old, defunct Soviet Union under Brezhnev that free-thinking dissidents
> were arrested
> and sent to psychiatric asylums. Just like you and your collectivist
> ilk,
> you cannot tolerate open debate--mainly because you don't have any
> logical
> arguments to defend your pernicious ideology.
> >
Open debate? No logical arguments? I cite source after source debunking
your lies. You are the ng 'joke'. RES
> > ciceroii wrote:
> > >
> > > Today this is, of course, socialism's big lie.
> > > Nothing is more detestable and embarrassing to the Left than
> > > for people to know that Adolph Hitler and his Nazis were socialists.
> > > But of course they were. To claim otherwise is simply
> > > perverse stupidity or dissembling. Both the Nazis and
> > > Commies were anti-capitalist and collectivist.
> > >
> > > The great Austrian
> > > economist and political scientist, Ludwig von Mises
> > > makes the definitive statement
> > > on this issue in his book "Socialism, An Economic and
> > > Sociological Analysis, 1981 (reprinted edition).
> > >
> > > "It is important to realize that Fascism and Nazism
> > > were socialist dictatorships. The communists, both the
> > > registered members of the communist parties and the fellow
> > > travelers, stigmatize Fascism and Nazism as the highest and
> > > most depraved state of capitalism. This is in perfect agreement
> > > of calling every party which does not unconditionally surrender
> > > to the dictates of Moscow--even the German Social Democrats, the
> > > classical party of Marxism--hirelings to capitalism".--Ludwig von
> > > Mises ("Socialism"), p.523.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3B262A75...@home.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.denews.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B262A75...@home.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B26...@home.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:23:15 GMT
RES
ergo their definition as totalitarian regimes. go figure. RES
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3B266127...@home.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!spool0-chcgil.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.denews.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B266127...@home.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B266...@home.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 19:23:27 GMT
RES
ciceroii wrote:
>
> RES wrote:
> >
> > ciceroii wrote:
> > >
> > > RES wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I guess it's academia's big lie too.
> > >
> > > Agreed. You are at least correct on one thing.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
> > > >
> > > > How does it feel to be wobbling along on three loose wheels and a hole
> > > > in your pink polka dot pants?
> > >
> > > Is this supposed to be a flame. Do you not have any ideas or material to
> > > refute me, or is you intellect just too feeble?
> > > >
> > > > I don't know what condition you suffer from, but I bet it has a long
> > > > name. RES
> > >
> > > You should be careful here. You give yourself away. It was in the
> > > old, defunct Soviet Union under Brezhnev that free-thinking dissidents
> > > were arrested
> > > and sent to psychiatric asylums. Just like you and your collectivist
> > > ilk,
> > > you cannot tolerate open debate--mainly because you don't have any
> > > logical
> > > arguments to defend your pernicious ideology.
> > > >
> >
> > Open debate? No logical arguments? I cite source after source debunking
> > your lies. You are the ng 'joke'. RES
>
> Then were are they. I don't see any valid references in this followup.
> >
I see you don't consider anyone in academia contradicting you as a valid
reference.
In case you are to mentally infirm to click on the url cited I will copy
and paste it for you below. You won't read it because it contains many
many sources and direct quotations from the man in question.
But to anyone else interested, it's a great summary of Hitler's
ideology. Allan Bullock, the most prominent Hitler historian is cited
and copious references to Hitler's own word are used by Prof. Young and
a careful and convincing manner. No wonder Hitler's fascism is not
disputed anywhere but within the right wing fringe groups which
Iconoclast/Ciceroii lurks. I as a Social Democrat and a student of
history acknowledge the excesses and crimes of Stalinism and other
deleterious variants of communism as having been born from 'socialism'
as a general and broad ideology. Communism is simply the totalitarian
variant of socialism.
It is the height of hypocrisy for the right wing extremists not to
acknowledge that fascism is the totalitarian variant of capitalism. I
and no other fair-minded person would ever blame the Holocaust on
'capitalism'. The complexities of history are too much for the author of
this thread.
Of course, having seen Ciceroii/Iconoclasts's pathetic posts everyone
can safely predict he will 'disqualify' any academic source on the basis
that they are historians and therefore 'socialist' and consequently lack
objectivity. This is the modus operandi of an intellectual leper.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
Here is Prof Young's article in its entirety:
Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that
his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker
ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany,
private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they
in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True
socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be
democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on
the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over
freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over
cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship
over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism,
nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness,
common sense over
theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly
relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.
Argument
To most people, Hitler's beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For
example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military;
carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler's warring
nationalism. This association has long been something of an
embarrassment to the far right.
To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a
counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore
belongs to the political left, not the right.
The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National
Socialist. The word "National" evokes the state, and the word
"Socialist" openly identifies itself as such.
However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term:
it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of
political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which
was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which
was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his
party "socialist," but whether or not it actually was.
In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere
in the world. This may surprise some people -- after all, wasn't the
Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political
parties have called themselves "socialist," but none have actually tried
socialism. To understand why, we should revisit a few basic political
terms.
Perhaps the primary concern of any political ideology is who gets to own
and control the means the production. This includes factories,
farmlands, machinery, etc. Generally there have been three approaches to
this question. The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned
the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their
orders in return for their livelihood.
The second is capitalism, which has disbanded the ruling elite and
allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of
production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford
to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded. The third
(and untried) approach is socialism, where everyone owns and controls
the means of production, by means of the vote. As you can see, there is
a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at
one end, to everyone owning it at the other.
Socialism has been proposed in many forms. The most common is social
democracy, where
workers vote for their supervisors, as well as their industry
representatives to regional or national congresses. Another proposed
form is anarcho-socialism, where workers own companies that would
operate on a free market, without any central government at all. As you
can see, a central planning committee is hardly a necessary feature of
socialism. The primary feature is worker ownership of production.
The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it was a
dictatorship over workers -- that is, a type of aristocracy, with a
ruling elite in Moscow calling all the shots. Workers cannot own or
control anything under a totalitarian government. In variants of
socialism that call for a central government, that government is always
a strong or even direct democracy… never a dictatorship.
It doesn't matter if the dictator claims to be carrying out the will of
the people, or calls himself a "socialist" or a "democrat." If the
people themselves are not in control, then the system is, by definition,
non-democratic and non-socialist.
And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of
production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a
combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private
businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi
"Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It
established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read:
"The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and
laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise." (1)
The employer, however, was subject to the frequent orders of the ruling
Nazi elite. After the Nazis took power in 1933, they quickly established
a highly controlled war economy under the direction of Dr. Hjalmar
Schacht. Like all war economies, it boomed, making Germany the second
nation to recover fully from the Great Depression, in 1936. (The first
nation was Sweden, in 1934.
Following Keynesian-like policies, the Swedish government spent its way
out of the Depression, proving that state economic policies can be
successful without resorting to dictatorship or war.)
Prior to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, worker protests had spread
all across Germany in response to the Great Depression. During his drive
to power, Hitler exploited this social unrest by promising workers to
strengthen their labor unions and increase their standard of living. But
these were empty promises; privately, he was reassuring wealthy German
businessmen that he would crack down on labor once he achieved power.
Historian William Shirer describes the Nazi's dual strategy:
"The party had to play both sides of the tracks. It had to allow
[Nazi officials] Strasser, Goebbels and the crank Feder to beguile the
masses with the cry that the National Socialists were truly 'socialists'
and against the money barons. On the other hand, money to keep the party
going had to be wheedled out of those who had an ample supply of it."
(2)
Once in power, Hitler showed his true colors by promptly breaking all
his promises to workers. The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective
bargaining and the right to strike. An organization called the "Labor
Front" replaced the old trade unions, but it was an instrument of the
Nazi party and did not represent workers. According to the law that
created it, "Its task is to see that every individual should be able… to
perform the maximum of work." Workers would indeed greatly boost their
productivity under Nazi rule. But they also became exploited. Between
1932 and 1936, workers wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an hour for
skilled labor, and from 16.1 to 13 cents an hour for unskilled labor.
(3) Yet workers did not protest. This was partly because the
Nazis had restored order to the economy, but an even bigger reason was
that the Nazis would have cracked down on any protest.
There was no part of Nazism, therefore, that even remotely resembled
socialism. But what about the political nature of Nazism in general? Did
it belong to the left, or to the right? Let's take a closer look:
The politics of Nazism
The political right is popularly associated with the following
principles. Of course, it goes without saying that these are
generalizations, and not every person on the far right believes in every
principle, or disbelieves its opposite. Most people's political beliefs
are complex, and cannot be neatly pigeonholed. This is as true of Hitler
as anyone. But since the far right is trying peg Hitler as a leftist,
it's worth reviewing the tenets popularly associated with the right.
These include:
Individualism over collectivism.
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
Merit over equality.
Competition over cooperation.
Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
Capitalism over Marxism.
Realism over idealism.
Nationalism over internationalism.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
Gun ownership over gun control
Common sense over theory or science.
Pragmatism over principle.
Religion over secularism.
Let's review these spectrums one by one, and see where Hitler stood in
his own words.
Ultimately, Hitler's views are not monolithically conservative -- on a
few issues, his views are complex and difficult to label. But as you
will see, the vast majority of them belong on the far right:
Individualism over collectivism.
Many conservatives argue that Hitler was a leftist because he subjugated
the individual to the state. However, this characterization is wrong,
for several reasons.
The first error is in assuming that this is exclusively a liberal trait.
Actually, U.S. conservatives take considerable pride in being patriotic
Americans, and they deeply honor those who have sacrificed their lives
for their country. The Marine Corps is a classic example: as every
Marine knows, all sense of individuality is obliterated in the Marines
Corps, and one is subject first, foremost and always to the group.
The second error is forgetting that all human beings subscribe to
individualism and collectivism. If you believe that you are personally
responsible for taking care of yourself, you are an individualist. If
you freely belong and contribute to any group -- say, an employing
business, church, club, family, nation, or cause -- then you are a
collectivist as well. Neither of these traits makes a person inherently
"liberal" or "conservative," and to claim that you are an "evil
socialist" because you
champion a particular group is not a serious argument.
Political scientists therefore do not label people "liberal" or
"conservative" on the basis of their individualism or collectivism. Much
more important is how they approach their individualism and
collectivism. What groups does a person belong to? How is power
distributed in the group? Does it practice one-person rule, minority
rule, majority rule, or self-rule? Liberals believe in majority rule.
Hitler practiced one-person rule. Thus, there is no comparison.
And on that score, conservatives might feel that they are off the hook,
too, because they claim to prefer self-rule to one-person rule. But
their actions say otherwise. Many of the institutions that conservatives
favor are really quite dictatorial: the military, the church, the
patriarchal family, the business firm.
Hitler himself downplayed all groups except for the state, which he
raised to supreme significance in his writings. However, he did not
identify the state as most people do, as a random collection of people
in artificially drawn borders. Instead, he identified the German state
as its racially pure stock of German or Aryan blood. In Mein Kampf,
Hitler freely and interchangeably used the terms "Aryan race," "German
culture" and "folkish state." To him they were synonyms, as the quotes
below show. There were citizens inside Germany (like Jews) who were not
part of Hitler's state, while there were Germans outside Germany (for
example, in Austria) who were. But the main point is that Hitler's
political philosophy was not really based on "statism" as we know it
today. It was actually based on racism -- again, a subject that hits
uncomfortably closer to home for conservatives, not liberals.
