Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Which is really more Socialistic? France or the US?

4 views

Skip to first unread message

PeeJayoDee 4 2day

unread,

Nov 9, 2012, 12:23:44 PM11/9/12

Which is really more Socialistic? France or the US?

In France the richest 10% share 25.5% of the market and pay 28.0 % of
the personal tax burden. Ratio of tax to market share 1.1

In the US the richest 10% share 33.5% of the market and pay 45.1 % of
the personal tax burden. Ratio of tax to market share 1.35

Increase in ratios of personal tax burden US/France (1.35/1.1) =
22.7%

source:

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-households-much-us

We were unable to post your message
Your account or Internet address has exceeded our posting limit
at this time, please try again later.
If you believe this is an error, please contact Google Support.

Which is really more Socialistic? France or the US?

In France the richest 10% share 25.5% of the market and pay 28.0 % of
the personal tax burden. Ratio of tax to market share 1.1

In the US the richest 10% share 33.5% of the market and pay 45.1 % of
the personal tax burden. Ratio of tax to market share 1.35

Increase in ratios of personal tax burden US/France (1.35/1.1) =
22.7%

source:

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-households-much-us

We were unable to post your message
Your account or Internet address has exceeded our posting limit
at this time, please try again later.
If you believe this is an error, please contact Google Support.

Runge 667

unread,

Nov 9, 2012, 5:11:02 PM11/9/12

Crossposter donovan loves France and says thank you thank you for helping us
choose the right man in the White house...
Keep your dirty cap on , donovan, no need for that and now 4 more years much
to your delight...

"PeeJayoDee 4 2day" <nxt4pj...@yopmail.com> a �crit dans le message de
groupe de discussion :
515f5b50-b920-421f...@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com...

Old Pif

unread,

Nov 9, 2012, 8:26:37 PM11/9/12

On Nov 9, 12:23 pm, PeeJayoDee 4 2day <nxt4pj183...@yopmail.com>
wrote:

>
> In France the richest 10% share 25.5% of the market and pay 28.0 % of
> the personal tax burden. Ratio of tax to market share 1.1
>
> In the US the richest 10% share 33.5% of the market and pay 45.1 % of
> the personal tax burden. Ratio of tax to market share 1.35
>

Is there any lay of Nature that states the threshold that divides
capitalism and socialism whatever those words mean?

Bret Cahill

unread,

Nov 10, 2012, 12:02:35 AM11/10/12

> Which is really more Socialistic? France or the US?
>
> In France the richest 10% share 25.5% of the market and pay 28.0 % of
> the personal tax burden. Ratio of tax to market share 1.1
>
> In the US the richest 10% share 33.5% of the market and pay 45.1 % of
> the personal tax burden. Ratio of tax to market share 1.35

Baron Montesquieu explained the reason for the discrepancy:

Freedom and taxation are correlative. France, like any free country,
has high taxes. The U. S. has low taxes like the USSR, Mideast
dictatorships, the teabag Congress, Libertaria and all other despotic
regimes.

Bret Cahill

Planet Visitor II

unread,

Nov 10, 2012, 12:14:49 AM11/10/12

And yet... unlike France, or the USSR (which does not even exist any longer),
the U.S. has never had a run on toilet paper in fear that it will run out.

Planet Visitor II

>
>Bret Cahill
>
>

Message has been deleted

BIG BIRD

unread,

Nov 10, 2012, 4:10:34 AM11/10/12

"Planet Visitor II" <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote in message
news:vhor98lsaa7dss08m...@4ax.com...
: On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 21:02:35 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com>

:
ok, I give up, why is toilet paper so important to jews ???

PeaJay0d

unread,

Nov 10, 2012, 9:56:32 AM11/10/12

On Nov 10, 8:47 am, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote

> > In France the richest 10% share 25.5% of the market and pay 28.0 % of
> > the personal tax burden. Ratio of tax to market share 1.1
> > In the US the richest 10% share 33.5% of the market and pay 45.1 % of
> >the personal tax burden. Ratio of tax to market share 1.35
> >Increase in ratios of personal tax burden US/France (1.35/1.1) =
> >22.7%
> >source:

> >http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-household..

> In France the TVA "sales tax" collects 50% of the total tax revenues....
> Proportionally that tax hits the lower income more than the rich,..

Evleth thinks he is the only who knows that fact?

Now Evleth should stop attempting to spin and evade and declare
whether France or the US is already more Socialistic in their personal
tax schemes based on that empirical data

Bret Cahill

unread,

Nov 10, 2012, 10:18:36 AM11/10/12

Instead of all these meaningless daffynition word games why not stick
to the fundamental terms outlined by the "celebrated Montesquieu."

M. said that freedom and taxation are entirely correlative with the
highest taxes in the most free countries like England and the lowest
taxes in the least free countries, like Turkey.

That political law holds today. Free countries, i.e., France,
Netherlands, etc. will have high taxes while despotic countries, i.e.,
Mideast dictatorships, the old USSR, will have the lowest taxes.

Ever notice the low tax regimes always either collapse or get whupped
in a war?

Anyway comparing an enlightened free democratic country with a large
middle class like France to a low tax despotism is like comparing
apples and oranges.

Bret Cahill

BIG BIRD

unread,

Nov 10, 2012, 10:23:08 AM11/10/12

"PeaJay0d" <PJz1...@yopmail.com> wrote in message
news:ff9a267a-49a1-4e94...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

and you fucking, bitter, old, angry,grieving white LOSERS!

should STFU

it's time to rid America of LOSERS!!!! like you

Nickname unavailable

unread,

Nov 10, 2012, 9:02:18 PM11/10/12

On Nov 9, 11:15 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 21:02:35 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> >> Which is really more Socialistic? France or the US?
>
> >> In France the richest 10% share 25.5% of the market and pay 28.0 % of
> >> the personal tax burden. Ratio of tax to market share 1.1
>
> >> In the US the richest 10% share 33.5% of the market and pay 45.1 % of
> >> the personal tax burden. Ratio of tax to market share 1.35
>
> >Baron Montesquieu explained the reason for the discrepancy:
>
> >Freedom and taxation are correlative. France, like any free country,
> >has high taxes. The U. S. has low taxes like the USSR, Mideast
> >dictatorships, the teabag Congress, Libertaria and all other despotic
> >regimes.
>
> And yet... unlike France, or the USSR (which does not even exist any longer),
> the U.S. has never had a run on toilet paper in fear that it will run out.
>

the U.S.S.R. was as "CONSERVATIVE" economy. right now the filthy rich
are manipulating commodities, and hundreds of millions of people world
wide are going hungry.

free markets are unreliable, unstable, prone to manipulation, they are
no different than total state control because in the end, both fail
miserably because all of the wealth and power end up in the hands of a
few:World hunger reaches the 1 billion people mark

instead of being stuck in the same old tired unworkable free market
mode of exporting everything, and importing everything, and trying to
manipulate everything to pay the bills, why not try something novel,
like growing your own, then protecting that market so that you can be
free of the free market manipulators and speculators.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090619/ap_on_re_eu/eu_un_world_hunger

World hunger reaches the 1 billion people mark

AP – FILE- Indian workers are seen silhouetted as they load rice sacks
onto a truck at a grain market on the …
By ALESSANDRA RIZZO, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 28 mins ago
ROME – One in six people in the world — or more than 1 billion — is
now hungry, a historic high due largely to the global economic crisis
and stubbornly high food prices, a U.N. agency said Friday.
Compared with last year, there are 100 million more people who are
hungry, meaning they receive fewer than 1,800 calories a day, the Food
and Agriculture Organization said in a report.
Almost all the world's undernourished live in developing countries,
where food prices have fallen more slowly than in the richer nations,
the report said. Poor countries need more aid and agricultural
investment to cope, it said.
"The silent hunger crisis, affecting one-sixth of all of humanity,
poses a serious risk for world peace and security," said the agency's
Director-General Jacques Diouf.
Soaring prices for staples, such as rice, triggered riots in the
developing world last year.
Hunger increased despite strong 2009 cereal production, and a mild
retreat in food prices from the highs of mid-2008. However, average
prices at the end of last year were still 24 percent higher in real
terms than in 2006, FAO said.
The global economic crisis has compounded the problem for people
dealing with pay cuts or job losses. Individual countries have also
some lost flexibility in handling price fluctuations, as the crisis
has made tools such as currency devaluation less effective.
The report predicted the urban poor would likely be hit hardest as
foreign investment declines and demand for exports drops, and that
millions would return to the countryside, which in turn could put
pressure on rural communities and resources.
Globally there are now about 1.02 billion people hungry, up 11 percent
from last year's 915 million, the agency said. It based its estimate
on analysis by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Asia and the Pacific, the world's most populous region, has the
largest number of hungry people at 642 million.
Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest hunger rate, with 265 million
undernourished representing 32 percent of the region's population.
In the developed world, undernourishment is a growing concern, with 15
million now hungry, the report said.
The crisis also affects the quality of nutrition, as families tend to
buy cheaper foods, such as grains, which are rich in calories but
contain fewer proteins than meat or dairy products.
Diouf urged governments to immediately set up social protection
programs to improve food access for those in need. He said small
farmers should be helped with seeds, tools and fertilizers.
He urged structural, long-term changes, such as increasing production
in low-income countries, noting that world hunger had been increasing
before the financial downturn.

G=EMC^2

unread,

Nov 10, 2012, 9:30:02 PM11/10/12

USA lost its freedoms to the Mafia. Mafia took over congress. Proof
of this is Mafia is no longer used in vain, Not used in press. Not
used in movies,and never is congress to have a hearing on Mafia
activities. The Godfather will not allow it. Get the picture yet?
If Mafia is not in France they have a chance to be free TreBert

Old Pif

unread,

Nov 10, 2012, 9:57:38 PM11/10/12

On Nov 10, 10:18 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> M. said that freedom and taxation are entirely correlative with the
> highest taxes in the most free countries like England and the lowest
> taxes in the least free countries, like Turkey.
>

This correlation is very easy to explain: free countries don't have
any other means but taxation to extract resources from the population,
whereas despotic countries have many other ways to rob their people.

BeamMeUpScotty

unread,

Nov 10, 2012, 10:11:49 PM11/10/12

On 11/10/2012 9:02 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Nov 9, 11:15 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 21:02:35 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>>> Which is really more Socialistic? France or the US?
>>>> In France the richest 10% share 25.5% of the market and pay 28.0 % of
>>>> the personal tax burden. Ratio of tax to market share 1.1
>>>> In the US the richest 10% share 33.5% of the market and pay 45.1 % of
>>>> the personal tax burden. Ratio of tax to market share 1.35
>>> Baron Montesquieu explained the reason for the discrepancy:
>>> Freedom and taxation are correlative. France, like any free country,
>>> has high taxes. The U. S. has low taxes like the USSR, Mideast
>>> dictatorships, the teabag Congress, Libertaria and all other despotic
>>> regimes.
>> And yet... unlike France, or the USSR (which does not even exist any longer),
>> the U.S. has never had a run on toilet paper in fear that it will run out.
>>
>
> the U.S.S.R. was as "CONSERVATIVE" economy. right now the filthy rich
> are manipulating commodities, and hundreds of millions of people world
> wide are going hungry.

The USSR was Communist/Socialist and they had central planning and the
government owned all the production and distribution and they were NOT
conservityive they were Leftist Socialist types.

Nice try but your lies won't fly.

--
*Welcome to Socialism*

-Kum bay ya-

Nickname unavailable

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 1:01:40 AM11/11/12

On Nov 9, 11:15 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:

free market capitalism(fascism), is really no different than
communism(marxism), both systems are quite capable of starving tens of
millions to death: Hunger Makes a Mockery of Today’s World Economy:
wealthy parasites are manipulating commodities

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-18/hunger-makes-a-mockery-of-today-s-world-economy.html

Hunger Makes a Mockery of Today’s World Economy

Illustration by Anna Haas

By William Pesek Oct 18, 2012 4:30 PM CT

The lobby of Tokyo’s majestic Imperial Hotel was people-watching
central last weekend.

Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary
Fund, whisked by with 20 television cameras in tow. German Finance
Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble zoomed by moments later with even greater
hysteria. Next came Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan, Bank of Japan
Governor Masaaki Shirakawa, Indian Finance Minister Palaniappan
Chidambaram and other notables on hand for the IMF’s annual meeting.

About William Pesek

William Pesek is based in Tokyo and writes on economics, markets and
politics throughout the Asia-Pacific region. His journalism awards
include the 2010 Society of American Business Editors and Writers
prize for commentary.

More about William Pesek
Amid the buzz, one person was all but overlooked: Kanayo Nwanze.

It is possible you haven’t heard of the president of the International
Fund for Agricultural Development, one of the three food agencies of
the United Nations. The fund provides financing to combat the poverty
threatening the foundations of the financial system that Lagarde, U.S.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and their ilk think they control
and understand. Here’s what many don’t get: If people such as Nwanze
fail, the brand of capitalism they hold dear can’t last.

“You can’t live in an ivory tower in New York and think the rest of
the world can burn and it won’t affect you,” says Nwanze, 66. “The
world has become a global village. When you look back at what happened
during the food-price crisis in 2007 and 2008, it was a wake-up call.
It resulted in food riots in 40 cities across the world. It brought
down governments. When people are hungry and angry in rural areas, it
results in political instability.”

Arab Spring

The Arab Spring movement, remember, was partly about food inflation.
Such shocks deserve urgent attention from finance ministers and hedge-
fund managers alike. The world has experienced three food-price spikes
in the past five years. That is forcing aid agencies and food
scientists to find ways to avoid future shocks and shield the most
vulnerable populations from the fallout.

“The real crisis is that the era of cheap food is over,” Robert
Zeigler, the director-general of the International Rice Research
Institute, told me in Bangkok recently. “The question is: How do
farmers keep up with demand from 7 billion people at the same time
climate change wreaks havoc with production?”

As we search for answers, those making $2 a day or less face an
increasingly bleak future. Any gains in the incomes of billions of
people will go toward basic foodstuffs -- corn, wheat, rice, dairy
products -- not education or health care.

Asia is home to hundreds of millions of those surviving on $1 or $2 a
day. It is also the closest thing the world has to a growth engine
with Europe crashing and America barely expanding. That’s quite a
paradox: The economic foundations of the region that investors hold in
such high regard is beset by hunger.

India, for example, has 1.2 billion people and corporate executives
the world over can’t wait to gain greater access to its growing middle
class. Yet more than three-quarters of Indians eat less than minimum
targets set by the government. How India reaches its full potential
when bellies are empty is anyone’s guess. Similar questions will face
China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and elsewhere when food
prices jump the next time around. There is no time to waste to get
smarter about using land, water, energy and technology to end world
hunger.

Thinking Small

To get big things done, it is best to think small -- small farmers and
rural women, two vital groups Asian governments tend to neglect.

Of all farm holdings worldwide, 85 percent are less than 2 hectares
(4.9 acres) in size, and 500 million of these small farmers produce 80
percent of the food consumed in the developing world, or about one-
third of humanity. It is imperative to increase their productivity and
living standards so they can feed 3 billion additional mouths by 2050.

Women are the backbone of everything else. They tend to invest in
child nutrition, education and health, whereas men are more likely to
buy physical assets -- bicycles, furniture, tools. As Nwanze put it:
“Our experience has shown across Africa and across Asia that when
women are successful, the entire community is successful.” Think of
the world economy as a series of building blocks. The stronger the
communities, the healthier nations and markets are.

The financial illuminati came to Tokyo last week for nothing. There
was no progress on ending Europe’s debt nightmare. No deals to
increase economic growth. No ideas on expanding trade, addressing
income inequality or reining in climate change. China didn’t even show
up, throwing a childish tantrum over its dealings with Japan. The
event was a dismal commentary on the state of global leadership.

Yet even worse than being weak, that leadership is dangerously
distracted. It is too focused on Europe’s bond spreads and China’s
currency to see that the unsexy issue of food is the real issue
imperiling the future. America’s unemployment rate is important; so is
Japan’s credit rating. Neither is as vital as the price of corn in
Iowa or the cost of wheat in Islamabad.