As Hitler himself wrote:
"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish
the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of
humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the
soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." (4)
"The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation
and advancement of a community of physically and psychically homogenous
creatures. This preservation itself comprises first of all existence as
a race… Thus, the highest purpose of a folkish state is concern for the
preservation of those original racial elements which bestow culture and
create the beauty and dignity of a higher mankind. We, as Aryans, can
conceive of the state only as the living organism of a nationality
which…
assures the preservation of this nationality…" (5)
"The German Reich as a state must embrace all Germans and has the
task, not only of
assembling and preserving the most valuable stocks of basic racial
elements in this people, but slowly and surely of raising them to a
dominant position." (6)
And it was in the service of this racial state that Hitler encourage
individuals to sacrifice themselves:
"In [the Aryan], the instinct for self-preservation has reached its
noblest form, since he willingly subordinates his own ego to the life of
the community and, if the hour demands it, even sacrifices it." (7)
"This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to
the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every
truly human culture." (8)
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
"All the human culture, all the results of art, science, and
technology that we see before us today, are almost exclusively the
creative product of the Aryan." (9)
"Aryan races -- often absurdly small numerically -- subject foreign
peoples, and then… develop the intellectual and organizational
capacities dormant within them." (10)
"If beginning today all further Aryan influence on Japan should
stop… Japan's present rise in science and technology might continue for
a short time; but even in a few years the well would dry up… the present
culture would freeze and sink back into the slumber from which it
awakened seven decades ago by the wave of Aryan culture." (11)
"Every racial crossing leads inevitably sooner or later to the
decline of the hybrid product…" (12)
"It is the function above all of the Germanic states first and
foremost to call a fundamental halt to any further bastardization." (13)
"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and
reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children
and the purity of our blood…" (14)
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction
"The folkish philosophy of life must succeed in bringing about that
nobler age in which men no longer are concerned with breeding dogs,
horses, and cats, but in elevating man himself…" (15)
"The folkish state must make up for what everyone else today has
neglected in this field. It must set race in the center of all life. It
must take care to keep it pure… It must see to it that only the healthy
beget children; that there is only one disgrace: despite one's own
sickness and deficiencies, to bring children into the world, and one
highest honor: to renounce doing so. And conversely it must be
considered reprehensible: to withhold healthy children from the nation.
Here the state… must put the most modern medical means in the service of
this knowledge. It must declare unfit for propagation all who are in any
way visibly sick or who have inherited a disease and therefore pass it
on…" (16)
Merit over equality.
"The best state constitution and state form is that which, with the
most unquestioned certainty, raises the best minds in the national
community to leading position and leading influence. But as in economic
life, the able men cannot be appointed from above, but must struggle
through for themselves…" (17)
"It must not be lamented if so many men set out on the road to
arrive at the same goal: the most powerful and swiftest will in this way
be recognized, and will be the victor." (p. 512.)
Competition over cooperation.
"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want
to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." (18)
"It must never be forgotten that nothing that is really great in
this world has ever been achieved by coalitions, but that it has always
been the success of a single victor. Coalition successes bear by the
very nature of their origin the germ of future crumbling, in fact of the
loss of what has already been achieved. Great, truly world-shaking
revolutions of a spiritual nature are not even conceivable and
realizable except as the titanic struggles of individual formations,
never as enterprises of coalitions." (19)
"The idea of struggle is old as life itself, for life is only
preserved because other living things perish through struggle… In this
struggle, the stronger, the more able, win, while the less able, the
weak, lose. Struggle is the father of all things… It is not by the
principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself in
the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle… If
you do not fight for life, then life will never be won."
(20)
Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
Allan Bullock, probably the world's greatest Hitler historian, sums up
Hitler's political method in one sentence:
"Stripped of their romantic trimmings, all Hitler's ideas can be
reduced to a simple claim for power which recognizes only one
relationship, that of domination, and only one argument, that of force."
(21)
The following quotes by Hitler portray his rather stunning contempt for
pacifism:
"If the German people in its historic development had possessed
that herd unity [defined here by Hitler as racial solidarity] which
other peoples enjoyed, the German Reich today would doubtless be
mistress of the globe. World history would have taken a different
course, and no one can distinguish whether in this way we would not have
obtained what so many blinded pacifists today hope to gain by begging,
whining and whimpering: a peace, supported not by the palm branches of
tearful, pacifist female mourners, but based on the victorious sword of
a master people, putting the world into the service of a higher
culture."
(22)
"We must clearly recognize the fact that the recovery of the lost
territories is not won through solemn appeals to the Lord or through
pious hopes in a League of Nations, but only by force of arms." (23)
"In actual fact the pacifistic-humane idea is perfectly all right
perhaps when the highest type of man has previously conquered and
subjected the world to an extent that makes him the sole ruler of this
earth… Therefore, first struggle and then perhaps pacifism." (24)
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
"The young [Nazi] movement is in its nature and inner organization
anti-parliamentarian; that is, it rejects… a principle of majority rule
in which the leader is degraded to the level of mere executant of other
people's wills and opinion." (25)
"The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion,
but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but
their master!" (26)
"By rejecting the authority of the individual and replacing it by
the numbers of some momentary mob, the parliamentary principle of
majority rule sins against the basic
aristocratic principle of Nature…" (27)
"For there is one thing we must never forget… the majority can
never replace the man. And no more than a hundred empty heads make one
wise man will an heroic decision arise from a hundred cowards." (28)
"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons,
and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely
every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made
by one man." (29)
"When I recognized the Jew as the leader of the Social Democracy,
the scales dropped from my eyes." (30)
"The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism…" (31)
"Only a knowledge of the Jews provides the key with which to
comprehend the inner, and consequently real, aims of Social Democracy."
(32)
Capitalism over Marxism.
Bullock writes of Hitler's views on Marxism:
"While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt,
towards Marxism he
showed an implacable hostility… Ignoring the profound differences
between Communism
and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between
the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the
embodiment of all that he detested -- mass democracy and a leveling
egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an
elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial
inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus
national unity; internationalism versus nationalism." (33)
As Hitler himself would write:
"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." (34)
"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the
question of the future of the German nation was the question of
destroying Marxism." (35)
"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the
political sphere." (36)
"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in
indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the
national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction." (37)
"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the
Jews." (38)
"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle
of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by
the mass of numbers and their dead weight." (39)
Realism over idealism.
Hitler was hardly an "idealist" in the sense that political scientists
use the term. The standard definition of an idealist is someone who
believes that cooperation and peaceful coexistence can occur among
peoples. A realist, however, is someone who sees the world as an
unstable and dangerous place, and prepares for war, if not to deter it,
then to survive it. It goes without saying that Hitler was one of the
greatest realists of all time. Nonetheless, Hitler had his own twisted
utopia, which he described:
"We are not simple enough, either, to believe that it could ever be
possible to bring about a perfect era. But this relieves no one of the
obligation to combat recognized errors, to overcome weaknesses, and
strive for the ideal. Harsh reality of its own accord will create only
too many limitations. For that very reason, however, man must try to
serve the ultimate goal, and failures must not deter him, any more than
he can abandon a system of justice merely because mistakes creep into
it…" (40)
"The same boy who feels like throwing up when he hears the tirades
of a pacifist 'idealist' is ready to give up his life for the ideal of
his nationality." (41)
Nationalism over internationalism.
"The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when… their
international poisoners are exterminated." (42)
"The severest obstacle to the present-day worker's approach to the
national community lies not in the defense of his class interests, but
in his international leadership and attitude which are hostile to the
people and the fatherland." (43)
"Thus, the reservoir from which the young [Nazi] movement must
gather its supporters will primarily be the masses of our workers. Its
work will be to tear these away from theinternational delusion… and lead
them to the national community…" (44)
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
"Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature;
they imagine that they know practically everything and yet with few
exceptions pass blindly by one of the most patent principles of Nature:
the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on earth."(45)
"The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in
this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which,
fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will
against all others." (46)
Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
It may seem ridiculous to include this issue in a review of Hitler's
politics, but, believe it or not, conservatives on the Internet
frequently equate Hitler's vegetarianism with the vegetarianism
practised by liberals concerned about the environment and the ethical
treatment of animals.
Hitler's vegetarianism had nothing to do with his political beliefs. He
became a vegetarian shortly after the death of his girlfriend and
half-niece, Geli Raubal. Their relationship was a stormy one, and it
ended in her apparent suicide. There were rumors that Hitler had
arranged her murder, but Hitler would remain deeply distraught over her
loss for the rest of his life. As one historian writes:
"Curiously, shortly after her death, Hitler looked with disdain on
a piece of ham being served during breakfast and refused to eat it,
saying it was like eating a corpse. From that moment on, he refused to
eat meat." (47)
Hitler's vegetarianism, then, was no more than a phobia, triggered by an
association with his niece's death.
Gun ownership over gun control
Perhaps one of the pro-gun lobby's favorite arguments is that if German
citizens had had the right to keep and bear arms, Hitler would have
never been able to tyrannize the country. And to this effect, pro-gun
advocates often quote the following:
"1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized
nation has full gun registration.Our streets will be safer, our police
more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." -
Adolf Hitler
However, this quote is almost certainly a fraud. There is no reputable
record of him ever making it: neither at the Nuremberg rallies, nor in
any of his weekly radio addresses. Furthermore, there was no reason for
him to even make such a statement; for Germany already had strict gun
control as a term of surrender in the Treaty of Versailles. The Allies
had wanted to make Germany as impotent as possible, and one of the ways
they did that was to disarm its citizenry. Only a handful of local
authorities were allowed arms at all, and the few German citizens who
did possess weapons were already subject to full gun registration. Seen
in this light, the above quote makes no sense whatsoever.
The Firearms Policy Journal (January 1997) writes:
"The Nazi Party did not ride to power confiscating guns. They rode
to power on the
inability of the Weimar Republic to confiscate their guns. They did
not consolidate their power confiscating guns either. There is no
historical evidence that Nazis ever went door to door in Germany
confiscating guns. The Germans had a fetish about paperwork and
documented everything. These searches and confiscations would have been
carefully
recorded. If the documents are there, let them be presented as
evidence."
On April 12, 1928, five years before Hitler seized power, Germany passed
the Law on Firearmsand Ammunition. This law substantially tightened
restrictions on gun ownership in an effort to curb street violence
between Nazis and Communists. The law was ineffectual and poorly
enforced. It was not until March 18, 1938 -- five years after Hitler
came to power -- that the Nazis passed the German Weapons Law, their
first known change in the firearm code. And this law actually relaxed
restrictions on citizen firearms.
Common sense over theory or science.
Hitler was notorious for his anti-intellectualism:
"The youthful brain should in general not be burdened with things
ninety-five percent of which it cannot use and hence forgets again… In
many cases, the material to be learned in the various subjects is so
swollen that only a fraction of it remains in the head of the individual
pupil, and only a fraction of this abundance can find application, while
on the other hand it is not adequate for the man working and earning his
living in a definite field."(48)
"Knowledge above the average can be crammed into the average man,
but it remains dead, and in the last analysis sterile knowledge. The
result is a man who may be a living dictionary but nevertheless falls
down miserably in all special situations and decisive moments in life."
(49)
"The folkish state must not adjust its entire educational work
primarily to the inoculation of mere knowledge, but to the breeding of
absolutely healthy bodies. The training of mental abilities is only
secondary. And here again, first place must be taken by the development
of character, especially the promotion of will-power and determination,
combined with thetraining of joy in responsibility, and only in last
place comes scientific schooling." (50)
"A people of scholars, if they are physically degenerate,
weak-willed and cowardly
pacifists, will not storm the heavens, indeed, they will not be
able to safeguard their existence on this earth." (51)
Pragmatism over principle.