(William Pesek is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed
are his own.)

Read more opinion online from Bloomberg View. Subscribe to receive a
daily e-mail highlighting new View editorials, columns and op-ed
articles.

To contact the writer of this article: William Pesek in Tokyo at
wpe...@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this article: James Greiff at
jgr...@bloomberg.net

Nickname unavailable

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 1:02:49 AM11/11/12

On Nov 9, 11:15 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:

tired of rising prices in a deflating economy? put the blame where it
belongs squarely in the lap of wealthy parasites: unregulated
capitalism(fascism)is starving hundreds of millions of people, just
as
mao and stalin did
another word for unregulated capitalism is "THIEVERY"

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/rising-food-prices-why-wa...

•
Rising Food Prices: Why Wall Street Is Partially to Blame
By Bernice Napach | Daily Ticker – 51 minutes ago

Food prices have been rising steadily around the world and this
summer's drought isn't the only reason why, according to Frederick
Kaufman, author of "Bet the Farm: How Food STOPPED Being Food."
Kaufman tells The Daily Ticker that the price of global grains -- the
primary dietary staple for most people on the planet -- have tripled
since 2002 after decades of stability. "Something new has come to
this
market and we're seeing absolute levels of volatility that we've
never
seen before," Kaufman says.
That new development, he notes, is the exponential growth of
commodity
derivatives. U.S. derivatives trading in wheat alone has surged from
$10 billion to $300 billion in less than a year, says Kaufman.
"Speculators are completely overwhelming" the commodity futures
market, says Kaufman, "subverting a market that has worked so well
for
over a hundred years."
Traditionally the commodity futures market has allowed food producers
and manufacturers to hedge price risk in a market that also includes
speculators. There have been position limits on this type of
speculation since 1936 but since 1999, those limits have been lifted
for some big banks as Wall Street looked for more ways to make money.
That paved the way for the increased speculation in the market today.
Kaufman says more speculation exacerbates food prices. Higher food
prices have led to a global food crisis and civil unrest in the
Mideast and North Africa.
Related: Food is the New Oil and Land the New Gold: Lester Brown
According to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization, which is
holding a week-long meeting in Rome on world food security, 870
million people around the world—or one in eight—are starving or
undernourished.
"While the chance of food prices returning to levels seen in 2008 and
2011 in the coming months may be slim, they remain at historically
high levels, and the underlying factors driving them are here to
stay," the organization says in a press release.
The UN FAO cites population growth and a growing middle class in the
developing world as factors boosting demand for grain-intensive
protein and rising energy costs. "High food prices, therefore, are
here to stay," it says.
Kaufman says the U.S. should be concerned about this global
situation.
Higher food prices can cause civil unrest and become a national
security concern for this country, which itself has 17 million
households that are at risk of going hungry.
More From The Daily Ticker
The Rise of the Super-Rich Is a Global Phenomenon: Chrystia Freeland

Nickname unavailable

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 1:08:44 AM11/11/12

On Nov 10, 9:12 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

marx was no different than rand, or any other "CONSERVATIVE"
extremist.

marx had much in common with conservatives and libertarians, both are
free traders, marx advocated for free trade, both conservatives and
libertarians want government to disappear, of be reduced to nothing,
marx also believed that also.
i see very little difference between a free market
economy(conservatism/fascsim), or a communist economy(marxism), in
either system, almost all wealth and power ends up in the hands of a
few.
so how educated are you? we know that the above happened in fascist
economics, and in communist economies, almost all wealth and power
ended up in the hands of a few:)
once you remove those pesky democratic institutions and rule of law,
you get rid of real government, and you get a fascist or communist
paradise.
both conservatives and communists bark and bray the same crap.

http://www.mailstar.net/classwar.html

Why Karl Marx Advocated Free Trade (Capitalism)
Peter Myers, Canberra, Australia, August 2, 2001; update January 7,
2003. My comments are shown {thus}. Write to me at contact.html.
You are at http://mailstar.net/classwar.html.
Karl Marx advocated Free Trade, i.e. Capitalism, because (a) whereas
Protection builds up the nation-state, Free Trade breaks it down, as a
prelude to the creation of a world-state by the Capitalists (b) Free
Trade breaks down traditional culture, as a prelude to the creation of
a world culture (c) Free Trade exacerbates class warfare, and through
this the Capitalists will lose control of the world-state - they will
be defeated by the impoverished classes, with the help of their
backers in the higher classes.

http://www.worsleyschool.net/socialarts/marxengels/page.html
The term 'communism' has several meanings. According to Marxist
theory, it is the final condition of a country when goods produced by
the workers are distributed equally to all, and where 'the state' no
longer exists.

According to Marx, socialism would let the workers control the wealth
of a country by having the state take control the production of
factories, farms, mines, and other industries. He believed that the
common worker could never have political equality or freedom without
this economic equality. Social services like health, education, and
housing would be provided free, but people would still be paid wages
according to their work.

When all countries had developed socialist economies, they would form
an international 'communist' society, ... a stateless society where
central government had 'withered away', and there was local control of
all affairs by democratic processes at the place of work. There would
be no market system (no money, no buying, no selling); rather, there
would be a system where people would voluntarily work for the common
good, with the understanding that they could receive whatever they
needed for free ('from each according to his ability, to each
according to his needs'). National boundaries and governments would be
eliminated, and wars would no longer happen.

Planet Visitor II

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 2:12:33 AM11/11/12

Because it is so unimportant to you, shit-for-brains.

Planet Visitor II

Planet Visitor II

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 12:27:54 AM11/12/12

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:01:40 -0800 (PST), Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>On Nov 9, 11:15 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 21:02:35 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>> >> Which is really more Socialistic? France or the US?
>>
>> >> In France the richest 10% share 25.5% of the market and pay 28.0 % of
>> >> the personal tax burden. Ratio of tax to market share 1.1
>>
>> >> In the US the richest 10% share 33.5% of the market and pay 45.1 % of
>> >> the personal tax burden. Ratio of tax to market share 1.35
>>
>> >Baron Montesquieu explained the reason for the discrepancy:
>>
>> >Freedom and taxation are correlative. France, like any free country,
>> >has high taxes. The U. S. has low taxes like the USSR, Mideast
>> >dictatorships, the teabag Congress, Libertaria and all other despotic
>> >regimes.
>>
>> And yet... unlike France, or the USSR (which does not even exist any longer),
>> the U.S. has never had a run on toilet paper in fear that it will run out.
>>
>
>free market capitalism(fascism), is really no different than
>communism(marxism), both systems are quite capable of starving tens of
>millions to death: Hunger Makes a Mockery of Today’s World Economy:
>wealthy parasites are manipulating commodities
>

No proof offered.

But, thank you for the opportunity to express my humble opinion.

To be more historically accurate it was the Nazis who embraced the
word "socialism" at every opportunity, and who declared that
capitalism was their mortal enemy. Of course they argued that
"socialism is not derived from communism." But isn't that just what
socialists insist upon today? Isn't that what YOU'RE insisting? Just a
few quotes from various Nazi leaders should put that to bed --

============================
Goebbels' words -- "As socialists, we are opponents of the Jews,
because we see, in the Hebrews, the incarnation of capitalism"
-------------------------------------------------
Hitler's words -- " we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic
system for the exploitation of the economically weak,"
-------------------------
Hitler's words -- "We are not fighting Jewish or Christian capitalism,
we are fighting every capitalism: we are making the people completely
free."
-------------------------
Goebbels' words -- “the money pigs of capitalist democracy: Money
has made slaves of us. Money is the curse of mankind. It smothers
the seed of everything great and good. Every penny is sticky with
sweat and blood.”
-------------------------
Goebbels' words -- "The plutocrats may permit their hired newspapers
to discuss plans for social reform, but the expert sees behind all the talk
the merciless face of Jewish world capitalism that is seeking to seduce
and drug the nations of Europe."
-------------------------
Goebbels' words -- "The worker in a capitalist state—and that is his
deepest misfortune—is no longer a living human being, a creator, a
maker. He has become a machine. A number, a cog in the machine
without sense or understanding. He is alienated from what he produces.”
-------------------------
Karl Marx's words -- “What is the profane basis of Judaism? Practical need,
self-interest. What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his
worldly god? Money. Very well: then in emancipating itself from huckstering
and money, and thus from real and practical Judaism, our age would
emancipate itself. As soon as society succeeds in abolishing the empirical
essence of Judaism—huckstering and its conditions—the Jew becomes
impossible … The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of
society from Judaism.”
-------------------------
Hitler's words -- "in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois [capitalist]
meetings. Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the
compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days"
-------------------------
Hitler's words -- "However, every proposal, coming as it did from me,
was sufficient to cause excitement among a certain Jewish-international-capitalist
clique, just as it used to happen formerly in Germany when every reasonable
proposal was rejected only because it was made by National Socialists."
------------------------
Robert Ley -- "The Jewish mentality and the Jewish spirit are the worldview
of fatalism, of ghosts and spirits, of terror, of anxiety and fear, of the money
bag and capitalism"
-------------------------
Hitler's words -- "But the ruthlessness of the capitalist plutocrats in these
countries always broke through in a short time, fostered by emigrants who
presented a picture of the German situation which was naturally quite mad,
but was believed because it seemed agreeable and then, of course, it was
propagated by Jewish hatred. This collection of capitalist interests on the
one hand, Jewish instincts of hatred and the emigrants' lust for revenge,
succeeded in increasingly beclouding the world, enveloping it in phrases,
and in inciting it against the present German Reich, just as against the
Reich which preceded us."
-------------------------
Hitler's words -- "The development of Germany was much too clear in my
eyes for me not to know that the hardest battle would have to be fought, not
against hostile nations, but against international capitalism."
-------------------------
Gregor Strasser's words -- "We National Socialists are enemies, deadly
enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically
weak … and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system."
-------------------------
Goebbels' words -- "When democracy is near its end it will resort openly to
the terror of capitalistic dictatorship that it ordinarily uses covertly."
-------------------------
Goebbels's words --- "It is easier for the rich to be moral than it is for the
poor. Wealth protects the wealthy, but encourages the poor to take action."
-------------------------
Goebbels' words -- "We leave it to others to judge whether it represents
Germany’s interests or those of our capitalist tormenters.
-------------------------
Robert Ley's words -- "we must ensure that the young grow up under
National Socialism, and are not corrupted by capitalism’s poison. Here, too,
the proverb is true: “He who sups with the Jew dies of it.” He who accepts
the Jew’s money and earns his money through those exploitative methods
will be ruined."
-------------------------
Hitler's words -- "They can wage wars for their capitalist interests, but in
the end these wars will open the way for social risings within the nations; for
in the long run it is impossible that hundreds of millions of human beings
should be aligned according to the interests of a few individuals."
--------------------------
Hitler's words -- "Do you now appreciate the depth of our National Socialist
Movement? Can there be anything greater and more all comprehending?
Those who see in National Socialism nothing more than a political movement
know scarcely anything of it. It is more even than religion; it is the will to
create mankind anew.”
=====================================

Ever asked yourself why both the Nazi leadership and those under the hypnotic
spell of socialism have such a strong distaste for "capitalism"? Ever wonder why
Hitler felt that his brand of socialism was "more than religion"?? Every ask
yourself why you agree with the Nazis in your strong distaste for "capitalism"?
Ever wonder why your ranting strike a familiar chord of someone in deep
hysteria and denial?

Some of that Nazi crap in respect to capitalism is not much different from the
crap that YOU spew out about capitalism. I certainly don't "hate" socialism.
I simply consider it rubbish, and those who believe in it to be fools. And I
don't hate fools... I pity them. Further, I don't consider socialism to be
anywhere near as deleterious as fascism, dictatorship, theocracy, or any
of the other social theories that actually damage the heart and soul of equality,
and human rights.

I simply consider socialism to be unworkable, and while feeling those who
believe it can work are fools, I do not argue that it comes from evil intentions,
but simply a blindness to facts, and a willingness to accept fantasy because
they see socialism as a fog hidden inside a secret entrance which leads to a
potential Shangri-La for humanity. We all dream dreams. But every so often
we need the shock of reality to slap us in the face. If you can't show me where
socialism has worked as written by the person who first "created" the theory
of socialism on paper, then you can't blame me for being skeptical that it will
ever work. But capitalism has worked for many thousands of years.

Socialism might work if everyone believed a Volkswagen is good enough and
all Mercedes should never be produced or a Volkswagen never improved upon
unless everyone received the new version all at the same time; since
anyone having a Mercedes or even a newer model Volkswagen would be
_better than an equal_. But evolution didn't form us in that way. That's
why psychologists, anthropologists, and historians have called us "the Dominate
Animal."

There should be equality and equal rights. But to me that doesn't mean taking
away the rights of the rich to give to those not as rich. That certainly doesn't
provide any kind of "human rights" for the person punished because he has been
so efficient and prosperous. It means instead, providing DIGNITY and providing
a level playing field so those who are socially disenfranchised or part of the
minority can have equality in hiring, in pay, in education, and all the other qualities
that go toward OPPORTUNITY, rather than a handout. Handouts are a
paternalistic, condescending and patronizing form of insult to the person being
given that handout. And don't think they are so dumb that they don't know it.

What is left is the feeling of that recipient that he is somehow somnambulant
and unable to be considered productive, or else those same handouts are stolen
by criminal organizations built specifically to rip off that very welfare system that
is supposed to go to the needy, and not the criminal element.

All this grinds to the importance of distinguishing between equality as a
"distributive notion," or equality as a "status notion." Know the difference.

Socialism embraces the idea of a "distributive notion"; that goods should
simply be divided equally and everything will be fine. In other words, give
those who are poor, assets from those who are rich, and thus it will ensure
that the poor remain in the ghetto as second-class citizens, without dignity
while harboring rage at seeing how they are disenfranchised by the lack of
opportunity because of racial barriers erected by society.

Equality - is a "status notion and argues that society has the responsibility of
ensuring there is "status equality." Breaking down those racial barriers to
provide EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY, rather than a handout. That's why
political social action should be directed at creating "affirmative action" acts,
so the disenfranchised have the same opportunities the majority has, thus
making sure equality EXISTS in the social, economic, and educational framework
of society; recognizing that handouts are COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, breeding
nothing but crime, and larger prison populations, and drugs, and Black on
Black murder, and Black genocide, and the rat-infested ghetto, and more
than 10% of our population on the edge of what James Baldwin described
as "To be Black and conscious in America is to be in a constant state of rage."

But most of the opposition to "affirmative action" comes from the liberal side,
insisting that it represents "positive discrimination" against the majority who happen
to be better trained, and better educated than the majority. Without thinking of
WHY that exists.

There is something basically wrong with a primary and secondary education
system which finds schools filled with 100% Black or Latino, and no members of
the White majority... or which finds schools filled with 100% members of the
White majority, and no minorities. And then expecting that this provides an
adequate opportunity for Blacks desiring to go on to university, when the
schools populated with Blacks push students through on an assembly line and
they end up virtually illiterate having received what is laughably called a "high
school education."

Having instead learned only how to pick a lock, break into a car, handle a firearm,
and a knife, and see that people "fear him" and his "crew," when he patrols "his
turf." That kid never had a chance, and socialism feels all that he needs is
a handout in welfare, but no hand up in giving him a proper education.

I am a firm believer in busing students through every stage of their primary and
secondary education. I believe no school in a city of 50,000 or more should have a
student population which does not closely mirror the racial percentage of the U.S.
If this means busing from suburbs to central city school... tough shit. Because
it means everyone will have access to the same level of knowledge. It's a tough
job for teachers to accept, but it is a fact that this responsibility has to be accepted,
because the concept of a nuclear family simply does not exist in the ghetto. It
has to be done by someone... and the lot falls to the teacher. Which was not
the way it was in my youth, and I come from a semi-ghetto scene in central Chicago.
The nuclear family was strong even in that semi-poverty. But it's now shattered
and broken in the Black ghettos of cities. Black kids now see the way to "get
ahead" is to deal drugs. That's the new "Black ghetto nuclear family."

So which of the two provides equal MORAL status. The "distributive notion" of
socialism and a handout, or the "status notion" of equal opportunity?? Beginning
with the first experience of primary education... equality in gaining the knowledge
that goes with a respectable education.