"The question of the movement's inner organization is one of
expediency and not of
principle." (52)
Religion over secularism.
Hitler's views on religion were complex. Although ostensibly an atheist,
he considered himself a cultural Catholic, and frequently evoked God,
the Creator and Providence in his writings.
Throughout his life he would remain an envious admirer of the Christian
Church and its power over the masses. Here is but one example:
"We can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its
doctrinal edifice… comes into collision with exact science and research,
it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little
syllable of its dogmas. It has recognized quite correctly that its power
of resistance does not lie in its lesser or greater adaptation to the
scientific findings of the moment, which in reality are always
fluctuating, but rather in rigidly holding to dogmas once established,
for it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of
faith. And so it stands today more firmly than ever." (53)
Hitler also saw a useful purpose for the Church:
"The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers;
precisely for the masses, [religious] faith is often the sole foundation
of a moral attitude… For the political man, the value of a religion must
be estimated less by its deficiencies than by the virtue of a visibly
better substitute. As long as this appears to be lacking, what is
present can be demolished only by fools or criminals." (54)
Hitler thus advocated freedom of religious belief. Although he would
later press churches into the service of Nazism, often at the point of a
gun, Hitler did not attempt to impose a state religion or mandate the
basic philosophical content of German religions. As long as they did not
interfere with his program, he allowed them to continue fuctioning. And
this policy was foreshadowed in his writings:
"For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions
of his people must always remain inviolable; or else he has no right to
be in politics…" (55)
"Political parties have nothing to do with religious problems, as
long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and
ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the
scheming of political parties." (56)
"Worst of all, however, is the devastation wrought by the misuse of
religious conviction for political ends." (57)
"Therefore, let every man be active, each in his own denomination
if you please, and let every man take it as his first and most sacred
duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by word or deed steps outside
the confines of his religious community and tries to butt into the
other." (58)
Hitler was raised a Catholic, even going to school for two years at the
monastery at Lambauch, Austria. As late as 24 he still called himself a
Catholic, but somewhere along the way he became an atheist. It is highly
doubtful that this was an intellectual decision, as a reading of his
disordered thoughts in Mein Kampf will attest. The decision was most
likely a pragmatic one, based on power and personal ambition. Bullock
reveals an interesting anecdote showing how these considerations worked
on the young Hitler. After five years of eking out a miserable existence
in Vienna and four years of war, Hitler walked into his first German
Worker's Party meeting:
"'Under the dim light shed by a grimy gas-lamp I could see four
people sitting around a table…' As Hitler frankly acknowledges, this
very obscurity was an attraction. It was only in a party which, like
himself, was beginning at the bottom that he had any prospect of playing
a leading part and imposing his ideas. In the established parties there
was no room for him, he would be a nobody." (59)
Hitler probably realized that a frustrated artist and pipe-dreamer like
himself would have no chance of achieving power in the world-wide,
2000-year old Christian Church. It was most likely for this reason that
he rejected Christianity and pursued a political life instead. Yet,
curiously enough, he never renounced his membership in the Catholic
Church, and the Church never excommunicated him. Nor did the Church
place his Mein Kampf on the Index of Prohibited Books, in spite of its
knowledge of his atrocities. Later the Church would come under intense
criticism for its friendly and cooperative relationship with Hitler. A
brief review of this history is instructive.
In 1933, the Catholic Center Party cast its large and decisive vote in
favor of Hitler's Enabling Bill. This bill essentially gave Chancellor
Hitler the sweeping dictatorial powers he was seeking. Historian Guenter
Lewy describes a meeting between Hitler and the German Catholic
authorities shortly afterwards:
"On 26 April 1933 Hitler had a conversation with Bishop Berning and
Monsignor
Steinmann [the Catholic leadership in Germany]. The subject was the
common fight against liberalism, Socialism and Bolshevism, discussed in
the friendliest terms. In the course of the conversation Hitler said
that he was only doing to the Jews what the church had done to them over
the past fifteen hundred years. The prelates did not contradict him."
(60)
As anyone familiar with Christian history knows, the Church has always
been a primary source of anti-Semitism. Hitler's anti-Semitism therefore
found a receptive audience among Catholic
authorities. The Church also had an intense fear and hatred of Russian
communism, and Hitler's
attack on Russia was the best that could have happened. The Jesuit
Michael Serafin wrote: "It
cannot be denied that [Pope] Pius XII's closest advisors for some time
regarded Hitler's armoured
divisions as the right hand of God." (61) As Pope Pius himself would say
after Germany
conquered Poland: "Let us end this war between brothers and unite our
forces against the
common enemy of atheism" -- Russia. (62)
Once Hitler assumed power, he signed a Concordat, or agreement, with the
Catholic Church.
Eugenio Pacelli (the man who would eventually become Pope Pius XII) was
the Vatican diplomat who drew up the Concordat, and he considered it a
triumph. In return for promises which Hitler increasingly broke, the
Church dissolved all Catholic organizations in Germany, including the
Catholic Center Party. Bishops were to take an oath of loyalty to the
Nazi regime. Clergy were to see to the pastoral care of Germany's armed
forces (regardless of what those armed forces did).
(63)
The Concordat eliminated all Catholic resistance to Hitler; after this,
the German bishops gave Hitler their full and unqualified support. A
bishops' conference at Fulda, 1933, resulted in agreement with Hitler's
case for extending Lebensraum, or German territory. (64) Bishop
Bornewasser told a congregation of Catholic young people at Trier: "With
our heads high and with firm steps we have entered the new Reich and are
ready to serve it body and soul." (65) Vicar-General Steinman greeted
each Berlin mass with the shout, "Heil Hitler!" (66)
Hitler, on the other hand, kept up his attack on the Church. Nazi bands
stormed into the few remaining Catholic institutions, beat up Catholic
youths and arrested Catholic officials. The Vatican was dismayed, but it
did not protest. (67) In some instances, it was hard to tell if the
Church supported its own persecution. Hitler muzzled the independent
Catholic press (about 400 daily papers in 1933) and subordinated it to
Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment. Yet soon the
Catholic Press was doing more than what the Nazis required of it -- for
example, coordinating their Nazi propaganda to prepare the people for
the 1940 offensive against the West. (68) Throughout the war, the
Catholic press would remain one of the Third Reich's best
disseminators of propaganda.
Pacelli became the new Pope Pius XII in 1939, and he immediately
improved relations with Hitler. He broke protocol by personally signing
a letter in German to Hitler expressing warm hopes of friendly
relations. Shortly afterwards, the Church celebrated Hitler's birthday
by ringing bells, flying swastika flags from church towers and holding
thanksgiving services for the Fuhrer. (69) Ringing church bells to
celebrate and affirm the bishops' allegiance to the Reich would become
quite common throughout the war; after the German army conquered France,
the church bells rang for an entire week, and swastikas flew over the
churches for ten days.
But perhaps the greatest failure of Pope Pius XII was his silence over
the Holocaust, even though he knew it was in progress. Although there
are many heroic stories of Catholics helping Jews survive the Holocaust,
they do not include Pope Pius, the Holy See, or the German Catholic
authorities. When a reporter asked Pius why he did not protest the
liquidation of the Jews, the Pope answered, "Dear friend, do not forget
that millions of Catholics are serving in the German armies. Am I to
involve them in a conflict of conscience?" (70) As perhaps the world's
greatest moral leader, he was charged with precisely that
responsibility.
The history of Hitler and the Church reveals a relationship built on
mutual distrust and
philosophical rejection, but also shared goals, benefits, admiration,
envy, riendliness, and ultimate alliance.
Return to Overview
Endnotes:
1. William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, (New York:
Simon & Schuster, 1960),
p. 263.
2. Ibid., p. 143.
3. Ibid., p. 264.
4. Hitler, quoted in Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, abridged
edition, (New York:
HarperCollins, 1971), p. 228.
5. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, trans. by Ralph Manheim (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company,
1962), pp. 393-4.
6. Ibid., p. 398.
7. Ibid., p. 297.
8. Ibid., p. 298.
9. Ibid., p. 290.
10. Ibid., pp. 291-2.
11. Ibid., p. 291.
12. Ibid., p. 401.
13. Ibid., p. 402.
14. Ibid., p. 214.
15. Ibid., p. 405.
16. Ibid., p. 404.
17. Ibid., p. 449.
18. Ibid., p. 289.
19. Ibid., p. 516-17.
20. Quoted in Bullock, pp. 11-12.
21. Ibid., p. 230.
22. Hitler, p. 396.
23. Ibid., p. 627.
24. Ibid., p. 288.
25. Ibid., p. 344.
26. Ibid., p. 465.
27. Ibid., p. 81.
28. Ibid., p. 82.
29. Ibid., p. 449.
30. Ibid., p. 60.
31. Ibid., p. 78
32. Ibid., p. 51.
33. Bullock, p. 228-9.
34. Hitler, p. 535.
35. Ibid., p. 155.
36. Quoted in Bullock, p. 102.
37. Hitler, p. 376.
38. Ibid., p. 382.
39. Ibid., p. 65.
40. Ibid., p. 437.
41. Ibid., p. 299.
42. Ibid., p. 338.
43. Ibid., p. 340.
44. Ibid., p. 340.
45. Ibid., p. 284.
46. Ibid., p. 351.
47. The History Place, "The Rise of Adolf Hitler: Success and a
Suicide,"
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/success.htm
48. Hitler, p. 418.
49. Ibid., p. 429.
50. Ibid., p. 408.
51. Ibid., p. 408.
52. Ibid., p. 346.
53. Ibid., p. 459.
54. Ibid., p. 267.
55. Ibid., p. 116.
56. Ibid., p. 116.
57. Ibid., p. 268.
58. Ibid., p. 563.
59. Bullock, p. 35.
60. Guenter Lewy, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (London and New
York) 1964,
p. 50ff.
61. Friedrich Heer, God's First Love (New York: Weybright and Talley,
1967), p. 320, citing
Lewy, pp. 249-250; see also Falconi, Carlo, Il silenzio di Pio XII
(Milan) 1965.
62. Heer, p. 319.
63. Lewy, p. 57 ff.
64. Ibid., p. 94 ff.
65. Ibid., p. 100f.
66. Ibid., p. 105.
67. Heer, p. 310.
68. Heer, p. 110.
69. Giovannetti, A., Der Vatikan und der Krieg (Cologne) 1961.
70. Lewy, p. 304.
> > > > ciceroii wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Today this is, of course, socialism's big lie.
> > > > > Nothing is more detestable and embarrassing to the Left than
> > > > > for people to know that Adolph Hitler and his Nazis were socialists.
> > > > > But of course they were. To claim otherwise is simply
> > > > > perverse stupidity or dissembling. Both the Nazis and
> > > > > Commies were anti-capitalist and collectivist.
> > > > >
> > > > > The great Austrian
> > > > > economist and political scientist, Ludwig von Mises
> > > > > makes the definitive statement
> > > > > on this issue in his book "Socialism, An Economic and
> > > > > Sociological Analysis, 1981 (reprinted edition).
> > > > >
> > > > > "It is important to realize that Fascism and Nazism
> > > > > were socialist dictatorships. The communists, both the
> > > > > registered members of the communist parties and the fellow
> > > > > travelers, stigmatize Fascism and Nazism as the highest and
> > > > > most depraved state of capitalism. This is in perfect agreement
> > > > > of calling every party which does not unconditionally surrender
> > > > > to the dictates of Moscow--even the German Social Democrats, the
> > > > > classical party of Marxism--hirelings to capitalism".--Ludwig von
> > > > > Mises ("Socialism"), p.523.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3B263B6E...@home.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.denews.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B263B6E...@home.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B26...@home.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:08:20 GMT
ciceroii
David Collier-Brown wrote:
>
> ciceroii wrote:
> >
> > Today this is, of course, socialism's big lie.
> > Nothing is more detestable and embarrassing to the Left than
> > for people to know that Adolph Hitler and his Nazis were socialists.
> > But of course they were. To claim otherwise is simply
> > perverse stupidity or dissembling. Both the Nazis and
> > Commies were anti-capitalist and collectivist.
>
> Mr. Iconoclast's trying very hard to "revise"
> history. See footnote!
>
> > The great Austrian
> > economist and political scientist, Ludwig von Mises
> > makes the definitive statement
> > on this issue in his book "Socialism, An Economic and
> > Sociological Analysis, 1981 (reprinted edition).
> >
> > "It is important to realize that Fascism and Nazism
> > were socialist dictatorships.
>
> Please understand that Dr. Von Mises took a
> extreme position in saying this: he regarded
> both the left and the right as enemies of
> liberalism, and equated them because they
> both preferred to kill their opponents, rather
> than argue with them.
>
> A good example of this is in "The Argument of Fascism",
> at http://www.mises.org/liberal/ch1sec10.asp, part
> of his book "Liberalism".
>
> This is, alas, not a good argument that Socialism
> and fascism were the same thing, only that they
> were both evil.
>
> A better approach is to look at the economic
> theories of the socialists and fascists, and ask
> oneself if they were similar. I assume everyone
> here already know socialism's "economics", so
> let's look at Fascism's:
>
> A good (if harsh!) critique of fascism's economics is
> http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_3/ts213l.html
> "Economic Fascism" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, who summarizes
> it thusly:
>
> But there was also an economic policy component of
> fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and '30s as "corporatism,"
Corporatism is state capitalism, which is socialism, the opposite of
free market capitalism.
> Fascism
> a.A system of government marked by centralization of authority
> under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression
> of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a
> policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
But all of the above were present in Lenin's and Stalin's Soviet Union.
The invasion of Poland by Trotsky's Red Army would be an example of
belligerent nationalism also the conquest of the Baltic states.
Stalin's reign was anti-Semitic and the anti-Semitism continued until
the fall of the Soviet Union. This would show the racism.
The racism of socialism is brought out by the Bieder-Meinhof gang
of German Marxist-Leninist terrorists. We see from the following
quotation the racism, anti-Semitism and anti-capitalism so
prevalent in the Left:
"The more recent extreme left, of course, incorporated the irrational
element of Nazism. It was the Red Brigade's Ulrike Mienhof who
said at her trial , "Auschwitz meant that six
million Jews were killed, and
thrown onto the waste heap of Europe
for what they were, money Jews". -Robert Conquest, "Reflections
on a Ravaged Century". p.65
>
>
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3B264759...@home.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!spool0-chcgil.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.denews.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B264759...@home.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B264...@home.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:53:16 GMT
RES
Control: cancel <3B264E8D...@home.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.denews.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B264E8D...@home.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B264...@home.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:53:28 GMT
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
>David Collier-Brown <dav...@canada.sun.com> wrote in message
Excellent post, David. They also shared a strong anti-capitalist
philosophy, as is obvious in Hitler's speeches as well as their canned
propaganda.
>
>
>
>
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3b269272...@news.gate-way.net>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.denews.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3b269272...@news.gate-way.net> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3b269...@news.gate-way.net>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:23:22 GMT
S.Benedikt
| >
| > But fascism is socialism. How many times do have to be hit over the
| > head with this truth?
| >
| > If you have anti-capitalism and social regimentation, then you have
| > fascism, nazism and communism. Examine this quotation:
| >
| > registered members of the communist parties and the fellow
| > travelers, stigmatize Fascism and Nazism as the highest and
| > most depraved state of capitalism. This is in perfect agreement
| > of calling every party which does not unconditionally surrender
| > to the dictates of Moscow--even the German Social Democrats, the
| > classical party of Marxism--hirelings to capitalism".--Ludwig von
| > Mises ("Socialism"), p.523.
| >
You are both arguing semantics - it is academic....There is a very teen line
separating the dogmas of Fascism/Nazism and Communism.
Marxist dialectic materialism romanticised by socialist in every utopias has
failed.
It created ruling class of butchers, people users and abusers. That is why I
equate Communism as the next step from socialism, with Fascism.
You can quote works of genius academic literati and argue the subject as
much as you like but if you would have had misfortunes to live under any of
those ideologies/demagogies I am sure you would have thought differently as
I do.
The only system which has had good innings so far throughout the history of
mankind has been capitalism and democracy. Perhaps the next ledge in our
civilisation is extension of western democracy to humanism with capitalism
founding it in tow.
|
| You quote a dubious source in von Misses - an appeal to an ostensibly
| higher authority who is rather ignorant about ideology and history.
| Young's article contains actual arguments and analysis which are
| accepted by the rest of the planet who knows something about fascism -
| credible sources and quotations for people to view and make up their own
| minds.
|
| You obviously are an idiot, albeit a tendentious one. Von Misses is a
| joke. He'd be laughed out of every University in the world (except maybe
| for Purdue). RES
| > >
| > > It is the height of hypocrisy for the right wing extremists not to
| > > acknowledge that fascism is the totalitarian variant of capitalism.
| >
| > Marxism, Fascism and Nazism are all anti-capitalist. Read Von Mises
| > little book "The Anti-Capitalist Mentality". And no ivory-tower leftist
| > intellectual can contradict him. He was there in Europe for the whole
| > period. He made it a life long study.
| >
|
| Poor guy. Why don't you write a book and cite it. RES
|
| > > Irrelevant gibberish has been snipped.
|
| Here's what the idiot snipped.
|
| > > > > > http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
And why such personal uncalled for denigrating attacks on a person
expressing an opinion?
With such approach you could certainly make a good and faithful Lieutenant
in Siberian Gulag...
S.Benedikt
My mind is personalization of my brain. Although my brain is always with me
it is working for someone else!
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3b26...@news.iprimus.com.au>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!206.55.64.81.MISMATCH!newsfeeds.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.denews.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3b26...@news.iprimus.com.au> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel....@news.iprimus.com.au>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 03:38:42 GMT
Dave The Impaler
> Nothing is more detestable and embarrassing to the Left than
> for people to know that Adolph Hitler and his Nazis were socialists.
> But of course they were. To claim otherwise is simply
> perverse stupidity or dissembling. Both the Nazis and
> Commies were anti-capitalist and collectivist.
Typical Libertarian thought put Maoist China, Nazi germany etc all in
the same box as each other.
It seems the German corporations also profited out of Nazi
"socialism".
DAVE
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <9be05ff8.0106...@posting.google.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.denews.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <9be05ff8.0106...@posting.google.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.9be05ff8.0...@posting.google.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 04:23:43 GMT
Bruce Mills
: Communism is where the government doesn't let you keep your property. They
: confiscate it and make you work it, and then further confiscate the product.
: They send in the jackbooted KGB with guns to ensure you comply. Fascism is
: where they let you own (in name only) your property. The government makes
: you work it and tells you how you will work it and sets the prices, profit
: margins etc, then they confiscate the product. They send in the jackbooted
: gestapo with guns to make sure you comply. As you can see there is very
: little difference between these two. Left and Right are both slightly
: different forms of exactly the same thing. Particularly from the point of
: view of those of us that subscribe to the von Mises view. BTW, the second
: version is the version that we have here in Australia, and in most other
: parts of the Western world.
That is why the so-called "political spectrum" is a fallacy: they are all
just different forms of "statism". The opposite of "statism" is
"freedom".
Bruce
--
There is nothing to take a man's freedom away from him, save other men.
To be free, a man must be free of his brothers.
- Ayn Rand
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <9g5q8a$qj8$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!spool0-chcgil.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.denews.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <9g5q8a$qj8$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.9g5q8a$qj8$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:08:29 GMT
Greg
"ciceroii" <cice...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B25FCCD...@home.com...
> Today this is, of course, socialism's big lie.
> Nothing is more detestable and embarrassing to the Left than
> for people to know that Adolph Hitler and his Nazis were socialists.
> But of course they were. To claim otherwise is simply
> perverse stupidity or dissembling. Both the Nazis and
> Commies were anti-capitalist and collectivist.
>
You are, of course, absolutely correct. The Nazi Party was the National
Socialist Workers Party of Germany. Hitler was a socialist through and
through. When the lefties sneer and call people "fascists" or "right-wing"
it reminds me of the Monty Python movie where the Judean Peoples' Front were
sneering at the Peoples' Front of Judeah.
Communism is where the government doesn't let you keep your property. They
confiscate it and make you work it, and then further confiscate the product.
They send in the jackbooted KGB with guns to ensure you comply. Fascism is
where they let you own (in name only) your property. The government makes
you work it and tells you how you will work it and sets the prices, profit
margins etc, then they confiscate the product. They send in the jackbooted
gestapo with guns to make sure you comply. As you can see there is very
little difference between these two. Left and Right are both slightly
different forms of exactly the same thing. Particularly from the point of
view of those of us that subscribe to the von Mises view. BTW, the second
version is the version that we have here in Australia, and in most other
parts of the Western world.
It would be comical if it didn't impact on us innocents so badly. We are
really obliged to fight against the pricks with every ounce of energy we can
muster.
Greg
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <MNoV6.570$bl....@news.syd.ip.net.au>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!newspump.sol.net!newsengine.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <MNoV6.570$bl....@news.syd.ip.net.au> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.MNoV6.570$bl....@news.syd.ip.net.au>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:53:02 GMT
Ivan Satori
> Ivan Satori wrote:
> > . . .
> > We might dispute what name we want to call the ugly reality. We might
agree
> > that the Nazi Germany wasn't socialist. But applying the same criteria,
then
> > neither was Soviet Russia.
> >
> > It doesn't really matter what we call it. The foundation of those
regimes
> > and the way they worked were in essence the same, and the differences
were
> > inconsequential technical details, merely reflecting different
> > historio-geographical situations in different countries.
>
Exactly. And each of the totalitarian regimes originally started as a
genuinely well intentioned attempt to build a Socialist Utopia.
The points at which the two attempts went wrong were somewhat different, the
results to which they ultimately led were fairly similar.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <VBzV6.210854$eK2.46...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news.execpc.com!newspeer.sol.net!newsengine.sol.net!news-xfer.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!netnews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.denews.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <VBzV6.210854$eK2.46...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.VBzV6.210854$eK2.46...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 02:53:55 GMT
Ivan Satori
news:3B262595...@canada.sun.com...
> . . .
> Fascism
> a.A system of government marked by centralization of authority
> under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression
> of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a
> policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
>
> Socialism
> 1.Any of various theories or systems of social organization
> in which the means of producing and distributing goods is
> owned collectively or by a centralized government that often
> plans and controls the economy.]
> --
David, the two definitions are incompatible. The first describes a system of
government (really existing or having existed) while the other a theory of a
system. If you remember, we had such situation before.