Think about how socialism was "created." A man came along, and started to
write about how he believed a society should function. He stripped away
capitalism, insisting it demeaned the "worker," while he demonized every
person who developed a business which employed workers. His "theory"
had never worked in practice, but he felt experiences were of no use when one
has a fertile imagination (as do writers of fiction). But it now has gained a
vast number of worshippers, just as Islam has done (it seems there is no
shortage of fools within our species-in desperate need of a social or religious
crutch, unable to stand on their own). In any case... the point is "socialism"
was CREATED by someone having had no physical experience upon which
to base his theory. He simply imagined that this was the way humans would
find social progress. And like God... on the seventh day... he rested.

Now, I'd like to mention the philosophical doctrine of empiricism. Because
it can be used to illuminate the philosophical failure in the methodology used
by that person who created, from whole but empty cloth, this "theory"
of socialism. Empiricism is most easily explained I believe by examining
the path that doctrine takes -- It is that --

Sensory experiences ==> lead to extrapolation-generalization-induction ==>
lead to theories/knowledge of realities

John Locke referred to it as "white paper" on which sensory experiences write,
which is where our knowledge of the physical world comes from. Another
metaphor for empiricism is that one can use observations gleaned from "the
Book of Nature" by experiencing those observations. Knowledge coming
from sensory experiences. Either way, the one who discovers knowledge is
its passive recipient, not its CREATOR. The creator is the "sensory experience"
itself.

Yet the person who developed on paper a "theory" he called "socialism," of how
mankind could progress, had never experienced the very theory he claimed to
have CREATED. He did not follow the doctrine of empiricism... and was not the
passive recipient of a sensory experience of socialism in action. He simply dreamed
it up. Such is the stuff that pixies are made of... Imagination with no grounding
in fact or experience. I might as well write a book about my experiences on
the planet Yzerka, circling Sirius, the Dog Star, if there is no need for the
doctrine of empiricism. Science-Fiction writers ignore that doctrine, and so
did the person who developed the "Theory of Socialism." And I can definitely
see a similarity in the works of Science-Fiction writers and the person
who developed the "Theory of Socialism."

Planet Visitor II

Planet Visitor II

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 12:28:09 AM11/12/12

The free market is the ONLY workable market. No other market has ever
proved viable. Ask Stalin and his "collectiivization" See -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union
... Ask Mao and his "great leap forward." See --
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/maos-great-leap-forward-killed-45-million-in-four-years-2081630.html

The sad thing is your condemnations of Capitalism, and love affair with
a "socialism" you insist is not related to communism is exactly the same
propaganda that was spewed out by the Nazis using their brand of
"socialism" they insisted was not "communism," and an intense hate for
capitalism -- Apparently the apple didn't fall too far from the tree.
Now why do you hate the Jews?

Tell me why I should believe you, since your arguments are nothing other
than the Nazi fodder we see in history??

Planet Visitor II

Planet Visitor II

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 12:28:24 AM11/12/12

No proof offered.

But, thank you for the opportunity to express my humble opinion.

Thus, just so you know... I'm not here to criticize Socialism... I'm here to
crucify it. Whether you finish reading this or not.

It's not capitalism that is similar to communism, but socialism. Socialism
is a political and economic system that exists only on paper. There is no
actual society that follows the true socialist doctrine, since that doctrine
insists that there is no oligarchy or plutocracy or bourgeoisie, and the "new
ruling class" is the proletariat... which is nothing other than anarchy. A state
must have leaders, and cannot exist in a vacuum without leaders where
everyone can make their own rules, since everyone is presumed equal to
every other one.

For all its faults, capitalism is not a social, but an economic system, based upon
barter and the evolutionary evidence that we are a predatory species, with a
drive to be the dominate species, and the dominate member of our species.
There are only two types of the human species --

1) Those who admit to being desirous of being the dominate member of their
particular group among our species, and --

2) Liars, who deny what has been proven in the theory of evolution.

There is no commune system that is firmly associated with socialism in any
nation, as it was originally theorized as a social system. Clearly... there is
NO EQUALITY. For example, Stock exchanges work totally counter
to the idea of "socialism." They are capitalist tools used to facilitate an
economic barter system. In socialism there is no "private ownership
of the means of production." What generally happens is, one who is a
socialist must scramble to define which "form" of socialism is what
he favors... and there are perhaps a thousand flavors to choose from;
leaving the socialist to just argue that "it's better... so that's that!"
But in reality there is only one ORIGINAL theory of socialism, and
one should not get to pick and choose alterations to that theory,
since alterations mean one is no longer referring to "socialism"
but simply something else he apparently "created," hoping to make
it fit the facts.

"Socialism" has been corrupted over and over by those who like
the feeling behind the word, but have no interest in actually giving
THEIR assets to another person so they can both have EQUAL assets.
By God... some have turned Socialism into a RELIGION in their zeal
to feel warm and fuzzy about giving away assets from someone
other than themselves to those having less!! Usually they feel
that in doing so they might even be able to sweep up a few crumbs
for themselves from what all those _obscenely rich people have_.

Consider this -- a religion is based upon "belief" in something that
has never been proven to exist in actuality. That's also socialism.
Every advocate of socialism who is not delusional insists that
socialism "would work" if the entire nation practiced it. So they
tweak it, and modify it, and strip away what were the original
essentials in that theory, and still call it "socialism," because it
sounds good. But what it isn't -- is "socialism." However, it
does bring forth images of equality, and humanitarianism,
and the fraternity of mankind, and peace, and everything warm
and fuzzy. Who could be so evil as to oppose THAT!!!???? The
argument from socialists being that anyone who speaks ill of
socialism should be cast out from that imaginary garden of Eden.
Gee.... just like religious fanatics, who used the same sort of descriptive
adjectives to add to the name of their religion... like "Islam--The
Religion of Peace." Or "Christianity - from the people who brought
you the dark ages." Or "Buddhism - Bruce Lee loved it."

I would suggest that this is the same with anarchy. It "would work"
if everyone just followed the rules. Islam and Christianity would
also work if there was any proof of their particular God. Excuses
are always made when the inconsistencies of "equality" are
exposed under socialism. Denials run the course just as they do
with those who argue the beliefs of a particular religion when
inconsistencies are mention. Reality sneaks out the window, and is
replaced by "faith," and terms such as "trust me... it would really,
really, really work if everybody practiced it!!"

Liberals have ensconced themselves as being the keeper of
"socialism" as they imagine it _could be_, but never has been.
They love to equate socialism with "equality" and "human rights,"
and "moral rights," all having high sounding words making them
feel good about themselves, but little in the way of actually existing
within a political framework of any nation. Liberals love to call
non-liberals "greedy," but GREED drives every political framework.
GREED drives evolution. Or more accurately... evolution drives
greed in mankind. Liberals are just as susceptible to greed as
any other group of humans are. It's in your genes.

Greed may not be considered "good" as Gordon Gekko claimed.
But that's only because the idea of "good" is subjective, rather than
objective. But what is objective is that "Greed is in us." Evolution
put it there, and denying it doesn't mean anything but a passionate
effort to appear altruistic in the eyes of others. Obviously we are
born with greed; because it is essential to survival. Our mother
could be dying from cancer, and our seeking out and sucking
up her milk mean she will die; yet there is no question that this
fact wouldn't concern us whatsoever when we are at the age where
we still depend upon that breast for OUR physical survival. We're
all born as greedy little pissers. So every living person on this planet
has at one point shown greed. And anyone who claims they have
never shown greed from the point when they first became conscious
of the consequences of their greed, is a liar.

Further, I've continued to point out that there is a large body of
philosophers and social scientists who insist that "socialism is a
form of slavery."

There is disagreement from just about every quarter of
those intimately involved in the study of human society and of
individual relationships as to the role politics plays in those
human society and individual relationships. There is even
disagreement about what a philosophical theory of human
rights should DO - and about what it should be about. Not just
about the question of = can it be considered legal to take more
from one to give to another simply because the other has less
than the one having his assets taken away from him in an unequal
method? Why is that considered legal by socialists... robbing
Peter to pay Paul? Why is that considered ETHICAL by socialists
seeking the moral high ground? And what about the MORALITY
of doing so when one considers the obvious inequity applied to
the one who has more, which extracts from THEIR human rights?
The word "fair" has been seized upon by presumed socialists
who believe it is "fair" to expropriate the assets of someone to
an "unequal extent." They equate "fair" to "human rights," but
it's hardly "fair" to the person having his assets taken away because
someone else has decided it would be better to be on welfare
than to work. What's "equal" about that??? we should never
forget Newton's Third Law.

Capitalism is not a political system but a means of barter in
order to transfer goods and services to one party in return for
goods and services provided to the other party. It is a system
based upon evolution. And you can't rewrite evolution just
because you like the word "socialism," and it gives you a warm
and fuzzy feeling to praise it, even though socialism is not
consistent with evolution.

Socialism as "an economic system" is characterized by social ownership
of the means of production and co-operative management of the
economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system.
It has never existed as it was first proposed on paper.

But to be more historically accurate it was the Nazis who embraced the

word "socialism" at every opportunity, and who declared that
capitalism was their mortal enemy. Of course they argued that
"socialism is not derived from communism." But isn't that just what
socialists insist upon today? Isn't that what YOU'RE insisting? Just a
few quotes from various Nazi leaders should put that to bed --

<clip irrelevant comments which do not imply that capitalism is fascism,
as Nickname Unavailable would claim>

Planet Visitor II

Planet Visitor II

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 12:28:35 AM11/12/12

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:02:49 -0800 (PST), Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>On Nov 9, 11:15 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 21:02:35 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>> >> Which is really more Socialistic? France or the US?
>>
>> >> In France the richest 10% share 25.5% of the market and pay 28.0 % of
>> >> the personal tax burden. Ratio of tax to market share 1.1
>>
>> >> In the US the richest 10% share 33.5% of the market and pay 45.1 % of
>> >> the personal tax burden. Ratio of tax to market share 1.35
>>
>> >Baron Montesquieu explained the reason for the discrepancy:
>>
>> >Freedom and taxation are correlative. France, like any free country,
>> >has high taxes. The U. S. has low taxes like the USSR, Mideast
>> >dictatorships, the teabag Congress, Libertaria and all other despotic
>> >regimes.
>>
>> And yet... unlike France, or the USSR (which does not even exist any longer),
>> the U.S. has never had a run on toilet paper in fear that it will run out.
>>
>
>tired of rising prices in a deflating economy? put the blame where it
>belongs squarely in the lap of wealthy parasites: unregulated
>capitalism(fascism)is starving hundreds of millions of people, just
>as mao and stalin did another word for unregulated capitalism is "THIEVERY"

Actually, it is socialism that has been touted by fascists, and capitalism that has
been assaulted and bashed by Nazis, just as you would now assault and bash
capitalism... Need proof?? Here you go...

"As socialists, we are opponents of the Jews, because we see, in the Hebrews,

the incarnation of capitalism" -- Joseph Goebbels.

I suppose that as you are a "socialist," you are also an opponent of the Jews,
and capitalism.

Planet Visitor II

Nickname unavailable

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 1:52:01 AM11/12/12

On Nov 11, 11:28 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:

ROTFLOLl!!! you must agree with these statements correct,

"We must take from state authority those functions for which it is
incompetent and which it performs badly... I believe the state should
renounce its economic functions, especially those carried out through
monopolies, because the state is incompetent in such matters... We
must put an end to state railways, state postal service and state
insurance."
"hasten the privatization of municipal enterprises."
"We have broken with the practice of persecuting capital."