If you really took each of the definitions item by item, you'll find that
between the Soviet Russia and the National Socialist Germany, there is
absolutely no difference in terms of the first definition (if we look at
reality, not official propaganda), and only superficial one according to the
second.
We might dispute what name we want to call the ugly reality. We might agree
that the Nazi Germany wasn't socialist. But applying the same criteria, then
neither was Soviet Russia.
It doesn't really matter what we call it. The foundation of those regimes
and the way they worked were in essence the same, and the differences were
inconsequential technical details, merely reflecting different
historio-geographical situations in different countries.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <j4tV6.206509$eK2.46...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!spool0-chcgil.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.denews.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <j4tV6.206509$eK2.46...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.j4tV6.206509$eK2.46...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 19:08:41 GMT
David Collier-Brown
> | Here's what the idiot snipped.
> |
> | > > > > > http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
> And why such personal uncalled for denigrating attacks on a person
> expressing an opinion?
[insult in reply snipped]
Because Mr. Iconoclast loves to insult folks.
This, by the way, is a common tactic in these
newsgroups: if you manage to get someone into
a flamewar, most readers will killfile both
of you. You thereby remove not only yourself,
but also your opponents from the conversation (;-))
--dave
--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
Performance & Engineering Team | some people and astonish the rest.
Americas Customer Engineering | -- Mark Twain
(905) 415-2849 | dav...@canada.sun.com
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3B276D17...@canada.sun.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.denews.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B276D17...@canada.sun.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B276...@canada.sun.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:09:22 GMT
David Collier-Brown
> > But there was also an economic policy component of
> > fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and '30s as "corporatism,"
>
> Corporatism is state capitalism, which is socialism, the opposite of
> free market capitalism.
If you would be so kind as to refer to the following
paragraph **from the message you replied to*** ...
> > In Mussolini's Italy, businesses were grouped by the government into
> > legally
> > recognized "syndicates" such as the "National Fascist Confederation of
> > Commerce," the "National Fascist Confederation of Credit and
> > Insurance,"
> > and so on. All of these "fascist confederations" were "coordinated" by
> > a
> > network of government planning agencies called "corporations," one for
> > each
> > industry. One large "National Council of Corporations" served as a
> > national
> > overseer of the individual "corporations" and had the power to "issue
> > regulations of a compulsory character."
... then you will see that the coorporatism of the
day was in fact the rule of corporations.
In fascist economics, the companies elected a board,
which had lawmaking power. This was the structure of
the government that Mussolini wanted, with himself at
the top, and was partially implemenented in pre-war
and immediately intra-war Italy.
[Source: the above, and my old teacher, Dr. M.V.
Corsini, who lived through the war in Italy before
moving to Canada]
--dave
--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
Performance & Engineering Team | some people and astonish the rest.
Americas Customer Engineering | -- Mark Twain
(905) 415-2849 | dav...@canada.sun.com
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3B276EA6...@canada.sun.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!spool0-chcgil.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.denews.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B276EA6...@canada.sun.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B276...@canada.sun.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:09:36 GMT
David Collier-Brown
> Exactly. And each of the totalitarian regimes originally started as a
> genuinely well intentioned attempt to build a Socialist Utopia.
>
> The points at which the two attempts went wrong were somewhat different, the
> results to which they ultimately led were fairly similar.
I'll argue the opposite: that they were aimed at
different ends, and they they resembled each other
was accidental to their efforts.
I claim that the Socialist were hoping for an Utopia,
created a system that necessarily failed, and fell
fully into totalitarian rule under Stalin and his
successors.
I claim that Mussolini was always a totalitarian,
and worked consistently to place himself in a position
of power, using a corporatist economics to give
his financial supporters a claim to political
power under his overall rule.
I claim that Hitler was the same, using racism
as a motivator and justification for his followers.
All three are tragedies: the latter two were
intentionally tragedies.
--dave (who somewhat dislikes tyrants) c-b
--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
Performance & Engineering Team | some people and astonish the rest.
Americas Customer Engineering | -- Mark Twain
(905) 415-2849 | dav...@canada.sun.com
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3B2771AC...@canada.sun.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.denews.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B2771AC...@canada.sun.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B277...@canada.sun.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:45:45 GMT
David Collier-Brown
> Typical Libertarian thought put Maoist China, Nazi germany etc all in
> the same box as each other.
> It seems the German corporations also profited out of Nazi
> "socialism".
if you're fare enough out on the right-hand-end of the
spectrum, **everyone** else looks like some kind of
evil pinko.
Conversely, to a convinced communist, everything
else is capitalism.
--dave
--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
Performance & Engineering Team | some people and astonish the rest.
Americas Customer Engineering | -- Mark Twain
(905) 415-2849 | dav...@canada.sun.com
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3B27723A...@canada.sun.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.denews.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B27723A...@canada.sun.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B277...@canada.sun.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:46:01 GMT
David Collier-Brown
> That is why the so-called "political spectrum" is a fallacy: they are all
> just different forms of "statism". The opposite of "statism" is
> "freedom".
You can also put this on multiple dimensions, with
statism on one of them and the beiefe that people
act in their own interest on the other, and you
find Socialism and Fascism opposites in one sense,
and the same in the other.
[Stolen from a psyc paper by Jerry Pournelle, actually]
--dave
--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
Performance & Engineering Team | some people and astonish the rest.
Americas Customer Engineering | -- Mark Twain
(905) 415-2849 | dav...@canada.sun.com
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3B276A91...@canada.sun.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!spool0-chcgil.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.denews.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B276A91...@canada.sun.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B276...@canada.sun.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:09:18 GMT
David Collier-Brown
ciceroii wrote
> > > Then were are they. I don't see any valid references in this followup.
RES wrote:
> > I see you don't consider anyone in academia contradicting you as a valid
> > reference.
...
> > But to anyone else interested, it's a great summary of Hitler's
> > ideology. Allan Bullock, the most prominent Hitler historian is cited
> > and copious references to Hitler's own word are used by Prof. Young and
> > a careful and convincing manner. No wonder Hitler's fascism (snip)
[Cicero then snipped the disproof of his claim]
Cicero replied:
> But fascism is socialism. How many times do have to be hit over the
> head with this truth?
Sorry, lad, you can't just re-state your claim when
someone disproves it, and use that as a 'proof'
that his disproof is false.
This is called "Circulus in demonstrando"
See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#circulus
This fallacy occurs if you assume as a premise the conclusion which
you wish to reach. Often, the proposition is rephrased so that the
fallacy appears to be a valid argument. For example:
"Homosexuals must not be allowed to hold government office. Hence
any government official who is revealed to be a homosexual will
lose his job. Therefore homosexuals will do anything to hide their
secret, and will be open to blackmail. Therefore homosexuals cannot
be allowed to hold government office."
Note that the argument is entirely circular; the premise is the same
as the conclusion. An argument like the above has actually been cited
as the reason for the British Secret Services' official ban on
homosexual employees.
Circular arguments are surprisingly common, unfortunately. If you've
already reached a particular conclusion once, it's easy to
accidentally
make it an assertion when explaining your reasoning to someone else.
> > Irrelevant gibberish has been snipped.
I'll believe that when I see it!
--dave
--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
Performance & Engineering Team | some people and astonish the rest.
Americas Customer Engineering | -- Mark Twain
(905) 415-2849 | dav...@canada.sun.com
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3B276C2F...@canada.sun.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.denews.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B276C2F...@canada.sun.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B276...@canada.sun.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:09:27 GMT
RES
Ivan Satori wrote:
>
> RES <resc...@home.com> wrote in message news:3B266127...@home.com...
> > Ivan Satori wrote:
> > > . . .
> > > We might dispute what name we want to call the ugly reality. We might
> agree
> > > that the Nazi Germany wasn't socialist. But applying the same criteria,
> then
> > > neither was Soviet Russia.
> > >
> > > It doesn't really matter what we call it. The foundation of those
> regimes
> > > and the way they worked were in essence the same, and the differences
> were
> > > inconsequential technical details, merely reflecting different
> > > historio-geographical situations in different countries.
> >
> > ergo their definition as totalitarian regimes. go figure. RES
>
> Exactly. And each of the totalitarian regimes originally started as a
> genuinely well intentioned attempt to build a Socialist Utopia.
>
Fascism is an attempt to build a nationally pure state - Naziism: a
racially pure one. This is anathema to socialism. RES
Ivan Satori
> Ivan Satori wrote:
> > Exactly. And each of the totalitarian regimes originally started as a
> > genuinely well intentioned attempt to build a Socialist Utopia.
> >
the
> > results to which they ultimately led were fairly similar.
>
> different ends, and they they resembled each other
> was accidental to their efforts.
>
> I claim that the Socialist were hoping for an Utopia,
> created a system that necessarily failed, and fell
> fully into totalitarian rule under Stalin and his
> successors.
>
It's been established as a totalitarian rule under Lenin in the
first place. As for the nature of the system, Stalin merely
inherited it. He was certainly a "worthy heir", but what suited
him so well has been put in place under Lenin and according to
Lenin's teaching. Stalin's "contributions" were essentially
quantitative, not qualitative.
> I claim that Mussolini was always a totalitarian,
> and worked consistently to place himself in a position
> of power, using a corporatist economics to give
> his financial supporters a claim to political
> power under his overall rule.
>
> I claim that Hitler was the same, using racism
> as a motivator and justification for his followers.
>
Hitler was pretty much the same thing as Stalin. But if we talk
about the National Socialist Party, its origins and rise to
power, let's not forget about Drexler and brothers Strasser.
That's how the Party started and that's what in significant
extent sustained it throughout the 20's.
> All three are tragedies: the latter two were
> intentionally tragedies.
>
Well, according to my sources, Drexler and Strassers weren't
totalitarians, and according to his writings and actions, Lenin
wasn't a democrat.
> . . .
Ivan Satori
> Ivan Satori wrote:
> > David, the two definitions are incompatible. The first describes a
system of
> > government (really existing or having existed) while the other a theory
of a
> > system. If you remember, we had such situation before.
>
> discussion about the differences. The footnote was
> to illustrate that Mr. Icon was, as usual, trying
> to impose his own definitions on the discussion.
> . . .
OK.
In any case, I guess you would agree that it would be fairly defendable to
argue that the two definitions might be describing just two different stages
of the same thing, rather than two substantially different phenomena.
(It wouldn't be necessarily one to one relationship; fascism, as defined
here, would be rather a superset that could accommodate other well meant
ideas turned into disasters as well.)
Ivan Satori
> > . . .
> > Exactly. And each of the totalitarian regimes originally started as a
> > genuinely well intentioned attempt to build a Socialist Utopia.
> >
> Fascism is an attempt to build a nationally pure state - Naziism: a
> racially pure one. This is anathema to socialism. RES
It is important to have patience with young people trying to get their feet
wet in discussions.
Of course, we cannot expect that their points would be relevant to the
issues being discussed right from the beginning. It takes some experience,
and most importantly, developing the ability to think logically.
Ivan Satori
> Von Misses is a
> joke. He'd be laughed out of every University in the world (except maybe
> for Purdue). RES
As was Mendel at his time, as would have been brothers Wright if they were
foolish enough to waste time trying to get approval of the scholars of their
time before building their aircraft.
RES
Ivan Satori wrote:
>
> David Collier-Brown <dav...@canada.sun.com> wrote in message
> news:3B2771AC...@canada.sun.com...
> > Ivan Satori wrote:
> > > Exactly. And each of the totalitarian regimes originally started as a
> > > genuinely well intentioned attempt to build a Socialist Utopia.
> > >
> > > The points at which the two attempts went wrong were somewhat different,
> the
> > > results to which they ultimately led were fairly similar.
> >
> > I'll argue the opposite: that they were aimed at
> > different ends, and they they resembled each other
> > was accidental to their efforts.
> >
> That's where we disagree.
>
> > I claim that the Socialist were hoping for an Utopia,
> > created a system that necessarily failed, and fell
> > fully into totalitarian rule under Stalin and his
> > successors.
> >
> It's been established as a totalitarian rule under Lenin in the
> first place.
Stalin inherited an authoritarian regime with a mixed economy (Lenin's
New Economic Program) and Lenin's police apparatus - which Lenin in
turn inherited from the Tsar. Stalin was the 'totalitarian'.
The view that Collier-Brown asserts here is the accepted view of
virtually all historians. There is no controversy about this anywhere
except perhaps in the ng and some extremist non-academic organizations.
Where you come up with the phrase "It has been established"? is peculiar
given that it "isn't" in fact. Had it been a totalitarian state at the
time you suggest, my grandparents would not have been able to hop on a
train (tourist class) in the Soviet Crimea and travel with passports
through Moscow to Riga to London and on to Canada - as they did -
without the knowledge of Soviet authorities. (No they weren't shipped
out) Moreover, my grandfather was on leave from the Red Army ( which
had conscripted him) and left without its permission with the rest of
the family.
Read any history of the USSR and you will find the simple facts about
Soviet history.
For a simple starter you can read:
http://encarta.msn.com/find/concise.asp?mod=1&ti=00600000&page=5#s32
RES
As for the nature of the system, Stalin merely
> inherited it. He was certainly a "worthy heir", but what suited
> him so well has been put in place under Lenin and according to
> Lenin's teaching. Stalin's "contributions" were essentially
> quantitative, not qualitative.
>
You obviously are unaware of Soviet history and your characterization of
Stalin's 'contributions' are perversely simplistic. Whether or not the
Soviet System would have eventually produced a Stalin is determinism on
a scale Karl Marx would use. The fact remains Stalin murdered most of
the leaders of the Communist party after his manipulations at the Party
Congress that installed him. [He didn't want the vote totals to be
known.] Some inheritance! RES
> > I claim that Mussolini was always a totalitarian,
> > and worked consistently to place himself in a position
> > of power, using a corporatist economics to give
> > his financial supporters a claim to political
> > power under his overall rule.
> >
> > I claim that Hitler was the same, using racism
> > as a motivator and justification for his followers.
> >
> Hitler was pretty much the same thing as Stalin.
Simplistic analysis 101. Yet you pass yourself off as some kind of
authority . "It has been established" LMAO RES
But if we talk
> about the National Socialist Party, its origins and rise to
> power, let's not forget about Drexler and brothers Strasser.
> That's how the Party started and that's what in significant
> extent sustained it throughout the 20's.
>
And yet Hitler murdered this element of the party during the Night of
the Long Knives. In all 'nationalist' parties you will find a spectrum
of political ideologies. (Introductory Politics 101). RES
> > All three are tragedies: the latter two were
> > intentionally tragedies.
> >
> Well, according to my sources, Drexler and Strassers weren't
> totalitarians, and according to his writings and actions, Lenin
> wasn't a democrat.
>
Of course Lenin wasn't a democrat (although he opted for democracy in
votes of the Central Committee - a fact that resulted in Trotsky getting
a pickax in the head when he revealed Stalin voted against Lenin on
every major strategic decision re: the revolution.) He believed in
"Dictatorship of the Proletariat". But totalitarianism is a
quantitatively different kettle of fish than an authoritarianism.
This leads to the question: Are all authoritarians totalitarian? Sorry.
Not a critical analysis. You'd have to argue that all Latin American
dictatorships during the 50s - 80s were totalitarian? Simply incorrect.
I see no effort to distinguish various political realities. Lump
everything together.
Suffice to say that I agree with Collier - Brown's opinion expressed
here and find yours to be the product of ignorance about Soviet History.
Hitler advertised his murderous intentions and racism - promised them in
fact - and Stalin hid his because it was anathema to the principles he
was supposedly the guardian of (excuse my English). The very fact that
Kruschev had to reveal secretly Stalin's perverse excesses is but one
proof. I can't imagine a fascist successor of Hitler doing anything but
praising Hitler for the Endlosung.
RES
> > . . .
RES
Nazi's would argue that genocide was well meaning in itself and not a
disaster. If that isn't a different phenomenon.... RES
RES
Ivan Satori wrote:
>
> RES <resc...@home.com> wrote in message news:3B279D50...@home.com...
> > > . . .
> > > Exactly. And each of the totalitarian regimes originally started as a
> > > genuinely well intentioned attempt to build a Socialist Utopia.
> > >
> > Fascism is an attempt to build a nationally pure state - Naziism: a
> > racially pure one. This is anathema to socialism. RES
> > . . .
>
> It is important to have patience with young people trying to get their feet
> wet in discussions.
>
Idiot. You know nothing about Soviet Communism and nothing about
fascism. RES
> Of course, we cannot expect that their points would be relevant to the
> issues being discussed right from the beginning. It takes some experience,
> and most importantly, developing the ability to think logically.
Microcephalic incompetant. RES
RES
Sounds to me there is a laugh track accompanying your beliefs. Compare
yourself to these giants do we? RES
RES
Ivan Satori wrote:
>
> RES <resc...@home.com> wrote in message news:3B266127...@home.com...
> > Ivan Satori wrote:
> > > . . .
> > > We might dispute what name we want to call the ugly reality. We might
> agree
> > > that the Nazi Germany wasn't socialist. But applying the same criteria,
> then
> > > neither was Soviet Russia.
> > >
> > > It doesn't really matter what we call it. The foundation of those
> regimes
> > > and the way they worked were in essence the same, and the differences
> were
> > > inconsequential technical details, merely reflecting different
> > > historio-geographical situations in different countries.
> >
> > ergo their definition as totalitarian regimes. go figure. RES
>
> Exactly. And each of the totalitarian regimes originally started as a
> genuinely well intentioned attempt to build a Socialist Utopia.
>
Fascism is an attempt to build a nationally pure state - Naziism: a
racially pure one. This is anathema to socialism. RES
> The points at which the two attempts went wrong were somewhat different, the
> results to which they ultimately led were fairly similar.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3B279D50...@home.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.denews.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B279D50...@home.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B279...@home.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 03:09:23 GMT
RES
Ivan Satori wrote:
>
> David Collier-Brown <dav...@canada.sun.com> wrote in message
> news:3B2771AC...@canada.sun.com...
> > Ivan Satori wrote:
> > > Exactly. And each of the totalitarian regimes originally started as a
> > > genuinely well intentioned attempt to build a Socialist Utopia.
> > >
> > > The points at which the two attempts went wrong were somewhat different,
> the
> > > results to which they ultimately led were fairly similar.
> >
> > I'll argue the opposite: that they were aimed at
> > different ends, and they they resembled each other
> > was accidental to their efforts.
> >
> That's where we disagree.
>
> > I claim that the Socialist were hoping for an Utopia,
> > created a system that necessarily failed, and fell
> > fully into totalitarian rule under Stalin and his
> > successors.
> >
> It's been established as a totalitarian rule under Lenin in the
> first place.
Stalin inherited an authoritarian regime with a mixed economy (Lenin's
New Economic Program) and Lenin's police apparatus - which Lenin in
turn inherited from the Tsar. Stalin was the 'totalitarian'.
The view that Collier-Brown asserts here is the accepted view of
virtually all historians. There is no controversy about this anywhere
except perhaps in the ng and some extremist non-academic organizations.
Where you come up with the phrase "It has been established"? is peculiar
given that it "isn't" in fact. Had it been a totalitarian state at the
time you suggest, my grandparents would not have been able to hop on a
train (tourist class) in the Soviet Crimea and travel with passports
through Moscow to Riga to London and on to Canada - as they did -
without the knowledge of Soviet authorities. (No they weren't shipped
out) Moreover, my grandfather was on leave from the Red Army ( which
had conscripted him) and left without its permission with the rest of
the family.
Read any history of the USSR and you will find the simple facts about
Soviet history.
For a simple starter you can read:
http://encarta.msn.com/find/concise.asp?mod=1&ti=00600000&page=5#s32
RES
As for the nature of the system, Stalin merely
> inherited it. He was certainly a "worthy heir", but what suited
> him so well has been put in place under Lenin and according to
> Lenin's teaching. Stalin's "contributions" were essentially
> quantitative, not qualitative.
>
You obviously are unaware of Soviet history and your characterization of
Stalin's 'contributions' are perversely simplistic. Whether or not the
Soviet System would have eventually produced a Stalin is determinism on
a scale Karl Marx would use. The fact remains Stalin murdered most of
the leaders of the Communist party after his manipulations at the Party
Congress that installed him. [He didn't want the vote totals to be
known.] Some inheritance! RES
> > I claim that Mussolini was always a totalitarian,
> > and worked consistently to place himself in a position
> > of power, using a corporatist economics to give
> > his financial supporters a claim to political
> > power under his overall rule.
> >
> > I claim that Hitler was the same, using racism
> > as a motivator and justification for his followers.
> >
> Hitler was pretty much the same thing as Stalin.
Simplistic analysis 101. Yet you pass yourself off as some kind of
authority . "It has been established" LMAO RES
But if we talk
> about the National Socialist Party, its origins and rise to
> power, let's not forget about Drexler and brothers Strasser.
> That's how the Party started and that's what in significant
> extent sustained it throughout the 20's.
>
And yet Hitler murdered this element of the party during the Night of
the Long Knives. In all 'nationalist' parties you will find a spectrum
of political ideologies. (Introductory Politics 101). RES
> > All three are tragedies: the latter two were
> > intentionally tragedies.
> >
> Well, according to my sources, Drexler and Strassers weren't
> totalitarians, and according to his writings and actions, Lenin
> wasn't a democrat.
>
Of course Lenin wasn't a democrat (although he opted for democracy in
votes of the Central Committee - a fact that resulted in Trotsky getting
a pickax in the head when he revealed Stalin voted against Lenin on
every major strategic decision re: the revolution.) He believed in
"Dictatorship of the Proletariat". But totalitarianism is a
quantitatively different kettle of fish than an authoritarianism.
This leads to the question: Are all authoritarians totalitarian? Sorry.
Not a critical analysis. You'd have to argue that all Latin American
dictatorships during the 50s - 80s were totalitarian? Simply incorrect.
I see no effort to distinguish various political realities. Lump
everything together.
Suffice to say that I agree with Collier - Brown's opinion expressed
here and find yours to be the product of ignorance about Soviet History.
Hitler advertised his murderous intentions and racism - promised them in
fact - and Stalin hid his because it was anathema to the principles he
was supposedly the guardian of (excuse my English). The very fact that
Kruschev had to reveal secretly Stalin's perverse excesses is but one
proof. I can't imagine a fascist successor of Hitler doing anything but
praising Hitler for the Endlosung.
RES
> > . . .
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3B283C40...@home.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B283C40...@home.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B283...@home.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:54:38 GMT
RES
Nazi's would argue that genocide was well meaning in itself and not a
disaster. If that isn't a different phenomenon.... RES
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3B283CC9...@home.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B283CC9...@home.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B283...@home.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:54:45 GMT
RES
Ivan Satori wrote:
>
> RES <resc...@home.com> wrote in message news:3B279D50...@home.com...