http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/chpt1.htm

What Fascism Is & Isn't

No other word causes so much misunderstanding, confusion, and heated
debate in politics than fascism. The term has been applied to many
individuals such as McCarthy, Hoover, and others. It is frequently
used to describe government policies and government themselves, often
incorrectly. What then is fascism exactly? Webster's Dictionary
defines it as: "A government system marked by a centralized
dictatorship, stringent socioeconomic controls and belligerent
nationalism." But the author takes exception with that definition. At
best, the definition is vague and abstract. Nor does the definition
seem capable of taking into all forms of fascism.
There is a resurgent, widespread attempt by the far right to label
fascism as a form of socialism. Fredrick von Hayek was the first to
attempt labeling the Nazis as socialists in his book The Road to
Serfdom published in 1944.70 The hard right quickly adopted it, as it
allowed the hard right to escape the charges that they had much in
common with the Nazis.2 Such endeavors are not only silly, but
dishonest as well and represent an attempt by the far right to
distance themselves for their earlier support of Hitler.
Hayek's book is based on two erroneous assumptions from the very
beginning. He first assumes that fascism and communism are one and the
same, as they are both totalitarian systems. This makes about as much
sense as calling a maple tree a pine tree because both are trees. His
second erroneous assumption lays in his belief that only socialism or
liberalism leads to totalitarian systems. In fact, all political
systems can lead to totalitarian systems and all political systems are
inherently unstable, as is any system created by man.
From there, Hayek takes severe liberties with history. For instance,
he goes on to claim that by deliberate policy the United States by
allowed the growth of cartels and syndicates after 1878.71 Indeed this
date and time period is significant, but not for a move towards
socialism or liberalism. Rather, it's the opposite a move towards
fascism and corporate rule. Even a reader with a rudimentary knowledge
of American history would recognize this time frame as the beginning
of the robber baron era and laissez faire economics, precisely the
type of economic policy Hayek holds in utmost esteem.
Hayek offers little proof to support his conclusions; in fact the
book is devoid of any proof or even examples to support his findings.
The book degenerates into an argument based upon unsubstantiated
assertion. He argues against the nation state and proposes a
supernational authority or world federation made up of the financial
elite. In essence, Hayek proposes a world made up of sovereign
corporations accountable to no one. Not only did Hayek take severe
liberties with American history, he ignored the very nature of fascism
in Germany and Italy.
In various speeches made shortly after the March on Rome, Mussolini
stated, "We must take from state authority those functions for which
it is incompetent and which it performs badly... I believe the state
should renounce its economic functions, especially those carried out
through monopolies, because the state is incompetent in such
matters... We must put an end to state railways, state postal service
and state insurance." The state returned large monopolies to the
private sector after returning them to profitability such as the
Consortium of Match Manufactures, privatized the insurance system in
1923, the telephone system in 1925, and many of the public works.
In Germany the Nazis announced they would end nationalization of
private industries when they seized power. In 1932, Hitler returned
control of the Gelsenkirhen company to private hands and in 1936
returned the stock of "United Steel" to private hands. Throughout
1933-1936, the Nazi returned to private hands the control of several
banks: Dresdner, Danat, Commerz and Privatbank, the Deutsche Bank, and
several others. In 1936, the steamship company Deutcher Schiff and
Maschinenbau was returned to the private sector. In 1934, Dr. Schacht,
the Nazi Minister of Economy, gave instructions to hasten the
privatization of municipal enterprises. These enterprises were
especially coveted by the rich industrialists, as they had been
prosperous even during the depression.
Both in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the tax system was changed to
one favoring business and the wealthy. The Nazis allowed industries to
deduct from their taxable income all sums used to purchase new
equipment. Rich families employing a maid were allowed to count the
maid as a dependent child and reap the tax benefit. In Italy, the
Minister of Finance stated: "We have broken with the practice of
persecuting capital."73
Such programs, catering to big business and the rich elite, are more
akin to the policies of the Reagan Administration than it is to any
liberal administration including FDR's. Likewise, it was the rich
industrialists that were behind the fascist movement in the United
States during the 1930s. Thus it is no surprise that the right wing
attempts to try and label fascism as socialism in trying to distance
themselves from their previous support of fascism.
Perhaps the only redeeming feature in Hayek's book is his
acknowledgement of environmental problems.72 Indeed this is
significant, considering the book was first published in the 1940s,
long before the birth of the environmental movement. Hayek readily
acknowledges the problem of industrial pollution and the harmful
effects of deforestation, yet he stops short of any meaningful
solution. Instead of offering a viable solution Hayek condemns
government regulation and would allow market forces to provide the
solution. However, it was these same market forces that produced the
problem. We have plenty of proof of such a fool hearty approach both
here and globally. As late as the 1970s rivers caught fire in the
United States, cities were smog stricken and harmful pollutants were
damaging the environment world wide. Today we face the problems of
global warming and ozone depletion, and the problem of environmental
estrogens, which has the potential of being even more threatening than
both global warming and ozone depletion.
But perhaps the most damning of all evidence that Hayek was dead wrong
comes from the implementation of an economic system based on his
beliefs. Hayek later taught at the University of Chicago, the same
university that trained the "Boys from Chicago" who were the economic
brains behind the fascist regime of Pinochet in Chile. There is no
question in the matter that under Pinochet, Chile was indeed fascist.
More alarming, Hayek is an idol to several top-level officials in the
George W. Bush administration. They are dangerous close to imposing a
fascist style economy on the United States.
In order to dispel the myth of the Nazis being socialists we need to
first define socialism. Socialism is rigidly defined as an economic
system in which the workers own the means of production and
distribution of goods. A more relaxed definition would be simply that
the workers maintain political control over the production and
distribution of goods. Even using the more relaxed definition of
socialism, the Nazis can not be labeled as socialists as there simply
was no worker control over the production or distribution of goods in
Nazi Germany. In fact, the Nazis outlawed legitimate labor unions. In
place of the original unions, the Nazis implemented quasi-like unions
that were controlled by the industrialists. In a déjà vu manner, the
Republican Party has recently tried to enact a similar measure,
conferring legal status on worker groups controlled by corporations.
Some writers and historians have argued that you cannot have fascism
without corporatism, as the corporate power structure has much in
common with fascism. During the period preceding the outbreak of WWII
it was common to refer to fascism as corporatism in polite English
society.
More recently others have tried to define fascism as the "Third Way",
in the sense that it borrowed ideas from both capitalism and
socialism. The basic philosophy behind the "Third Way" incorrectly
labels any regulations or government controls over businesses as
socialism; essentially it's just a restatement of syndicalism. Such
nonsense should be rejected whole heartily. It again represents an
attempt to distance the right from their support of Hitler in the
1930s and ignores that the basis of the German economy under Hitler
was a capitalist system where the means of production remained in
private hands. Further, following the logic of the "Third Way," one
would have to label all capitalistic systems as "Third Way," for
throughout history there has never been a pure capitalistic system. A
pure capitalist economy is so inherently and fatally flawed that it's
never even been tried. But that is to be expected for any system that
awards the winner with all the eggs. Nor has there been a pure
socialistic system. Human greed simply prevents it.
The dangers of such nonsense can be illustrated with the following
quote taken from a Baptists fundamentalist's web page in their
labeling of the Japanese economy as fascist: However, Fascism is an
economic term, denoting the type of economy where the Means of
Production [factories, companies] and the ownership of raw materials
[mines, oil wells] remains in the hands of private individuals, but
where the government intervenes to determine how many competitors will
be allowed to produce the same thing, how much is produced, and what
prices may be charged.1
Here it can be seen that the term fascism has been clearly misapplied.
This description could past for the economic theory of the fascist
philosopher George Sorel. This is a description of syndicalism; it was
the economic model of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to a large
extent. Syndicalism does draw some aspects from socialism, but the
system is still a capitalistic system as ownership of the means of
production and distribution of goods remain in private hands. It is no
more socialism than the conclusion of the Robber Barons and the
corrupt politicians of Tammy Hall. The only difference between this
example of syndicalism is that the government participation is open
versus the backroom corruption of politicians in Tammy Hall.
Not only Japan invoke syndicalism, but almost all the Pacific Rim
nations do, to some extent. These are the same nations that the hard
right has held up in the past as darlings of capitalism and free
enterprise. Yet these are precisely the same economic policies of the
Nazis that they have tried to foist off as socialism. The key
distinction here is the means of production still remains in private
hands, just as it did in Nazi Germany. No capitalistic society has
ever existed without some form of syndicalism or government control
over the economy. The closest America came to an entirely capitalistic
system was either the 1890s and the Robber Barons or the laissez faire
policies of Herbert Hoover, and as we all know, that didn't end too
well in the Great Depression of the 1930s.
No where does the quote above refer to totalitarian control or extreme
nationalism. In fact, they have tried to define fascism in strictly
economic terms for their own purposes. But it does serve to point out
the dangers of inventing the "Third Way" or the use of syndicalism in
an attempt to label the Nazis. The problem here is determining where
syndicalism ends and capitalism begins. Is the trading of pollution
credits a form of syndicalism or is it free enterprise? In America
today, the hard right would attempt to label it as socialism, as they
try to do with any laws or regulations of business. In fact, the past
laws regulating corporations were much more severe and restrictive in
the 1800s than today. One could argue that it was through syndicalism
that the power elite and corporations gradually eroded those laws
until corporations now enjoy more freedoms than what an individual
enjoys. This is precisely what has happened in America.
But environmental and labor laws are not socialism. They are in fact
nothing more than an attempt to bring an out of control system hell
bent on exploitation of the environment and labor back to order. No
labor law or environment law was ever passed in a vacuum. All of these
laws were brought about by a need to correct an unhealthy or unsafe
situation. While there are some corporations that strive to provide a
clean and safe workplace, there are many whose only concern is the
bottom line and they turn a blind eye towards safety and view their
employees as expendable commodities.
Regulation of businesses or corporations by itself is not socialism. A
business entity such as a corporation has no rights other than what
privileges a society wishes to grant it. People have rights; a paper
creation of a society such as a corporation has no inherent rights.
Business entities such as corporations only have conditional
privileges based upon providing for the common good of the society,
which granted the charter. All such paper creations have an obligation
to serve the society, which created it. Failing to perform that
obligation, it loses any right for its continuing existence. It the
obligation of that society to restrict the rights of such entities to
promote equality for all and to prevent a ruling aristocracy from
developing. This view is hardly socialism or even radical, unless one
wishes to label Thomas Jefferson as a radical socialist as he more
eloquently stated it:
"I hope we shall take warning from the example of England and crush in
its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare
already to challenge our Government to trial, and bid defiance to the
laws of our country."3
Perhaps one of the better definitions of fascism comes from Heywood
Broun, a noted American columnist in the 1930s:
"Fascism, is a dictatorship from the extreme right or to put it a
little more closely into our local idiom, a government which is run by
a small group of large industrialists and financial lords...I think it
is not unfair to say that any businessman in America, or public
leader, who goes out to break unions is laying the foundations for
fascism"75

A definitive definition of fascism is a totalitarian government with
extreme nationalist tendencies in which the government is controlled
and operated for the benefit of a few elite. However, it should be
noted that an all-encompassing definition of a complex system can not
be simply stated. Such simple definitions undoubtedly fail in time. A
caveat to the above definition would be anytime the government places
the rights of corporations or the elite above the rights of the
citizens, it represents a step towards fascism. A better insight into
what fascism is can be obtained by listing the traits that are common
to the classical fascist states of Franco's Spain, Nazi Germany and
fascist Italy. A list of traits of fascism is presented below. Note
that the first two are the two most defining traits, obviously many of
the others can be applied to many other social-political systems as
one moves down the list.
1. Totalitarian
2. Extreme nationalism
3. Top down revolution or movement
4. Destructive divisionism such as racism and class warfare
5. Extreme anti-communism, anti socialism, and anti-liberal views
6. Extreme exploitation
7. Opportunistic ideology lacking in consistency as a means to grab
power
8. Unbridled Corporatism
9. Reactionary
10. The use of violence and terror to attain and maintain power
11. Cult-like figurehead
12. The expounding of mysticism or religious beliefs

Not all fascists need exhibit all of the traits once again it should
be emphasized that all fascist states will exhibit a totalitarian
view. Most fascist states will have an extreme nationalism policy.
However, extreme nationalism is not mandatory. States such as Spain
under Franco and Chile under Pinochet were indeed fascist states, but
they could hardly be described as having a policy of extreme
nationalism.
A brief look at the above traits and how they relate to fascism will
convey a better understanding of what fascism really is, using Nazi
Germany as an example. First, because it was undisputedly fascist and
secondly because there is more literature available on the Nazis than
on either fascist Italy or Franco's Spain. Moreover, the use of the
Nazi's as an example is closer to the focus of this book, which is
creeping fascism in America.
Creeping fascism is the gradual lost of freedoms of the masses to the
power elite. Full-blown fascism has never appeared all at once. The
Nazis took several years to reach the final state of full-blown
fascism. It took the Nazis five years before Kristallnacht, which
marks the beginning of the "Final Solution." The Nazis gradually took
away the freedoms of the citizens of Germany until they were able to
launch the Holocaust. This was the reason for including the caveat in
the definition of fascism above, "Any action taken by the government
that places the rights of the elites and corporations above the
citizens is a step towards fascism."
Such actions will not look like fascism some may even appear to be
reasonable. Its only when the summation of many such actions ends in a
fascist state that such actions can be seen as a step towards fascism.
Make no mistake in understanding that the power elite, those that own
and run America's corporations, are fascist. They have forced war on
this country to protect their assets, they have over-exploited their
employees, they have used violence to bust unions, and they rely on
divisionist policies such as racism and class warfare to maintain
their power.
The erosion of our freedoms in the United States was prolonged by our
constitution. Nevertheless, over time the lost of freedoms has left
America at the edge of a chasm. Any further loss of freedoms and
America will begin an irreversible slide into the deep abyss of
fascism.
Before looking at the traits of fascism a brief review of the history
of fascism and its roots in modern philosophy is needed. By looking at
the roots of fascism in philosophy, we can gain an understanding why
fascism is often described as reactionary. By looking at the various
philosophers that have come to be associated with fascism, we will be
able to see that many of these traits come directly from fascism's
roots in philosophy. In that way, we can then see how some of these
traits that can be applied to other social-political system are
central to fascism.
Many writers have assumed that fascism has no intellectual or
philosophical roots due to its lack of a consistent ideology. But such
views are incorrect; the roots of fascism extend back to the French
Revolution. The French Revolution is one of those landmark events in
the history of Europe marking the beginning of a major shift in
European culture and governments. In essence, fascism was a reaction
to the French revolution. It was a reaction particularly to the slogan
of the revolution of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" that was hated
the most.
The concept of liberty from oppressive regimes in the daily lives of
the citizens, including forced religious values, and the concept of
voting and majority rule where the minority still retained a set of
inalienable rights, incensed the early philosophers of fascism. Such a
concept was a direct threat to the kings and nobles of the time, as
well as to the church. Remember this was a time for debtor's prisons,
indentured servants, and vassal states.
Equality, in the eyes of the law, was unspeakable. How could a mere
peasant have the same rights under the law as the kings, nobles, and
merchants? This was the time when the king's word was the law. Rights
were based on the social standing of one's birth. The only rights a
person had at the time were the rights that the king was willing to
extend, and they could be withdrawn at any moment.
Fraternity, in the sense that all men and women shared humanity was
considered heresy. It was a time when slaves were still considered and
treated as animals and women were considered property, and not part of
a greater humanity that needed to be shared.
All three terms meant a loss in power and control by those in power.
But, this is exactly what the philosophers that have come to be
associated with fascism were reacting to and rejecting. The period
following the French Revolution produced a virtual intellectual stew
of various philosophies, including those of Marx and Engels. A brief
look at some of the major philosophers of fascism will show how they
relate to the traits listed early, and how they were a reaction to the
French Revolution. This list of philosophers is by no means complete,
but it will suffice to show that many of the traits attributed to
fascism above have roots going back as far as the French Revolution.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was a German philosopher perhaps best
known for his The World as Will and Representation.4 His beliefs held
that the will is the underlying and ultimate reality. The whole
phenomenal world was only the expression of will. Individuals have
free will only in the sense that everyone is an expression of a will.
Thus we are not authors of our own destiny, character, or behavior,
according to Schopenhauer. His views parallel the development of
relativistic physics that came a century later. His views were
influential on Nietzche, among others.
Georg Hegel (1770-1831), a German philosopher held pantheism as the
heart of his beliefs. The Phenomenology of Spirit and Science of Logic
are two of his better-known works. He viewed that all existence and
all history was divine and that nature was sacred. He viewed God as an
absolute spirit that also manifested itself in material things and
individuals. He believed God acted through humans and embodied himself
first in nature, then in the rising stages of human consciousness and
civilization. He also had an ethnocentric and egocentric view. He
maintained that the German nation was the highest carrier of the wave
of God's development. He believed that the bureaucratic monarchy of
Prussia was the highest form of state. These later views were
certainly manifested in the Nazi's view of the Aryan race, as shown in
the following quote.
"Thus the highest purpose of the 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 not only assures the preservation of this nationality, but by
the development of its spiritual and ideal abilities leads it to the
highest freedoms."8
Fredrich Nietzche (1844-1900), also a German philosopher was best
known for his work Thus Spake Zarathustra.5 Hitler liked to be
photographed staring at a bust of Nietzche. Nietzche theorized two
sets of morals, one for the ruling class and another for the slave
class. Nietzche viewed that ancient empires grew out of the ruling
class and that religions arose out of the slave classes, (which
denigrates the rich, the powerful, rationalism, and sexuality.) He
developed a concept of an "overman," a superhuman, which symbolized
man at his most creative and highest intellectual development.
Obviously, the "overman" was manifested in the Nazi's view of the
Aryan race. He suffered a mental break down, most likely from the
advances of syphilis, and was cared for by his mother and later his
sister, Elisabeth. His sister painstakingly gathered his notes to
publish his latter works. However, she was active in the rising anti-
Semitic movement at the time and may have tainted his later work with
her views. From time to time, Nietzsche enjoys a rebirth of
popularity. Today is one such rebirth, fitting in well with the
unmitigated greed and corporatism of today's hard right. Nietzsche's
connection to the Nazis is obvious, as shown by the following
quotation.
"with satanic joy in his face, the black haired Jewish youth lurks in
wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus
stealing her from her people. With every means he tries to destroy the
racial foundations of the people he has set out to subjugate. Just as
he himself systematically ruins women and girls, he does not shrink
back from pulling down the blood barriers for others, even on a large
scale. It was and it is Jews who bring Negroes into the Rhineland,
always with the same secret thought and clear aim of ruining the hated
white race by necessarily resulting bastardization, throwing it down
from its culture and political height, and himself rising to be
master."9
Notice the similarity in this passage and the Council of Conservative
Citizens that Senator Lott and representative Barr supported before
becoming embroiled in the resulting scandal in late 1998.10 The web
site for this white supremacist group described interracial marriage
to the mixing of chocolate milk with plain milk, and labeled it as a
path to racial extinction. They also described Lincoln as a communist.
11
Henri Bergson (1859-1941) was a French philosopher with a Jewish
father and an English mother. He was the winner of the Nobel Prize for
literature in 1927. He rejected the idea that scientific principles
could explain all existence. He was a promoter of what has become
known as Social Darwinism.6 Perhaps one of his better known works was
Time and Free Will. He was also a believer in pantheism. Once again,
we see the obvious connection with the Nazis of a master race in the
following quote concerning the Nazi's euthanasia program:
"...a secret circular went out from the Reich interior Ministry which
marked the beginning of a programme of euthanasia for mentally ill or
deformed children up to three years old. Doctors would be required to
report all such cases to the health authority on special forms; the
forms would then be forwarded to a panel of three medical assessors
who would adjucate over life or death by appending "-" or "+." Should
all three place a "+", a euthanasia warrant would be issued, signed by
the Reichsleiter Philipp Bouhler of the Fuhrer's Chancellery or
SS_Oberfuhrer Dr Viktor Brack, head of the Chancellery's Euthanasia
Department II. And so it happened: infants marked for death were
transferred to what were referred to as Children's Special Departments
in political reliable clinics, there to be given a "mercy death" by
injection or in one institution at Eglfing-Haar simply starved by a
progressive reduction of diet."7
Geroge Sorel (1847-1922) was a French philosopher who had considerable
influence on Mussolini. His writings promoted an economic model based
on syndicalism. He also believed in the degeneration of societies and
believed that social decay could only be delayed by idealists who were
willing to use violence to obtain power. His views were extremely anti-
democratic and anti-liberal.
With this very brief review of philosophy has shown that the fascist
traits of nationalism, totalitarian, racist, violence, unbridled
corporatism, reactionary, and the top down nature of fascism all are
grounded in the works of past philosophers.
A totalitarian government is one that seeks to maintain control over
all aspects of public and private life by using propaganda, terror,
and technology. Totalitarian regimes seek control over political,
social, and the culture. However, economic control is left in the
hands of a few elites in the fascist state. While the means of
economic control is left in the private hands of a few elites, this
same group controls the government. In essence the government becomes
the tool by which the rich and the corporations maintain control. The
distinction is important to note as it separates communism from
fascism. In a communist state the control over the economy moves to
the inside of government, while in the fascist state it remains in
private hands. Dictatorships differ in seeking only limited control
over the political environment of a society.
There was only limited government ownership under the Nazis. Prior to
the Nazi take over, the German governments took over failing
businesses and continued to operate them. When the Nazis took over the
government already owned a large number of enterprises. When the Nazis
took over they began to privatize many of these businesses, especially
the ones that had remained profitable during the depression like the
electric utilities.
Once Hitler assured big business that they would be free to continue
to operate, they failed to raise any further objections to the Nazis.
The large German steel and coal industries especially welcomed the
Nazis. Hitler's plans for rearmament meant large contracts for new
ships, tanks, etc. Later during the war when a labor shortage
appeared, it was Krupp from the German steel industry that first
raised the question of using slave labor from the concentration camps.
At first the Nazis were reluctant to allow the inmates to be used as
slaves as it would slow the progress of the "final solution." However,
once Krupp offered to pay for the slaves the Nazis readily agreed and
soon there was no shortage of companies seeking slaves.
 What is less understood about the totalitarian power Hitler achieved
was the path he took to obtain that power. There never has been
totalitarian regime that gained instant total control. Such a sudden
change would spawn sudden revolutions. Mussolini took three years
before consolidating his power in Italy. In case of the Nazis, it took
even longer. Nor did the path to totalitarian Nazi state start with
the elevation of Hitler to the position of chancellor. Some historians
trace the roots of the path all the way back into the 1800s. A
complete analysis of German history from the time of the monarchy to
the seating of Hitler is beyond the scope of this book, if not beyond
the scope of any single book, as volumes could be written. What
follows is a very brief look at the slow erosion of freedom and the
concentration of power as it relates to the final totalitarian state.
For the most part, the period following WWI was a period dominated by
raucous politics and a series of crisis in Germany. The two periods in
which the Nazis gained the most strength was the early 1920s, during
the hyper inflationary period, culminating with the Beer Hall Putsch
and the depression of 1929-1931. There is little need to examine the
raucous politics of that period, everyone is well aware of Hitler's SA
thugs breaking up political rallies of other parties which also
resorted to the same tactics. It would not be untrue to describe many
political rallies of the time as ending in brawls.
Hitler and the Nazis were extremists, and mostly rejected by the
German voters during the good economic times of the 1920s. For
example, in 1928 they only polled 2.6 percent of the vote, gaining
just 14 seats out of the 491 seats in the Reichstag by virtue of the
republic's proportional representation. By 1930 and the start of the
depression, the Nazis had increased their seats to 107 out of 577
seats in the Reichstag. In the July 1932 election, at the height of
the depression, the Nazis polled 37.4 percent of the vote winning 230
seats in the Reichstag, becoming Germany's largest party.13 In the Nov
1932 election, they only won 196 seats as an anemic economic recovery
was already underway, the people began rejecting the Nazis and their
radical views and actions.
Germany's plunge into a totalitarian state began before the Nazis took
over. It was as much a result of a lack of a strong leadership as
anything else. For the first eleven years of the German Republic there
had been seventeen cabinets headed by nine different chancellors.12
Undoubtedly, the country faced grave crisis in this period such as
hyperinflation, but the lack of strong leadership and an increased
polarization was readily apparent. The Nazis were the most notorious
radicals unwilling to compromise, but the other parties have to share
some of the blame for this polarization as well. The blame can be
extended beyond the parties to the vested interests behind each party,
including that of big businesses. Fracturing the electorate by
polarization was playing right into the divisionist character of the
Nazis, whose radical program lacked a broad base of support as the
election results from 1928 showed.
The policies of the German governments during the 1920s inadvertently
aided the rise of the Nazis. Throughout the 1920s the government
arrested many of the leaders from the left. It would not be unfair to
term these arrests as purges. The arrest of any strong leaders
emerging from the left only served to further polarize the country by
creating a vacuum on the left that was only filled with the more
radical communists. A similar situation is emerging in the United
States, throughout this century the United States has conducted purges
of the left: the Great Red Scare of 1919, McCartyism of the 1950s, and
COINTELPRO operations during the sixties. Without the voices from the
left to moderate policy, the political center in the United States has
shifted to the hard right.
The immediate result in the lack of strong leadership is frequent
chances in government, which only lead to more instability and chaos.
An ideal parallel is the long string one term Presidents ending with
Lincoln and the Civil War. The polarization of the Unite States
gradually increased from about 1820 on resulting in one term
presidents. Another string of one term Presidents ended with the
election of Roosevelt in the middle of the Great Depression. In both
U.S. case the ending result was not pleasant: a civil war and a
depression.
Such frequent change in government does not allow businesses to make
long range plans, nor does it allow for enough to time for programs
enacted by a government to work. These effects then act as negative
feedback, further increasing the polarization and the resulting chaos.
Additionally, the German constitution was flawed and did not account
for a negative parliament. Power in Germany was concentrated in the
office of the president, headed by Hindenburg, who initially had been
elected by conservatives and reactionary rightists. He was a member of
the aristocratics from the Junker class and had been a war hero; he
likewise held sentiments for the monarchy. The president had the power
to appoint cabinets and chancellors. Beginning in 1930, Hindenburg
began the practice of appointing chancellors of his choice that were
not beholding to the parliament. To allow the chancellors to
circumvent parliament, he granted these chancellors emergency powers
that had been given to the president by the constitution. Starting in
1930, almost all national laws, including the power to tax, were
enacted by presidential decrees and not by the parliament. Such
presidential decrees would be similar to the executive orders in the
United States.
Hence, even before Hitler was appointed to the chancellor position,
power was being concentrated into the two offices of the chancellor
and the president. At least twice before appointing Hitler as
chancellor, Hindenburg entertained ideas of violating the constitution
by not holding elections within the sixty days as required by the
constitution.
Hindenburg had also avoided appoint Hitler as chancellor twice before
January 1933. Even with the support of big business Hindeburg failed
to appoint Hitler when the Nazis held more seats in the Reichstag than
any other party.
It wasn't until after Hitler met in secret with von Pappen at the
Cologne home of Baron Kurt von Schroder that Hindenburg would relent
and appoint Hitler chancellor. The baron was the head of the
international Schroder banking empire and had previously raised funds
to pay off the Nazi's debt.
The secret meeting on January 4, 1933 allowed Hitler and von Pappen to
work out their differences and to agree to a new cabinet under the
direction of both. This secret meeting was the birthplace of the Third
Reich.
However, there were two Americans that also were in attendance: John
Foster Dulles and his brother Allen. The Dulles brothers were there as
legal representatives for Kuhn Loeb Company, which had extended large
short term credits to Germany. Their presence was to secure a
guarantee of repayment from Hitler.
Moreover, Kurt von Schroder had extensive financial contacts in New
York and London. He was a co-director of Thyssen foundry along with
Johann Groeninger, Prescott Bush's New York bank partner. Schroeder
was also the vice president and director of the Hamburg-Amerika Line,
the same shipping line seized from Prescott Bush for trading with the
enemy.
Throughout 1932, actions taken by the Bush-Harriman shipping line were
directly responsible for bringing Hitler to power. The constitutional
government tried to disarm the Nazi Brown Shirts to stop the mad
election melees and murders. The U.S. embassy in Berlin reported:
" Hamburg-Amerika Line was purchasing and distributing propaganda
attacks against the German government, for attempting this last-minute
crackdown on Hitler's forces."
During 1932, Hitler's thugs murdered thousands of Germans. Arms for
Hitler were shipped to Germany aboard Hamburg-Amerika Line. They were
transferred to river barges before reaching Antwerp and then
transported across Holland freely. Samuel Pryor, founder of Union Bank
and a partner in the Hamburg-America Line was also executive committee
chairman of Remington Arms. Hitler's Brown Shirts were armed primarily
with Remington arms and Thompson submachine guns. A Senate
investigation of Remington concluded that all of the political
factions in Germany were armed with mostly American made guns.
Once Hitler and von Pappen had reached an agreement on their future
course of actions. Pappen pressured Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as
chancellor. The success of the meeting was recorded in Goebbels. On
January 5, 1933 Goebbels wrote in his diary "If this coup succeeds, we
are not far from power. . . . Our finances have suddenly improved."
Hindenburg appointed Hitler, as chancellor with the understanding
Hitler would be a parliamentary rather than a presidential chancellor.
Hitler immediately set about sabotaging the efforts to from a
parliamentary majority. Here is one of the first examples of fascism
and divisionism.
On February 1, 1933 the German parliament was dissolved and new
elections were scheduled for early March. Using his henchmen, Hilter
had the Reichstag building burnt. The fire was blamed on the
communist, his main revivals. Using the fire as an excuse, Hitler
banned the communist from the upcoming election. Additionally, Goring
deputized his storm troopers to harass any political opposition from
his position in the cabinet; even then the Nazis could not achieve a
majority in parliament as they polled only 43.9 votes.14 By summer,
all political parties except the Nazis had been dissolved. On the
death of Hindenburg in 1934, Hitler assumed the office of president
and further consolidated his gripe on power, but it would take a
couple of additional years before Hitler was a true totalitarian. He
purged the justice system of judges with adverse views, appointing
rabid Nazis in their place, and the storm troopers were given police
powers. Justice was now the Nazi party line.
One does not need to expound upon the extreme nationalism of the
fascist. The history of their invasion in a quest for world dominion
is well known. Mussolini turned his attention to Ethiopia and North
Africa; Hitler first to Austria, then Czechoslovakia, followed by
Western Europe and later to Norway and the east.
Hilter had left a blueprint for his extreme nationalism and the quest
for lebensraum in Mien Kampf as shown by the quote below.
"If the National Socialist movement really wants to be consecrated by
history with a great mission for our nation, it must be permeated by
knowledge and filled with pain at our true situation in this world;
boldly and conscious of its goal, it must take up the struggle against
the aimlessness and incompetence which have hitherto guided our German
nation in the line of foreign affairs. Then without consideration of
traditions and prejudices it must find the courage to gather our
people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead
this people from its present restricted living space to new land and
soil; and hence also free it from danger of vanishing from the earth
or of serving others as a slave nation.
The Nationalist Socialist movement must strive to eliminate the
disproportion between our population and our area-viewing this later
as a source of food as well as a basis for power politics---between
our historical past and the helplessness of our present impotence."15
The third trait of fascism is that it consists of a top down
revolution or movement. It is becoming more accepted today that the
Nazis drew support from all classes. Indeed, this seems a reasonable
assumption when looking at all of the evidence. The storm troopers for
the most part drew their numbers from the lower and middle classes.
They were typically were unemployed laborers, inept middle management,
or failed businessmen. Likewise, given the vote tally of over thirty
percent in the 1932 elections, the Nazis had to have drawn votes from
all social classes. But this has no bearing on who controlled the
direction of the party. Control of the party rested solely with Hitler
and whom he allied with. He chose to ally with the upper class and big
business as borne out by his policies after gaining power. There is
little controversy over the considerable support Hitler drew from the
aristocrats, the military, or the Junkers.
Telltale signs forewarning of the elite control was evident from the
very formation of the party until the final days before gaining power.
A brief look at those that financed the Nazis rise to power will
reveal the real support behind Hitler. This is becoming an increasing
issue of contention as American hard right tries to distance
themselves from the similarities of their policies with fascism.
Hitler himself did not form the Nazi party initially. He joined an
existing party and then molded it according to his wishes. In fact,
his company commander had ordered him to attend a meeting of what was
the German Workers Party. Here was Hitler's initial reaction to the
party.
>"My impression was neither good or bad; a new organization like so many others. This was the time in which anyone who was not satisfied with developments and no longer had confidence in the existing parties felt called upon to found a new party. Everywhere these organizations sprang from the ground, only to vanish silently after a time. The founders for the most part had no idea what it means to make a party---let alone a movement---out of a club. And so these organizations nearly always stifle automatically in their absurd phillistinism."16
The order from his company commander provides the first evidence that
the elite backed Hitler from the very beginning. At any point from
this date the German military could have withdrawn its support of
Hitler and disbanded the Nazi party
Hitler was a good orator by all reports, as well as an astute
political observer. He knew how to motivate the masses in his name and
how to sustain a movement. Someone once remarked recently that you
needed only gain control of the 3Ms to gain power. The three "Ms" are
the military, media, and money. Hitler had all three behind him. As
shown by the passage from Mein Kampf, Hitler started with the blessing
of the military. The military, as well as big business, played a
behind the scenes role in the appointment of Hitler as chancellor.
It's the last of the 3Ms where much confusion and debate arise,
Hitler's source of funds or money.
Big business likewise had a large hand in bringing down Bruning in
1930. In a large part, it was the constant bickering by special
interest groups that led to the falling of Bruning's cabinet. Big
business was urging the following demands on the Bruning government:
>1. The government must take steps to lower the cost of production and widen the profit margin.
2. Lower taxes
3. Reduce the size of government.
4. Lower unemployment insurance benefit
5. The government must allow wages to progress to lower levels, by
voiding labor contracts and binding arbitration.26
If these demands from the business community seem familiar to the
reader, it's because in a large part they are the same policies that
the Republican Party has been advocating for the last twenty years.
Throughout the 1920s and up until Hitler was appointed chancellor the
Nazi party was plagued with a shortage of money. After release for
prison for the failed Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler's only known source of
income was from the sale of Mein Kampf and fees for newspaper articles
he would write. The first edition of Mein Kampf was published July 18,
1925 in an edition of 10,000 copies selling for 12 marks. By the end
of the year almost all copies had been sold. A new edition was printed
but sales in the following year plummeted.
Nevertheless, almost immediately after being pardoned he bought a new
super-charged Mercedes-Benz for 28,000 marks.17 Additionally, Hitler
did not drive, so he had the additional expense of a chauffeur.
Likewise, from 1925 until his appointment as chancellor in 1933,
Hitler lived in increasing comforts, if not outright lavishness for
the times. Certainly, the royalties from Mein Kampf and fees for his
other writings were insufficient to cover even his living expenses,
not to mention the party's expenses.
Also, the funding for an ever-increasing number of SA troopers (many
of which were unemployed) had to be secured. Turner has suggested that
the Nazis were self sufficient from dues, speaker's fees, and
donations at rallies. However, this seems almost improbable looking at
the numbers from 1930. In 1930 there were about 100,000 storm troopers