> > > . . .
> > > Exactly. And each of the totalitarian regimes originally started as a
> > > genuinely well intentioned attempt to build a Socialist Utopia.
> > >
> > Fascism is an attempt to build a nationally pure state - Naziism: a
> > racially pure one. This is anathema to socialism. RES
> > . . .
>
> It is important to have patience with young people trying to get their feet
> wet in discussions.
>
Idiot. You know nothing about Soviet Communism and nothing about
fascism. RES
> Of course, we cannot expect that their points would be relevant to the
> issues being discussed right from the beginning. It takes some experience,
> and most importantly, developing the ability to think logically.
Microcephalic incompetant. RES
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3B283D41...@home.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!206.55.64.81.MISMATCH!newsfeeds.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B283D41...@home.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B283...@home.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:54:50 GMT
RES
Sounds to me there is a laugh track accompanying your beliefs. Compare
yourself to these giants do we? RES
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3B283DD3...@home.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!206.55.64.81.MISMATCH!newsfeeds.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B283DD3...@home.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B283...@home.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:54:57 GMT
Ivan Satori
> Von Misses is a
> joke. He'd be laughed out of every University in the world (except maybe
> for Purdue). RES
> . . .
As was Mendel at his time, as would have been brothers Wright if they were
foolish enough to waste time trying to get approval of the scholars of their
time before building their aircraft.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <EkWV6.225628$eK2.48...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <EkWV6.225628$eK2.48...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.EkWV6.225628$eK2.48...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:26:25 GMT
Ivan Satori
news:3B276F48...@canada.sun.com...
> Ivan Satori wrote:
> > David, the two definitions are incompatible. The first describes a
system of
> > government (really existing or having existed) while the other a theory
of a
> > system. If you remember, we had such situation before.
>
> That's why it was a footnote to the substantiative
> discussion about the differences. The footnote was
> to illustrate that Mr. Icon was, as usual, trying
> to impose his own definitions on the discussion.
> . . .
OK.
In any case, I guess you would agree that it would be fairly defendable to
argue that the two definitions might be describing just two different stages
of the same thing, rather than two substantially different phenomena.
(It wouldn't be necessarily one to one relationship; fascism, as defined
here, would be rather a superset that could accommodate other well meant
ideas turned into disasters as well.)
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <ZPVV6.225074$eK2.48...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <ZPVV6.225074$eK2.48...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.ZPVV6.225074$eK2.48...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:26:07 GMT
Ivan Satori
> Ivan Satori wrote:
> > Exactly. And each of the totalitarian regimes originally started as a
> > genuinely well intentioned attempt to build a Socialist Utopia.
> >
the
> > results to which they ultimately led were fairly similar.
>
> I'll argue the opposite: that they were aimed at
> different ends, and they they resembled each other
> was accidental to their efforts.
>
That's where we disagree.
> I claim that the Socialist were hoping for an Utopia,
> created a system that necessarily failed, and fell
> fully into totalitarian rule under Stalin and his
> successors.
>
It's been established as a totalitarian rule under Lenin in the
first place. As for the nature of the system, Stalin merely
inherited it. He was certainly a "worthy heir", but what suited
him so well has been put in place under Lenin and according to
Lenin's teaching. Stalin's "contributions" were essentially
quantitative, not qualitative.
> I claim that Mussolini was always a totalitarian,
> and worked consistently to place himself in a position
> of power, using a corporatist economics to give
> his financial supporters a claim to political
> power under his overall rule.
>
> I claim that Hitler was the same, using racism
> as a motivator and justification for his followers.
>
Hitler was pretty much the same thing as Stalin. But if we talk
about the National Socialist Party, its origins and rise to
power, let's not forget about Drexler and brothers Strasser.
That's how the Party started and that's what in significant
extent sustained it throughout the 20's.
> All three are tragedies: the latter two were
> intentionally tragedies.
>
Well, according to my sources, Drexler and Strassers weren't
totalitarians, and according to his writings and actions, Lenin
wasn't a democrat.
> . . .
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <gEVV6.224939$eK2.48...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <gEVV6.224939$eK2.48...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.gEVV6.224939$eK2.48...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:25:56 GMT
Ivan Satori
> > . . .
> > Exactly. And each of the totalitarian regimes originally started as a
> > genuinely well intentioned attempt to build a Socialist Utopia.
> >
> Fascism is an attempt to build a nationally pure state - Naziism: a
> racially pure one. This is anathema to socialism. RES
It is important to have patience with young people trying to get their feet
wet in discussions.
Of course, we cannot expect that their points would be relevant to the
issues being discussed right from the beginning. It takes some experience,
and most importantly, developing the ability to think logically.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <s6WV6.225373$eK2.48...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <s6WV6.225373$eK2.48...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.s6WV6.225373$eK2.48...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:26:16 GMT
Ivan Satori
> Ivan Satori wrote:
> > . . .
> > first place.
>
> Stalin inherited an authoritarian regime with a mixed economy (Lenin's
> New Economic Program) and Lenin's police apparatus - which Lenin in
> turn inherited from the Tsar. Stalin was the 'totalitarian'.
Clear, simple, fits disponible intellectual capacity. Who could ask
for more.
> . . .
> Where you come up with the phrase "It has been established"? is peculiar
> given that it "isn't" in fact.
Fortunately correct, it isn't any more. Unfortunately, it was in
Lenin's and Stalin's time.
To normal people, "to establish" means "to set up", "to put in place"
something in the real world. Like the totalitarian rule in this
particular case.
Of course, "established" might, in a derived sense of the word, also
mean "generally accepted", or "undisputed", in reference to certain
opinions or theses. I guess, people who find it hard to follow a topic
and have difficulty with the concept of context could probably manage
to confuse the two.
> Had it been a totalitarian state at the
> time you suggest, my grandparents would not have been able to hop on a
> train (tourist class) in the Soviet Crimea and travel with passports
> through Moscow to Riga to London and on to Canada - as they did -
> without the knowledge of Soviet authorities. (No they weren't shipped
> out) Moreover, my grandfather was on leave from the Red Army ( which
> had conscripted him) and left without its permission with the rest of
> the family.
It is quite normal that the less actual knowledge people have about
some particular issue, the more categorical their statements on the
topic. It is not necessarily good, but it is normal.
People who do have some idea how the life in Soviet Russia looked like
would probably suspect that to complete such a trip successfully took
a tad more than simply hopping on the train.
> Read any history of the USSR and you will find the simple facts about
> Soviet history.
Well, that's the troublesome reality rearing its ugly head again - the
history is usually something a bit more complex than what a few simple
facts randomly picked up from a book can reveal.
> . . .
> But if we talk
> > about the National Socialist Party, its origins and rise to
> > power, let's not forget about Drexler and brothers Strasser.
> > That's how the Party started and that's what in significant
> > extent sustained it throughout the 20's.
> >
> And yet Hitler murdered this element of the party during the Night of
> the Long Knives. In all 'nationalist' parties you will find a spectrum
> of political ideologies. (Introductory Politics 101). RES
Congratulations! Not quite yet, but at least a few uncertain steps
towards grasping what is actually being discussed here.
> . . .
> The very fact that
> Kruschev had to reveal secretly Stalin's perverse excesses is but one
> proof.
Coming up with the very idea that Khruschev "had" to do something when
he himself become the leader, and the idea that what he said was some
kind of "revelation" to top Party members, betrays a depth of
understanding of the working of the Soviet system that probably only
Hollywood movies could surpass.
> I can't imagine a fascist successor of Hitler doing anything but
> praising Hitler for the Endlosung.
Not surprised.
Certain abilities usually take some real life experience to develop.
Ivan Satori
For young people, suffering from all the insecurities and lack of
self-esteem that come with the age, yet still eager to assert themselves
among the grown ups, it is nothing unusual to get somewhat confused - even
to the point of forgetting what their own posts were actually about.
In this particular case, it was originally about von Misses.
RES
Is this really the best that you can do? You pontificate about how
original thinkers are often vilified by 'society'; that the majority is
sometimes incorrect; that the lonely voice facing a hostile audience is
sometimes correct. And here you are offering up the identical crap you
accuse the rest of this ng engaging in, namely conjuring up some phony
putdown on the basis of 'youth'. The condescension is laughable.
Here's your logic: My wacky positions are held by very few people.
Sometimes those few people are correct. I have given two instances where
they were corrrect. Ergo, I am right!
Your intellectual development was arrested at 12 years old.
As for my following the thread, Von Misses is truly a lonely voice in
the wilderness, with perhaps the Pinochet bumboy Friedman following
close behind. RES
RES
Ivan Satori wrote:
>
> RES <resc...@home.com> wrote in message news:<3B283C40...@home.com>...
> > Ivan Satori wrote:
> > > . . .
> > > It's been established as a totalitarian rule under Lenin in the
> > > first place.
> >
> > Stalin inherited an authoritarian regime with a mixed economy (Lenin's
> > New Economic Program) and Lenin's police apparatus - which Lenin in
> > turn inherited from the Tsar. Stalin was the 'totalitarian'.
>
> Clear, simple, fits disponible intellectual capacity. Who could ask
> for more.
>
Sorry to spoil your fantasies with actual historical facts. RES
> > . . .
> > Where you come up with the phrase "It has been established"? is peculiar
> > given that it "isn't" in fact.
>
> Fortunately correct, it isn't any more. Unfortunately, it was in
> Lenin's and Stalin's time.
>
I guess that's about the only thing you can say given the weight of the
cardboard sign you're carrying, which says, "Out To Lunch". RES
> To normal people, "to establish" means "to set up", "to put in place"
> something in the real world. Like the totalitarian rule in this
> particular case.
>
Did you give Bill Clinton advise on the word 'is'?
You are trying to change the meaning of the English language. this
confirms my estimate of your development - about 12 I say. However, the
historical truth remains: Stalin established a totalitarian state. The
setting up of the terror apparatus and legislation required to effect
total control of the population was undertaken by Stalin, not Lenin. It
is an established historical fact - for normal people. RES
> Of course, "established" might, in a derived sense of the word, also
> mean "generally accepted", or "undisputed", in reference to certain
> opinions or theses. I guess, people who find it hard to follow a topic
> and have difficulty with the concept of context could probably manage
> to confuse the two.
>
Tell me, where did the white rabbit actually go when it went down the
hole? RES
> > Had it been a totalitarian state at the
> > time you suggest, my grandparents would not have been able to hop on a
> > train (tourist class) in the Soviet Crimea and travel with passports
> > through Moscow to Riga to London and on to Canada - as they did -
> > without the knowledge of Soviet authorities. (No they weren't shipped
> > out) Moreover, my grandfather was on leave from the Red Army ( which
> > had conscripted him) and left without its permission with the rest of
> > the family.
>
> It is quite normal that the less actual knowledge people have about
> some particular issue, the more categorical their statements on the
> topic. It is not necessarily good, but it is normal.
>
What historical facts are incorrect?
Ivan the Terrible's logic: The less knowledge people have the more
categorical they are. Ergo, people who are correct should be less
categorical. Ergo historical sources cited are categorical and therefore
incorrect.
People who are consumed with fantasy, like yourself, often project them
into their everyday existence in opposition to reality, thus causing a
dissonance manifested by obfuscation and misdirection. It is not
necessarily good, but it is normal. RES
> People who do have some idea how the life in Soviet Russia looked like
> would probably suspect that to complete such a trip successfully took
> a tad more than simply hopping on the train.