that had to be fed, housed and otherwise supported. Additionally there
were 15,000 in the SS. Nazi membership at the beginning of 1931 was
only 389,000.18 Thus it seems very reasonable that outside sources of
funding was needed to maintain the SA and SS, as well as the ever
increasing lifestyle of Hitler. Membership fees in the Nazi party
started at a mark per month, non-paying members were quickly dropped
from the party.
From the very beginning of the Nazi party Hitler showed a knack for
obtaining funding from the more privileged members of German society.
For instance, everyone is well aware of the trial following the Beer
Hall Putsch, but less well known was a secondary trial following the
putsch. In the secondary trial, several businessmen that had donated
money or other support for Hitler were put on trial. Some have
attributed much of this early funding of the Nazis to the secret Thule
Society.19 Another early source of funds in the early 20s came from
the efforts of Scheubner-Richter, who was adept at gaining funds from
Bavarian aristocrats, big businessmen, bankers, and leaders of heavy
industry.20 Another source of early funds came indirectly from Fritz
Thyssen. Henry Ford also exerted a considerable influence over Hitler
in the early 1920s, as well as money. Some passages from Ford's
International Jew are nearly identical to passages in Mein Kampf.
Ford's book is reported to have had a large effect on many of the
school children of the time that were suffering through hyperinflation
and economic hard times while reading a book written by the world's
foremost capitalist.
 The extent of Ford's financial donations to Hitler still remains a
mystery. The U. S. ambassador to Germany, William Dodd, was quoted
saying "certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with
bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy."21 The
extent of corporate America's collaboration with the Nazis before the
war and even during the war, in some cases, is not fully known.
However, as time goes by and more information becomes available, the
collaboration begins to appear significant, as shown in the following
article.
"Bernd Greiner said 26 of the top 100 US companies in the 1930s
collaborated to some degree with the Nazis before, and in some cases
after, Hitler declared war on the United States in December 1941.
Company headquarters in the US have denied they knew what was going on
in Germany, but there is evidence to suggest they knew their German
subsidiaries used slave labor, tolerated it and in some cases were
actively involved, Greiner said.
Greiner confirmed a report in the newspaper Die Zeit, based on his
findings of US corporate involvement in Nazi Germany. The findings
went beyond allegations of US lawyers and historians last year that
automakers General Motors and Ford collaborated with the Nazi
regime."22
One of the more historically accurate, but shamefully apologetic to
big business sources is the book, German Big Business and the Rise of
Hitler by Turner.23 Turner does a good job in detailing the extensive
participation of the leaders of business with the Nazis. However, he
reaches the conclusion that big business did not support Hitler with a
rather contrived definition of what big business is. He based his
definition on the value of the float of stock on the market. His
definition limited the number of companies that he would classify as
big business to only 14 companies in the Ruhr industrial area and a
smattering of companies located elsewhere. Essentially, his definition
would be the equivalent of saying that only the Dow 30 companies in
the U. S. could truly be called big business. This of course is
nonsense. The majority of people would certainly consider Chrysler,
Texas Instruments, Hewitt Packard, John Deere and Chase Manhattan Bank
to be big business, but according to Turner's book they are not. It is
from this group of second and third tier businesses (in keeping with
Turner's definition) that provided the most help and support for
Hitler. Furthermore, Turner neglects the effect of cartel agreements
as well as subsidiaries in his analysis. Many of these second and
third tier corporations were owned and controlled by the 14
corporations, he considered to be big business.
Secondly, Turner focuses much of his attention on the period of
1920-1928, when the Nazis were at best a minor noisy party. During
this time, the Nazis were lucky to poll more than three percent of the
vote. Yet Turner tries to use this as proof that big business did not
support Hitler's rise to power, although he does admit that Fritz
Thyssen and Kirdolf were supporters of the Nazis during this time. An
equivalent situation would be today's Libertarian Party, a party that
draws support from Koch, head of Koch refinery (a second tier company
by Turner's reasoning). But no one is rushing to fund the Libertarians
today when they cannot even poll five percent of the vote.
Finally, when the source of funds were unquestionably from big
business Turner attempts to discredit them by claiming the source of
the funds was a junior level executive that couldn't be responsible
for overall company policy. Or he attempts to say they were given to
an individual Nazi. In one shameful passage Turner attempts to
discredit the funds given to Nazi fund-raiser Walther Funk by claiming
they were not a donation to the party as they may have been spent by
Funk for entertainment. Turner describes a particular drunken binge
across town by Funk in which he passed out some rather large tips and
then draws the conclusion that perhaps none of the funds given Funk
ever reached the Nazis.24 This is not the work of a historian, as
Turner claims to be. This is nothing more than conjecture by a
propagandist. There is also one other speculative conclusion one could
draw from this passage, and that is that the amount of money Funk was
receiving was so enormous that it permitted such behavior.
Turner does a good job in showing that it was those second and third
tier businesses that supported the Nazis. In Duren, a Rhenish
manufacturing town, the Nazis received considerable support from local
industrialists such as the millionaire dynasties (a term in use from
the 1820s in describing these two families) of the Schoellers and the
Schulls. Another area in which the Nazis received broad support from
businesses was Solingen, an industrial town.25 Overall, Turner
documents the participation of business leaders and their support for
the Nazis, leaving no question in the reader's mind that business
leaders exerted a considerable influence on the Nazis. Unfortunately,
he ends his study just as the Nazis seize power.
Many businesses chose to align with and support the Nazis after they
gained power. Krupp and I.G. Faben were both executors' of Goring's
Four-Year Plan to make Germany militarily self-sufficient by 1940. One
can view the details of Krupp's involvement and support for the Nazis
after March 1933 in the documents from the War Crimes Tribunal at
Nuremberg.31 The full set of available documents from Nuremberg is
also available on the Internet.32 By 1939, I.G. Faben provided the
Nazis with 90 percent of their foreign exchange, 95 percent of
imports, and 85 percent of all military and commercial goods. In 1932,
Hermann Schmitz Faben's joint chairman joined forces with Kurt von
Schroder, director of a wealthy private bank. Schroder was a fanatical
Nazi, often times dressed in his black SS uniform. Schroder is the man
that is closely linked with Chase Bank, Standard Oil and William
Teagle, and ITT. In 1932, Schroder and Wilhelm Keppler formed the
group known as "The Fraternity." This group guaranteed a source of
money to the Gestapo. Members agreed to contribute an average of one
million marks a year to Himmler's personally marked "S" account and
the transferable secret "R" account of the Gestapo.27
In April of 1933, Gustav Krupp sought out a private meeting with
Hitler. Krupp agreed to become Hitler's chief fundraiser and chairman
of the Adolf Hitler Fund. In return Hitler promised to appoint Krupp
as the fuehrer of Germany industry. Over the years, Krupp contributed
over six million marks of his own money to the Nazis, and his
correspondence shows that he truly enjoyed his job as chairman.28
Likewise, it is common knowledge that after Hitler was appointed
chancellor Krupp greeted people cheerfully with the Heil Hitler
salutation.
Schirer writes that in 1931, when Hitler decided to cultivate
relationships between influential industrial leaders, he kept their
identity a secret.
"The party still had to play both sides of the tracks. The party had
to allow Strasser, Goebbels and Feder to beguile the masses with
socialist talk and denigrating the industrial magnates."
Some of the meetings were so secretive that they were held in forest
glades."29
Further proof of the industrialist involvement and support of the
Nazis comes from the testimony of Funk at Nuremberg. The entire list
implicated by Funk is far too long to reproduce here, but besides
Thyssen and Krupp it included Georg von Schnitzler-I.G. Farben, August
Rosterg and August Diehn of the potash industry, Cuno of the Hamburg
Amerika Line, Otto Wolf, Kurt von Schroder, and many other wealthy
industrialists30
On May 2, 1933, the Nazis raided and occupied all trade union
headquarters. The leaders were beaten and arrested; some were placed
in the concentration camps. Union funds were confiscated and the
unions were dissolved. Members of the communist party and the social
democrats had already been arrested. On June 20, 1934, in what has
become known as the Night of Long Knifes, Hitler purged the socialists
within the Nazi party, chief among them Roehm.
With the broad financial support from the leaders of the business
community as well as from the military leaders and aristocrats, the
Nazis were truly a top down organization, while the Nazis used the
lower class as foot soldiers to gain power. They did so in a deceiving
manner, and once in power, immediately set about betraying the lower
classes
We have already shown one example of divisionism by the Nazis in their
rise to power. But what sets fascist divisionism apart from the
ordinary divisionism of any other political ideology? Certainly any
politician in a democracy appeals to some sort of divisionism, as he
is fully aware that he can not possibly appeal to the entire
electorate. The difference lies in the fact that divisionism is always
destructive in fascism and serves only as a means to gain and maintain
power. Even after gaining power, Hitler went to great pains in
dividing power, playing one follower against another, creating
rivalries in the party in the process. In short, Hitler kept the Nazi
party divided as if it was a set of small fiefdoms. One of the biggest
myths about the Nazis is that they were a single unit, when in fact
they were a conglomeration of various fractured parts. Eatwell states
the paradox within Hitler's power structure as: "because the party was
so divided that he had power and in turn the party was divided from
other key centers of power such as the army." 47 In other ideologies,
the divisionism is not inherently destructive. Rather, it's based on
differing approaches coming together to reach an equable solution to a
problem. In his rise to power, Hitler had no intention of compromising
with the other parties to form a parliamentary president. His moves
were calculated to destroy any chance of that.
A couple of examples from the present can further delineate the
difference between the two. Certainly many of the tax proposals coming
from the Republican party today could be classed as divisionism as
they favor the upper income earners over the lower income groups.
While the measures are divisive they can hardly be labeled as
destructive divisionism. They are more a reflection of difference in
opinion.
However, an example of an act that could be termed a fascist
divisionism was the Republican caused shut down of the government in
November 1995 after Clinton vetoed the budget bill. Clinton had
previously warned Congress that unless changes were made in the budget
he would veto the bill. Members of the hard right Council for National
Policy and many of their Republican members openly had declared they
would shut down the government. In essence, the Republicans adopted
the same policy that Hitler had in his bid to dismiss parliament; they
refused to negotiate honorably.
Just as Hitler had taken a position to subvert democracy, so had the
Republicans, led by Gingrich. The constitution defines the passing of
the budget in detail. The spending bills originate in the House after
passage by both the House and the Senate. It is then sent to the
President, who may either veto it or sign it. If the bill is vetoed,
it is up to Congress and the President to reach a compromise bill.
Otherwise, Congress must pass a bill with a two-thirds majority. The
failure of Congress to pass a bill to advert a government shutdown was
a dereliction of their constitutional duty. Fortunately, the outrage
coming from the general public forced the Republicans back to the
negotiation table. The point to be made is the only difference between
the two events---the Republicans feared the wrath of the people and
capitulated, Hitler had no such fear and parliament was dismissed.
The Republican shut down of the government also serves to point out a
flaw in our constitution, just as there was a flaw in the German
constitution. In the case of the U. S. constitution there is no other
mechanism other than shutting down the government if Congress fails to
pass a budget. If the fascists in America can be successful in
polarizing American politics to such an extent that the public, or at
least a considerable portion of it, tolerates a government shut down,
then the entire budget process becomes a fracas. And after observing
the behavior of the Republicans in their ill fated attempt to impeach
Clinton such a possibility does not appear so remote.
Another example of divisionism that is solely destructive that is not
based on racism or class warfare was the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
It served no purpose other than to smear the president, the articles
of impeachment fell far short of what the founding fathers had defined
in the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors." That phrase refers back
to the misuse of offices in England under the king. Additionally, the
investigation of Ken Starr has been plagued by civil rights abuse and
possible criminal action by Starr himself. It resembles a coup headed
by the multi millionaire Scaife with the aid of the religious right,
more than it resembled a justified impeachment.
But perhaps, the greatest illustration of the divisionism was seeing
support for the impeachment evaporate like rain on hot pavement in the
Senate following the State of the Union address and a thorough defense
of the charges by Clinton's legal team. The House prosecutors with the
conclusion of Ken Starr questioned Monica Lewinsky further in secret.
This single action by the House Republicans invoked criticism from
even members of their own party in the Senate. It was conducted
against the agreed upon rules, and it was unconstitutional in that the
power of investigation is delegated to the Senate. Likewise, it is
against the statute of the Independent Council. It served no purpose
other than to further divide and disgust the country. In short, it is
nothing but an attempt at a power play.
 Often times, this divisionism takes the form of racism or class
warfare. It is often stated that Mussolini tried to eliminate class
distinctions in fascist Italy. But the reality is that he only
reinforced those distinctions. Certainly the Nazis practiced racism in
an outrageous manner, ending in the Holocaust. On the other hand,
fascist Italy was not racist in nature until after Mussolini adopted
Hitler's Jewish solution. Fascism doesn't necessary have to be racist
in nature, but racism is often used to divide the citizens, as their
radical platform isn't appealing to the broad masses. In addition,
racism is violent in nature and the resulting chaos from the violence
serves to further divide the masses. Whether or not a fascist state is
racist seems to depend more upon the culture of the society in which
it arises. Before fascism, Italy had a long history of generally
equable racial relationships, going all the way back to the old Roman
Empire. For instance, even the slaves were eventually given full
rights in Rome. However, the roots of anti-Semitism goes back much
further in Germany as shown in the following quote.
"This is a good month to reflect on the toxicity of words meant to
kill. Nov. 9 marks the 60th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the 1938
'Night of Shattered Glass' unleashed by the Nazis to terrorize
Germany's Jews. The date was chosen specially by Josef Goebbels,
Hitler's propagandist, to honor the birthday of Martin Luther, the
16th century monk who was a father of the protestant Reformation and
the founder of what became the Lutheran church.
Hitler greatly admired Luther: "He saw the Jew as we are only
beginning to see him today." Indeed. Luther saw the Jews as 'hopeless,
wicked, venomous, and devilish... our pest, torment, and misfortune.'
Initially, certain that his version of Christianity would appeal to
Jews, he expected large numbers of them to covert. When that failed to
happen, he turned violently against them. In 1543, Luther Published
"On the Jews and Their Lies," a work that would become known
throughout Germany, perhaps the most widely disseminated work of anti-
Semitism by a German until the rise of the Nazis 400, years later.
"What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of
Jews?" Luther asked.
"First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not
burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt, so that no one may
ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it...
Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed...
Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer books and Talmuds, in
which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught.
Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to
teach any more...
Fifthly, passports and traveling privileges should be absolutely
forbidden to the Jews...
Sixthly, I advise that...all cash and treasure of silver and gold be
taken from them...
Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier,
force them to work, and deal harshly with them... If this does not
help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so we do not become
partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices. I
have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his."
This is hate speech.
< Sixty years ago next Monday on the night of Luther's birthday, Nazi
gangs rampaged across Germany. In every Jewish neighborhood, windows
were smashed and buildings were torched. All told, 101 synagogues were
destroyed, and nearly 7,500 Jewish-owned businesses were demolished.
On that night, 91 Jews were murdered; 26,000 were rounded up and sent
to concentration camps. It was the greatest pogrom in history. And it
was nothing compared with what was to come."33
The question then remains whether the fascism in America can be
considered racist or not. The past history of racism in the United
States would tend to support such. As a nation, we was one of the last
industrial nations to allow slavery, and it took the Civil War to end
slavery. It has been less than fifty years since "separate but equal"
was the rule of the land. It's only been sixty years since Japanese
citizens and immigrants were interred in camps following the bombing
of Pearl Harbor. The Rosewood incident happened less than a hundred
years ago, and lynching of blacks was common well into the 20th
century. This country has had a long, incredulous history of bigotry
and even genocide. There is no question of the genocide of Native
Americans in the efforts of the U. S. Army in passing out blankets
infected with small pox, or the slaughter of the Plains Indian's
primary source of food, the buffalo. Then there was the Trail of
Tears, as well. The Irish immigrants, following the potato famine,
were greeted by the Know Nothings, a party that based its support on
the hate of Catholics.
All of the hard right groups are racist, although more than one tries
to play their racism down or to hide it, such as the John Birch
Society and some of the various militia groups. Others are openly
racists, such as the Klan, the Nazis and the skinheads. The great
unifier of the far right, the Identity religion, links many of the
hard right groups. The Identity religion is based on anti-Semitic
belief that the true followers of Jesus immigrated to Britain and
northern Europe, that today's Jews are the descendents of Satan. It's
the mainstay religion among the militias, the Posse Comitatus, and
even among some of the Klan groups.
Besides the normal hate groups based on racism or anti-Semitism. the
religious right has emerged in the 1990s as a venomous hate group
basing their hate on gays and abortion. Abortion clinics increasingly
are becoming targets of bombings, arson, and vandalism. Late in 1998,
Matthew Shepard was murdered in Wyoming after being tie to a fence and
then pistol whipped, for being gay. Below are some quotes about gays
from one of the leaders of the religious right, Pat Robertson.
"This conduct [homosexuality] is anti-social, and it is a pathology.
It is a sickness, and it needs to be treated. It doesn't need to be
taught in the classroom as a preferred way of life..." - 700 Club,
3-7-90
"...the acceptance of homosexuality is the last step in the decline of
Gentile civilization." --Pat Robertson, of the Christian Broadcasting
Network, warned that hurricanes could hit Orlando, Fla., because of
gay events there. Time magazine, Oct 26, 1998
"If the world accepts homosexuality as its norm and if it moves the
entire world in that regard, the whole world is then going to be
sitting like Sodom and Gomorrah before a Holy God. And when the wrath
of God comes on this earth, we will all be guilty and we will all
suffer for it." - 700 Club, 9-6-9534
Compare that last quote of Robertson's to the following quote of
Hitler on syphilis.
"...they speak of this whole field as if it were a great sin, and
above all express their profound indignation against every sinner
caught in the act, then close their eyes in pious horror to this
godless plague and pray God to let sulfur and brimstone preferably
after their own death rain down on this Sodom and Gomorrah, thus once
making an instructive example of this shameless humanity."39
Such evidence, as Robertson's words, abounds that they would persecute
gays, it abounds in the numerous ballot measures in various states
that would deny gays their civil rights. Such a measure passed in
Colorado, only to be overturned by the Supreme Court. Another measure,
led by Lon Mabon in Oregon failed state wide, but was reintroduced on
local ballots in the following election. Mabon has also led ballot
measures to limit the concept of a family and limiting abortions to
only the first trimester. The first was another attempt to limit the
rights of gays.
In June 1998, near Jasper, Texas a black man named James Byrd was
dragged behind a pickup. Body parts were found over a two mile length
of the roadway.35 It is too early for trends in hate crimes to emerge,
as the FBI only began tracking hate crimes in 1991. The one trend that
does seem to be emerging is the hate crimes are becoming increasingly
violent as evident from the murders of Shepard and Byrd. The real
danger of these two murders is they serve to desensitize us, leading
to more numerous and increasing levels of violence, just as the Nazis
used increasing levels of violence against the Jews.
Racism is reemerging in various forms in the 1990s in political issues
and in the Republican Party. "English only" laws are being promoted
with increasing frequency by various Republican candidates, including
Robert Dole, and have even appeared on some ballot measures such as
California Prop 187. The obvious targets are immigrants from Mexico.
In effect, its nothing more than the reemergence of nativism. Other
forms of nativism have appeared, such as denying immigrants access to
welfare and the school system for children of immigrants. Nativism is
also behind various immigration bills and the increasing efforts
directed at illegals.
Perhaps the most dangerous form of racism to emerge has been the
Republican efforts to 'monitor' the polls. And videotape those
leaving. Cases have arisen in the 1998 election in North Carolina,
Georgia, Michigan, Maryland, Kentucky, Texas and Maine. The efforts
are directed primarily at districts in which have a high percentage of
minorities. Such efforts serve no useful purpose and do constitute a
violation of the Voting Rights Act.36 More disturbing is the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, served as the
director of Republican 'ballot security' in the poor areas of Phoenix,
Arizona between 1958-1962.37 He likewise wrote a pro separate but
equal memo as a law clerk for Justice Robert Jackson. All of which was
brought out in his confirmation hearings.
An even more subtle effort on the part of Republicans in denying votes
to the minorities and the poor is centered on the debate to allow a
statistical correction to the 2000 census. Such effort on the part of
the Republicans goes far beyond the election of 2000. The census will
be used to reapportionment of the congressional districts for the
decade. Thus, by denying the correction, they in effect are
perpetuating their power to 2010 by undercounting groups that
historically vote for Democrats
n Dec 1998, Republican House member Bob Barr and Senator Trent Lott
were exposed as keynote speakers before the Council of Conservative
Citizens, a racist organization. Lott was later determined to have
been an honorary member and had written several articles for their
paper dating back to the early 1990s. In January, Republican National
Chairman, Jim Nicholson asked members to dissociate themselves from
this group and directly appealed to national committee member Buddy
Witherspoon from South Carolina to resign. The request was refused.38
Once before, the Republicans were asked to denounce the radical John
Birch Society at their National Convention in the early 1960s.
Moderate members such as the former President Jerry Ford, did so.
However the measure failed.
>Another Republican that deserves mention here is Pat Buchanan and his anti-Semitic views. Buchanan has opposed virtually all civil rights bills and favorable court decisions; he has supported apartheid in South Africa; he has spewed forth views of Holocaust denial; he has called fascists such as Franco and Pinochet soldier-patriots. And Buchanan was a key figure in urging Reagan to visit the SS cemetery in Bitburg.40
Thus as we prepare to enter a new century, the Republican Party has
adopted racism as a divisionist tool to divide the electorate in an
attempt to maintain power and enact their extremist agenda. Not all
members of the Republican Party are racist, but many of the members
from the hard right that controls the party are racists. There are
honorable members of the party, but they are being forced into lesser
and lesser roles. The extremists have gained control. It is the burden
of those honorable members to take back control of their party and
denounce the extremist before it becomes too late.
Perhaps the best assessment of the use of destructive divisionism by
fascist in the United States comes from a 1945 War department
publication:
"Three Ways to Spot U.S. Fascists.
Fascists in America may differ slightly from fascists in other
countries, but there are a number of attitudes and practices that they
have in common. Following are three. Every person who has one of them
is not necessarily a fascist. But he is in a mental state that lends
itself to the acceptance of fascist aims.
1.Pitting religion, racial, and economic groups against one another in
order to break down the national unity is a device of the divide and
conquer technique used by Hitler to gain power in Germany and in other
countries. With slight variations, to suit local conditions, fascists
everywhere have used this Hitler method. In many countries, anti-
Semitism is a dominant devise of fascism. In the United States native
fascists have often been anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, anti-Negro, anti-
Labor and anti-foreign born. In South America native fascists use the
same scapegoats except that they substitute anti-Protestantism for
anti-Catholicism.
Interwoven with the master race theory of fascism is a well planned
hate campaign against minority races, religions, and other groups. To
suit their particular needs and aims, fascists will use any one or a
combination of such groups as a convenient scapegoat.
2. Fascism cannot tolerate such religious and ethical concepts as the
brotherhood of man. Fascists deny the need for international
cooperation. These ideas contradict the fascist theory of the master
race. The color, race, creed or nationality-have rights. International
cooperation, as expressed in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, run counter
to the fascist program of war and world domination. Right now our
native fascists are spreading anti-British, anti-Soviet, anti-French
and anti-United nations propaganda.
3. It is accurate to call a member of a communist party a communist.
For short, he is often called a Red. Indiscriminate pinning of the
label Red on people and proposals which one opposes is a common
political device. It is a favorite trick of native as well as foreign
fascists.
Many fascists make the spurious claim that the world has but two
choices---either fascism or communism and they label as communist
everyone who refuses to support them. By attacking our free
enterprise, capitalist democracy and by deny the effectiveness of our
way of life they hope to trap many people."74