>
Well you see they did have to purchase the tickets. Yes, your right of
course. And permission was given from Moscow for my grandfather to take
a leave. Oh yes, you are absolutely correct. Even in Canada, if you
'hop' on a train, you will likely get thrown off by authorities.
Is this getting too complicated for you? If so, say so. RES
> > Read any history of the USSR and you will find the simple facts about
> > Soviet history.
>
> Well, that's the troublesome reality rearing its ugly head again - the
> history is usually something a bit more complex than what a few simple
> facts randomly picked up from a book can reveal.
>
> > . . .
Imagine getting information about history from books! The temerity!
Imagine, basing opinion on randomly picked books. How presumptuous!
It is normal for someone like yourself who has read perhaps one or two
books on Soviet history to assume others are totally mistaken in their
views - especially those like me who have read more than one or two
books on this and other related subjects.
History is too complex for you. No doubt the TSAR 'established' a
totalitarian state by your simplistic reasoning.
You assume far too much. Something normal for someone like yourself.
The simple fact is your right wing mythology about socialism has been
challenged. Your rebuttal is the most juvenile sophistry - on par with
Iconoclast/ Ciceroii, but whereas the latter suffers from simple
boneheadedness, you suffer from something far more clinical. RES
David Collier-Brown
>
> RES <resc...@home.com> wrote in message news:<3B283C40...@home.com>...
> > Ivan Satori wrote:
> > > . . .
> > > It's been established as a totalitarian rule under Lenin in the
> > > first place.
> >
> > Stalin inherited an authoritarian regime with a mixed economy (Lenin's
> > New Economic Program) and Lenin's police apparatus - which Lenin in
> > turn inherited from the Tsar. Stalin was the 'totalitarian'.
Hmmn: I think we're getting away from the initial
discussion, about the parties honestly looking
for a utopia.
This is trivialy true of Marx and Engels, and is
problematic when speaking of Lenin. He behaved
like both an idealist and a totalitarian leader.
Add that to an authoritarian state, and it's not
clear that I can argue that the Russian revolution
was idealist in the upper ranks. At the level of
the individual soldier, it probably was, but then
than can easily be said of the German people...
[Drat, I was hoping for a clear and obvious dichotomy,
not seperated points on a line]
David Collier-Brown
> In any case, I guess you would agree that it would be fairly defendable to
> argue that the two definitions might be describing just two different stages
> of the same thing, rather than two substantially different phenomena.
Yes: theyr'e too much oriented towards describing
a totalitarian continuum to make a good arguement
against Mr. Icon's main thesis.
Sigh: I'll have to do an Icon and select my
definitions so as to better support my arguement (;-))
E. Barry Bruyea
Well, as far as idealism on the part of the leadership, I believe
Kerensky can qualify. The problem is, the level of his idealism
didn't match the size of his cojones.
EricĐ
> Sigh: I'll have to do an Icon and select my
> definitions so as to better support my arguement (;-))
There's an idea! Then you can post a followup under a different name, in
order to congratulate yourself for your insights . . .
It appears from the crossposting that J Lambourn cannot spell 'politics'.
E.Schild
haff...@usa.net
David Collier-Brown
>
> RES <resc...@home.com> wrote in message news:<3B283C40...@home.com>...
> > Ivan Satori wrote:
> > > . . .
> > > It's been established as a totalitarian rule under Lenin in the
> > > first place.
> >
> > Stalin inherited an authoritarian regime with a mixed economy (Lenin's
> > New Economic Program) and Lenin's police apparatus - which Lenin in
> > turn inherited from the Tsar. Stalin was the 'totalitarian'.
Hmmn: I think we're getting away from the initial
discussion, about the parties honestly looking
for a utopia.
This is trivialy true of Marx and Engels, and is
problematic when speaking of Lenin. He behaved
like both an idealist and a totalitarian leader.
Add that to an authoritarian state, and it's not
clear that I can argue that the Russian revolution
was idealist in the upper ranks. At the level of
the individual soldier, it probably was, but then
than can easily be said of the German people...
[Drat, I was hoping for a clear and obvious dichotomy,
not seperated points on a line]
--dave
--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
Performance & Engineering Team | some people and astonish the rest.
Americas Customer Engineering | -- Mark Twain
(905) 415-2849 | dav...@canada.sun.com
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3B2A0442...@canada.sun.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B2A0442...@canada.sun.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B2A0...@canada.sun.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:25:04 GMT
David Collier-Brown
> In any case, I guess you would agree that it would be fairly defendable to
> argue that the two definitions might be describing just two different stages
> of the same thing, rather than two substantially different phenomena.
Yes: theyr'e too much oriented towards describing
a totalitarian continuum to make a good arguement
against Mr. Icon's main thesis.
Sigh: I'll have to do an Icon and select my
definitions so as to better support my arguement (;-))
--dave
--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
Performance & Engineering Team | some people and astonish the rest.
Americas Customer Engineering | -- Mark Twain
(905) 415-2849 | dav...@canada.sun.com
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3B2A04D2...@canada.sun.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3B2A04D2...@canada.sun.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3B2A0...@canada.sun.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:25:11 GMT
E. Barry Bruyea
<dav...@canada.sun.com> wrote:
Well, as far as idealism on the part of the leadership, I believe
Kerensky can qualify. The problem is, the level of his idealism
didn't match the size of his cojones.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <3b2a1e27...@news.gate-way.net>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <3b2a1e27...@news.gate-way.net> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.3b2a1...@news.gate-way.net>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:09:31 GMT
EricĐ
> Sigh: I'll have to do an Icon and select my
> definitions so as to better support my arguement (;-))
There's an idea! Then you can post a followup under a different name, in
order to congratulate yourself for your insights . . .
It appears from the crossposting that J Lambourn cannot spell 'politics'.
E.Schild
haff...@usa.net
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Control: cancel <MPG.1594a1838...@news.uniserve.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics.ctl
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!babel!gts!t-fcn.net!nntp.zortron.com!news.uunet.ca!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.stealth.net!newspump.sol.net!news.alt.net!usenet
From: ne...@this.or.that.net
Subject: cmsg cancel <MPG.1594a1838...@news.uniserve.com> ignore
Message-ID: <cancel.MPG.1594a...@news.uniserve.com>
Sender: ne...@this.or.that.net
Organization: Morph
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 07:09:41 GMT
Ivan Satori
> Ivan Satori wrote:
> > In any case, I guess you would agree that it would be fairly defendable
to
> > argue that the two definitions might be describing just two different
stages
> > of the same thing, rather than two substantially different phenomena.
>
> Yes: theyr'e too much oriented towards describing
> a totalitarian continuum to make a good arguement
> against Mr. Icon's main thesis.
I guess a reasonable indicator to use to distinguish between "right" and
"left" might the nature of the movement in terms of where the power comes
from and in which direction is it applied. "From top down" would
characterize "right" and "from bottom up" then "left".
From this point of view, if we were to characterize fascism as rightist
oppressive regime, then ironically, even Mussolini's regime, where the name
comes from, would be somewhat crossing the lines. Typical examples would
probably be Franco's and Pinochet's regimes - the existing, official armed
forces of the state seizing political power and establishing dictatorship.
The power comes from established power structures.
Nazism then would be a leftist movement as the power was primarily created
by mobilizing ordinary citizens, mainly from working classes. Of course,
Hitler's ability to secure funding from the capitalists in the last few
years before successfully taking over the power might be somewhat confusing
the issue, especially to those who prefer confusion to unwelcome truth.
The choice between Hitler's National Socialists and Stalin's Communists was
an attempt to go for the lesser of two evils, and as the history showed,
after all, probably indeed, the lesser evil was chosen. In the end, the
costs and losses were beyond anything the humankind experienced up to that
point in history, but this didn't result necessarily, and certainly not
solely, from the choice itself. Much of what Hitler's Socialist Germany
managed to "accomplish" could have been prevented were the politics of the
other Western powers less inept. (And the pacifists' influences over their
population less strong.)
If Hitler was met with assertiveness rather than appeasement, his
territorial expansion might have been prevented. The Soviet Union would then
probably have collapsed under it's own weight much sooner. The real external
enemy that Hitler's Germany provided to replace the Soviet propaganda's
strawmen was a godsend to Stalin, and it probably bought the regime, at a
horrible price paid by the people, a few extra decades of existence.
Ivan Satori
> Ivan Satori wrote:
> > . . .
> discussion, about the parties honestly looking
> for a utopia.
>
> This is trivialy true of Marx and Engels, and is
> problematic when speaking of Lenin. He behaved
> like both an idealist and a totalitarian leader.
I tend to see Lenin as a prototype of devoted idealist fanatic. Without
doubts, a quite capable person, he probably started with some vision of a
"just society" (I understand, revenge for his brother's execution played
some role too) and devoted his life to making it happen. From that point on,
his sole focus was on the "making it happen", and the issue of what that
"it" is ultimately going to look like fell sideways. He probably hasn't been
primarily interested in his personal power, but as he's seen himself as the
best one, or rather the only one, who can make the vision come into being,
it was a necessary means to his ends.
As to other fanatics, to Lenin the ends justified the means. So when
terror proved itself an effective means of affirming the Soviet power, he
didn't hesitate to use it to the maximum. While he apparently wasn't a
sadist enjoying torture for it's own sake, as Stalin or Hitler quite likely
were, preventing or even just moderating the torturous methods employed by
Cheka wasn't anywhere near the top of his priorities. With mass executions
and concentration camps he didn't have any problem whatsoever, that was
quite clearly to him just a part of the package of "what needs to be done".
> Add that to an authoritarian state, and it's not
> clear that I can argue that the Russian revolution
> was idealist in the upper ranks. At the level of
> the individual soldier, it probably was, but then
> than can easily be said of the German people...
Probably for any popular movement, some nobly sounding "cause"
is needed, at least in the early stages. I guess, there weren't too many
(personally, I am not aware of any) movement in the more recent history
successfully launched on an openly proclaimed platform of "let's kill some
people and take what they have". At the very least, the designed "enemy"
group is presented as threatening and / or accused of having hurt in the
past the movement's target market, so the fight against them can be
presented as a rightful defense and / or vengeance.
Whatever the founding ideology, the leaders are either true believers, or
opportunists, or - not so rarely - a mix of both. Typically, as (if) the
movement is gaining power externally, the opportunists are gradually taking
over internally (through personal and / or personality changes).
What confuses the issue in the case of the National Socialist Party is that
Hitler has been involved and visible from the very early stages. From our
distant historical perspective, his later prominence leads many to believe
that he was the one, if not the only one, person responsible for the rise of
the Party right from the outset. Ergo, to many, Hitler and the National
Socialist Party is the same thing, and the Party in the 30's the same thing
as the Party in the 20's.
(Quite intriguing phenomenon, not generally well known, was the not
insignificant numbers of ordinary members switching back and forth between
the NSDAP and the Communist and SPD parties. The book "Ideologie im Lied -
Lied in der Idelologie" deals mainly with the similarities, at times up to
identity, of the National Socialist and Communist battle songs, both
musically and textually, but it provides some interesting historical
insights along the way.)
> [Drat, I was hoping for a clear and obvious dichotomy,
> not seperated points on a line]
The problem is with the topic itself. Taking a closer look (and even more so
having to take much closer look than one would wish for) reveals a picture
by far more complicated, complex and intertwined than what the - to some
extent justifiably - simplified version of events presented in schools and
popular history books manage to convey.