The extreme anti-communism and anti-socialism stance of the fascist is
beyond dispute among honest historians. Both communists and socialists
were the first to enter the concentration camps in Nazi Germany. Both
Mussolini and Franco fought against communist influence. From the
brief survey of the fascist philosophers and extreme anti-liberal
stance has been a factor in fascism from the beginning. The Nazi used
socialism as a ruse to gain power, but once in power they purged the
socialists within their party. The following quotes taken from Mein
Kampf will illuminate the anti-communism, anti-parliamentary
democracy, and the social darwinism of Hitler.
"Just as in 1918 we paid with our blood for the fact that in 1914 and
1915 we did not proceed to trample the head of Marxist serpent once
and for all, we would have to pay most catastrophically if in the
spring of 1923 we did not avail ourselves of the opportunity to halt
the activity of the Marist traitors and murders of the nation for
good"41 >
"As regards the possibility of putting these ideas into practice, I
beg you not to forget that the parliamentary principle of democratic
majority rule has by no means always dominated mankind, but to the
contrary is to be found only in brief periods of history, which are
always epochs of decay of peoples and states."42
"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,..."43
The second quote certainly is anti-liberal as it shows Hitler's
contempt for the democratic process. The last quote reveals Hitler as
a social Darwinist of which Turner makes the point in several places
in his book.44 Social Darwinism runs counter to the aims of socialism.
In fact it is the antithesis. It allows the elite to gain further
power, it willingly discards the poor and the weak as expendables.
With the anti-communism stance and social Darwinism character of
Hitler, it is not surprising that the fascist in America would come
from the extreme right. The United States was right in opposing
communism. But to what links? As with anything else moderation is an
admirable quality, excesses of any nature are damaging. Truman or
Eisenhower were not fascists for their anti-communism actions.
However, Tail Gunner Joe was either a fascist or a willing dupe of
fascists. The type of anti-communism of McCarthy served no other
purpose than to further his political career. He openly violated the
right to free speech and assembly of his victims. His aim was to
destroy them with out any regard to the evidence.
The social Darwinism as initiated by Reagan and his attacks on the
poor, and the dismantling of the welfare program led by Newt Gingrich
will also be labeled as examples of creeping fascism. Throwing people
into the streets arbitrarily to fend for themselves is destructive; it
is social Darwinism at its worst. Forcing them to except wages below
the minimum wage law is denying them their equal rights. But it was
precisely the economic woes of Germany that allowed the Nazis to rise
to power. Currently America is enjoying good economic times, but when
the economy takes a turn to the south the full impact of the lack of a
social safety net is going to be felt hard.
The next trait of fascism, extreme exploitation, is a direct result of
one of the primary traits of fascism, extreme nationalism. The form of
nationalism promoted by fascism not only concerns the standing in the
world but also applies to the sacrifices that are expected of
citizens. In short, the fascist state reigns supreme while the
individuals are subordinate to the state. The subordination of
individuals to the state is the antithesis of liberalism. Once again
some quotes from Mein Kampf will suffice.
"Since for us the state as such is the only form, but the essential is
its content, the nation, the people, it is clear that everything else
must be subordinated to its sovereign interests."45
"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."46
Certainly from those two quotes there can be no question of the
subordination of individuals as practiced under the Nazis or to any
limits short of world domination by the Nazis. It is often stated that
Hitler left a road map to his future goals in Mein Kampf. There is no
greater evidence of that than in the last quote. How then did he rise
to power? The problem was nobody was listening. Nobody challenged his
aggressive views toward war, or at best they believed that they could
control or contain him. Only later did they find out the errors of
that false assumption.
This writer can find only two instances of this extreme exploitation
in America. Thanks to the efforts of CBS 60 Minutes and Evening News,
the story broke about the Tomb of the Unknown and how the Reagan White
House pressured the military to find an unknown to bury on Memorial
Day 1984. Turns out that in their haste to respond to the pressure
coming from the White House, they deliberately buried a fallen soldier
that wasn't so unknown. The unknown was Michael Bassie. This man had
given everything to his country except for his name. And the lowlife
filth occupying the White House had that stripped from him so he could
have a photo op on Memorial Day in an election year. This writer can
think of no other action that is more despicable; it's unforgivable.
Of course Reagan made sure he was the star of this photo op and used
it to promote and build support for his extremist military agenda.
The second instance comes at the hands of Newt Gingrich and the
Republicans of the 104th and 105th Congress. They have stripped the
rights of welfare recipients and required that they participate in
workfare. The problem comes in that these poor souls are not even
entitled to be paid the minimum wage or the right to unionize in some
cases. In other words, the Republican's answer to the poor is to force
the to work in perpetual slavery with no chance of ever breaking out
of poverty.
But this event is much more dangerous and goes much further than it
appears. The danger here lies in the suspension of the constitutional
equality under the eyes of the law. The Republicans have in effect
created a sub-class in which one of the very fundamental tenets of our
constitution, equality under the eyes of the law was ignored and
thrown out the window. Nor is this the only example of unequal
treatment of the poor at the hands of the Republicans. They also have
advocated cut backs in the budget for the public defender's office.
The Republicans have been very successful in their propaganda in
demonizing the poor. There seems to be an almost gutter level hatred
of the poor and any aid to assist them. Instead of reaching out a
compassionate helping hand towards the poor, the Republicans have
adopted a mean spirited social Darwinist view.
This brings us to the trait of opportunistic ideology of fascism. It
is perhaps one of the more confusing aspects of fascism. Mussolini
appears to have been indeed a socialist before founding the fascist
party. Mussolini likewise went from a pacifist to a rabid warmonger.
Clearly such dramatic changes in ideology could only be based in an
opportunistic grab for power. Mussolini started supporting a
syndicalism economy, but by 1923, with clear objections from business
leaders, he concluded the Palazzo Chigi Pact. This pact's main intent
was to simplify business relations by making the fascist the sole
representative of labor. In 1925, the Plazzo Vidoni agreement was
signed. This agreement made Rossoni's union the sole representative of
labor. It likewise prohibited the challenging of factory management.
By the close of the year, the grateful employer's federation publicly
announced adherence to the fascist regime.48 Such transformations
illistrate the opportunistic ideology present in fascism or is it a
lack of ideology, as well as further dispeling the myth that fascism
is another form of socialism.
Part of the problem with the ever-changing ideology of fascism arises
from the divisionism. Strasser was a socialist and it seems that
Goebbels was a Marxist. Both were allowed almost free reign in
promoting their own economic views as long as it gathered more support
of serve Hitler's purpose. But once their views failed to serve
Hitler, they were then brow beaten severely. An example of such
reversal in party ideology of the Nazis occurred on February 14,1926.
Prior to this date, both Strasser and Goebbels had approved of a
plebiscite campaign to deprive former royalty of their possessions, a
measure, that was popular with the common citizens. On the given date,
Hitler summoned both men to a meeting in Bamberg. Before those
gathered, Hitler forced both to capitulate and abandon the program.49
Similar events have already been given, in which various Nazis were
initially allowed to promote socialism in efforts to appease the lower
classes in an effort to gain their support.
Examples abound throughout the history of the Nazis where they adopted
their ideology to suit the audience. In October 1932, Strasser
announced a new program that was a stark reversal of the program the
Nazis had advocated in July. Higher taxes on the rich had been
replaced with a general reduction of taxes, instead of price controls
it centered on freeing prices. Instead of protectionism trade policy,
export and global trade was now promoted. Likewise, much of the
inflammatory rhetoric had been dropped.50
Hitler seems to have sensed the explosive nature of economics and
tried to avoid the subject both publicly and within the party. From
all indications, he was dissatisfied with the party planks on economic
matters. The only official stance on economic matters was the 1920
twenty-five point program. However, he only referred to this policy
document disparagingly in Mein Kampf and distanced himself from the
document.51 Likewise Hitler would never take an aggressive stance on
minor issues, he played to his audience to win their support.
Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of the opportunistic character of
the Nazis is illustrated by the actions of thirty-nine businessmen in
November 1932. The group contained such notables as Krupp, Thyssen,
Bosch, Siemens, and others. In a signed letter to Hindenburg they
urged him to appoint Hitler as chancellor. In essence they were
placing a bet that the socialism ideology was a fraud and that once in
power he would be a tool of capitalist.52
The only other reversal in policy that could rival the bet that the
leaders of big business made was Hitler's writings. In the first part
of Mein Kampf he argued that France was the sworn and greater enemy of
Germany. However, the second part to Mein Kampf he reversed course and
argued that Russia was the enemy as opposed to the first book in which
he proposed an alliance with Russia.53 This was a complete change in
his foreign policy. One can only speculate as to the reasons behind
such a switch.
Many writers have tried to label the Nazis as socialists in a folly to
distance themselves from fascist theory. They are quick to point to
the syndicalism policy as proof of socialist regulation of business.
They are in error, of course. Syndicalism is neither left nor right in
itself. It can be either, depending upon the political structure.
Syndicalism with labor groups or consumers dominating the issues would
indeed be socialistic in nature. On the other hand, syndicalism with
only industry or business groups dominating is certainly from the
right wing of the political spectrum. The issuing of controls or goals
over the production of war material by the government in a syndicalism
system is neither left nor right, it's simply self-preservation. The
goals and controls, including the 4-Year Plan issued by Goring, were
nothing more than gearing the economy up for war time production. In
essence, they were merely self-preservation measures.  >
 Secondly, they will point toward many of the public works projects
that were implemented under the Nazis as examples of socialism. An
example of this is the construction of the autobahn, a project that
had been planned by previous governments, as were many of the public
work projects. They likewise forget that the Nazis took over at the
bottom of an economic depression, public work projects were enacted
not only in Germany, but in the U. S. as well as a means to end the
depression. Many of those projects in the U. S. were the construction
of useful infrastructure, such as the building of the high school in
New Ulm, Minnesota. Others had a definite commercialism bent to them,
such as the construction of Timberline Lodge on Mount Hood in Oregon.
Labeling the construction of a facility for a commercial business as
socialism is simply fools folly. The same applies to many of the
public works projects that were implemented under the Nazis.
Labeling such programs as socialism would be the same as labeling the
construction of the interstate highway system as socialism. If the
Eisenhower administration had one shinning moment, it was his support
for the construction of the freeway system. For those that are silly
enough to label such work as socialism, let them be reminded that no
other single event, other than the construction of the cross
continental railroad aided the development of business. Besides the
obvious advantage to shippers, the interstate highway system has
spawned many new businesses. Think of the number of motels/hotels as
well as the tourist traps, service stations, and others that have
grown up along the freeway system. The same applies to Germany and the
autobahn.
Finally, the same writers that label fascism as socialism would like
their readers to believe that these government regulations and
bureaucratic offices held ultimate power. Failure to comply would
result in the owners being shot. Nothing could be further from the
truth. The Nazis for a large part lived in fear of the leaders of big
business. They were aware that they had no comprehensive economic plan
and would defer to the judgement of the business leaders.
This point can be driven home with one simple example. Goering was one
of the Nazis that had little economic knowledge, but harbored some of
the more radical economic ideas and was fond of using regulatory
offices. Goering tried first to persuade the steel industry, both the
smelters and miners, to use low-grade German ore as opposed to the
high-grade Swedish ore. Importation of ore from Sweden would use up
precious foreign currency, as well as being a less reliable source in
the event of war. The invasions of Denmark and Norway were conducted
solely to protect the Nazis shipping routes for the Swedish ore. Most
of the industrialists politely refused Goering's request; even under
threats of arrest for sabotage, they still declined.54 None were
arrested for refusal. Instead Goering formed the Herman Goering Works
to take on the task. By the time of the outbreak of the war it had
evolved to be one of the largest companies in Germany.
Farben is another example of the Nazis bowing to the expertise of
leading corporations. With the advent of the first 4-Year Plan, they
realized they needed the cooperation of business leadership in order
to achieve self-sufficiency in a series of raw materials and finished
products. Most of which were items would be crucial to wartime
production. By the end of the war Farben, had a series of factories
around concentration camps, were major users of slave labor, along
with Krupp and many other corporations.
But the most damning evidence of the Nazi's unbridled corporatism was
evident shortly after passage of the Enabling Act, when Hjalmar
Schacht was appointed president of the Reichsbank. Schacht was a
brilliant financier who helped negotiate the Dawes Plan and was
largely responsible for stabilizing the currency in 1923; he also
detested democracy and parliamentarianism. His first official act was
the creation of Metall-Forschungsgesellschaft A.G. (Mefo), a dummy
corporation of four armament firms. The state assumed the liability
for their debts. The Mefo bills were not unlike promissory notes, they
were issued to government contractors and could be extended to five
years.55 Such favoritism of business is certainly not socialism. Today
in America such corporate aid is labeled as corporate welfare. Note
the similarity here not only to the present corporate welfare that's
being doled out, but also to Eisenhower's warning of the military-
industrial complex. The American military-industrial complex didn't
need to invent a new plan, they were simply free to follow the example
the Nazis used. In fact fascism is inseparatable from corporatism. You
simply cannot have a fascist government without corporations and a
capitalistic economy.
Schacht was later appointed to minister of economics in 1934, a post
he retained until he resigned in 1937 over policy disputes. He was not
an anti-Semitic and was conscious of the negative aspects of the
takeover of Jewish business on both the economy and world opinion. By
1936, he was advocating slowing down the rearmament program, fearing
the return of inflation.56 The return of inflation dispenses with the
myths that the Nazis maintained strict control of corporations and the
prices of goods in short order. In effect, such controls were non-
existent. It should also be pointed out here that the economy at this
time had taken on considerable shades of a consumer economy.
Italy used their form of syndicalism to eliminate labor unions; the
Nazis followed a similar path. The workers benefited little from this
unbridled corporatism. Unemployment went from an official figure of
six million unemployed in 1933, to 2.7 million in 1937, and by the
time of the outbreak of war there was a serious shortage of workers.
But growth in wages was far less spectacular, real wages rose only
sparingly. The index of wages rose from 92.5 in 1933 to 103 in 1937,
an increase of a meager eleven-percent.57 Much of the increase in
wages was achieved only from working longer hours. The only real
increases in the plight of the workers came with more unpaid leave.
Many of the other benefits produced no real benefits to the worker,
such as the factory beautification program.
From looking at the philosophers of fascism, it was revealed that
fascism was a reactionary movement. What then was the fascist reacting
to that led to the rise of Mussolini and Hitler? Many people
responding to the question would simply answer the Treaty of
Versailles. But such an answer is only partially correct. It doesn't
account for the widespread rise of fascism in many European countries
following WWI. In fact, during the period between the two world wars,
every government from the Rhine to the Pacific underwent drastic
changes. In many of those fascism had ample support but in the end was
rejected. Some of the problem can be laid to the beginning dissolution
of the British Empire and the arbitrary way in which maps were redrawn
following WWI without regard to ethnic or natural barriers. An example
would be the cobbled mess of ethnic groups that formed the former
republic of Yugoslavia, an area that remains a hot spot today.
Britain and the United States were about the only two governments that
did not undergo a major change during the period between the wars.
However, neither was immune to the rise of fascism. The U. S. saw a
rise of a great many fascist groups and groups closely aligned with
the fascist in the period between the wars. The German Bund, the
Silver Shirts and the mother's movement were all aligned closely with
fascism. It was also this period that seen the greatest membership in
the Ku Klux Klan.
The United States avoided full-blown fascism by essentially adopting
fascist methods on a milder scale. This was a shameful period in the
history of America. The infamous Palmer raids rounded up those with
communist connections. The I.W.W was harassed constantly by Hoover and
the FBI. In short, only those with non-approved political beliefs
would be prosecuted. This suppression of liberty had actually begun
around 1900. At the turn of the century, both conservative and liberal
elements combined to pass a blizzard of new laws. This effort aimed at
curbing lawless quickly became dominated by conservative elements and
evolved in a tool for the right wing for the remainder of the century.
As head of the FBI, Hoover quickly targeted the leaders of the left
for prosecution, ignoring the criminal actions of the hard right
groups. This has left the United States without any noticeable left
wing compared to the rest of the industrial world.
Perhaps one of the first and most notable events was the trial of
Sacco and Vanzetti, two immigrants charged with murder in
Massachusetts. They were found guilty more on their political beliefs
than on evidence. They were anarchists, atheists, and reportedly draft
dodgers, beliefs that threatened the industrialists of the time.64
Both were executed after considerable protest. Their trial set a
dangerous standard that people could be prosecuted for their political
beliefs. The inclusion of this trial here is to serve as a reminder of
a new problem that is emerging to confront the hard right, jury
nullification. Today there is considerable debate from both sides of
the political spectrum on jury nullification arising in death penalty
and drug cases. It warrants close observation. If the public becomes
too polarized, it could spell the end to the trial by jury system,
which has served admirably for over 200 years.
Various members of the right wing are now using this as an issue in
another attempt to polarize the electorate for their own selfish
purposes. These members of the right wing are promoting a system of
justice backed by mob or vigilante justice. Essentially, it's a system
backed by violence that is not unlike the tactics used by the Posse
Comitatus, the Freemen, or various militias to corrupt the justice
system.
The first example of political repression came in Minnesota. The then
Republican Governor Burnquist used the newly created Minnesota
Commission of Public Safety to suspend New Ulm's Mayor Fritsche and
City Attorney Pfaender for their pacifist views after war had been
declared on Germany in 1917. The following quote details some of the
shameful actions taken by the commission and its connection to the
hard right.
In April 1917, soon after America declared war on Germany, the
Minnesota Legislature, following ferocious debate, created the
Minnesota Commission of Public Safety. This remarkable body, chaired
and appointed by the governor, was given "all necessary power" to
maintain order and enhance Minnesota's contribution to the war effort.
Technically limited by the state and federal constitutions, the
commission essentially wielded all the authority of state government
during the 18 months of its active existence. >
The commission came to be dominated by representatives of the Twin
Cities business community. It used its sweeping authority with gusto,
not only to root out ``disloyalty'' but to combat labor unionism and
agrarian activism as well.
The commission dispatched detectives throughout Minnesota to
investigate people and organizations suspected of disloyalty. It
regulated food prices and the liquor trade, imposing prohibition in
some parts of the state. It banned union organizing and intervened on
the side of management in a bitter Twin Cities streetcar strike. It
created a ``Home Guard'' of some 8,000 troops to back up its decrees.
The commission served as a virtual campaign committee for Republican
Gov. Joseph Burnquist in his 1918 re-election bid. It turned a blind
eye toward frequent mob harassment of his opponents. It interrogated
and intimidated Minnesotans who declined to purchase Liberty Bonds to
finance the war effort.63
Nor was such action confined to just Minnesota, many states set up
similar commissions. State sponsored violence against leaders from the
left was common place. One group that suffered immeasurably was the
I.W.W, the Wobblies. On Nov 5, 1916, Washington State suffered its
bloodiest labor battle of all time. The resulting carnage between a
local sheriff and the Wobblies left seven dead and over fifty wounded
in the city of Everett.65
All three of these events illustrate that the United States repressed
those with radical ideas in the time period of WWI and immediately
thereafter. Pacifist, labor leaders, and leftist political leaders
were all prosecuted with equal zeal. Remember, this was the time
period of the Rosewood incident and other atrocities. The prosecution
was lead by the hard right and business leaders.
But the real answer to the question is that fascism following WWI was
a reaction to the Bolshevik revolution and the rise of liberalism
ideals. Up until the Russian revolution, the only economic system was
capitalism. Communism was a new revolutionary system. It threatened
the power elite directly and gave way to a rise not only in communism
but socialism and liberalism as well. It was no accident that fascism
arose first in Italy, where in the period of 1919-1922, socialists
ruled in many localities. Here fascism arose in the countryside were
old practices such as sharecropping were giving way to new methods. In
1920, the largest strike in Italian agriculture ever was settled when
the landowners capitulated. Elsewhere, unions were wringing out
concessions from the owners through strikes and boycotts.58

>
The real appeal of European fascism was the protection it afforded
against working class movements, socialism, and communism.59 Hobsbawm
states it even more forcefully in claiming that without the October
revolution and Leninism there would have been no need for fascism. For
up until that time, the demagogic right, although politically active
and noisy in many countries, had been kept in check.60 The entire Nazi
movement was a reactionary movement. The reaction to the Treaty of
Versailles is well known and needs no further comment, as is the
opposition of fascism to liberalism, socialism and communism. Rather,
the following quote will show how complete the reaction was to the
events of the time.
"Today Christians... stand at the head of Germany... I pledge that I
never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity...We
want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit... We want to
burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the
theater, and in the press- in short, we want to burn out the poison of
immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a
result of liberal excess during the past...few years."61 <
The quote above was taken from a speech delivered by Hitler. It
provides the illustration that the Nazi movement was completely a
reactionary movement, reacting not only to global power politics and
the rise of the left, but also to the changes in arts and culture of
the time. It also provides the link to demonstrate that today's hard
right movement in the U. S. is equally reactionary, in particular, the
element of the so-called religious right. Contrast it with the quote
by Pat Robertson below.
"The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous
document for self-governmentby Christian people. But the minute you
turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people
they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society."-Pat
Robertson (The 700 Club, Dec. 30, 1981)62
Apparently, Robertson is under the impression that the constitution
applies to only those he chooses and is null and void for the rest of
us. Hitler held a similar contempt for democracy. However, the point
that the Nazis were reactionary has been established beyond any doubt.
The reaction was not just confined to the global political scene or
economic conditions, but extended into the very roots of the culture.
Starting around 1980, fascism reared its ugly head globally. Unlike
the rise of fascism in the 1920s, this time the Reagan administration
embraced it. The administration openly promoted class warfare, allowed
the LaRocuhians access to security and intelligence agencies, filled
the EPA with Coor's lackeys, and openly supported none but the elite.
In essence, the Reagan administration was the American equivalent of
the passage of the Enabling Act.
There is no need to expand on the violent behavior of the Nazis or
fascists, as there is no dispute of their long history of violence.
Instead, the violence of various groups in the United States will be
explored. Many readers will immediately think of the violence that
arose in the 60s during the war protests. In fact, that is the great
illusion of the media. The truth is that little violence was directly
attributed to war protestors. In fact much of the violence that did
come out of the war protests was the work of the FBI.
The real story of violence in the 60s was the violence inflicted upon
the civil rights workers by the Klan. The early part of the 60s was
marred by violence, inspired by the Klan and racial hatred of right
wing groups. Eisenhower had to use National Guards to integrate the
Little Rock school system. Kennedy had to use federal marshals to
integrate Old Miss. When the Supreme Court order that busing was to be
used as a tool for integration, the violence spread nationally. The
Klan burnt school busses in Michigan to prevent integration.
Since 1980, right wing groups such as the Order, which murdered the
Denver talk show host, Berg, likewise have dominated the violence. The
leader of the Order was killed in a shoot out with law enforcement.
Another right wing group, the Posse Comitatus became a household word
only after the Kahl shoot out with law enforcement in North Dakota.
And of course there was the bombing of the Oklahoma federal building
by the right winger McVeigh. Perhaps the greatest widespread use of
violence since the Klan has been the bombing and violence directed
against abortion clinics by members of the religious right.
Violence has been the hallmark of the hard right in America dating
back at least as far as the Know Nothing Party in the 1800s and their
hatred of Catholics. It was business leaders that hired Pinkertons to
murder union organizers in earlier times. Yet there is relatively
little in the way to support that left wing groups were equally
violent. Groups like the Weathermen were violent, but the group was
never more than a small fringe group. Its extremely small size limited
the extent of its violence. One of the reasons for the lack of
widespread violence from leftist groups has already been mentioned,
the suppression of left wing groups by the FBI.
The last two traits of fascism will be explored together, as they are
related by an underlying use of symbols and the inseparable nature of
cults and religions. There is no doubt that both Hitler and Mussolini
were in effect leaders of a cult. Their extremist views would rule out
a major following otherwise. In fact, both promoted imagines
consistent with cults. Both chose to use propaganda to promote larger
than life imagines of themselves. Both Hitler and Mussolini were
Catholics; neither appeared to be particularly active members of the
church. Hitler referred to Christianity throughout Mein Kampf, as
already shown by quotes of which a few more will be included here.
"The sword will become our plow, and from the tears of war the daily
bread of future generations will grow."
"The more the linguistic Babel corroded and disorganized parliament,
the closer drew the inevitable hour of the disintegration of this
Babylonian Empire and with it the hour of freedom for my German-
Austria people."
< " the Lord's grace smiled on his ungrateful children." >
Officially, the Nazis were a Christian group, if one can assign a
religion to the group by the public policies they enacted. In this
case, the assignment is based on the following prayer that the Nazis
required to be recited in all public schools.
"Almighty God, dear heavenly Father. In Thy name let us now, in pious
spirit, begin our instruction. Enlighten us, teach us all truth,
strengthen us in all that is good, lead us not into temptation,
deliver us from all evil in order that, as good human beings, we may
faithfully perform our duties and thereby, in time and eternity, be
made truly happy. Amen."67
It is also true that the Nazis dabbled in mysticism as well. Certainly
some of the philosophers were pantheistic. But what really underlies
both the religious and mysticism aspects of the Nazis is the symbolism
buried underneath. In fact, one follower of fascism believed that the
masses were unable to understand anything other than mere slogans.
From Mein Kampf the following quote concerns the symbolism hidden
behind the Nazi flag.
" Not only that the unique colors, which all of us so passionately
love and which once won so much honor for the German people, attest
our veneration for the past; they were also the best embodiment of the
movement's will. As National Socialists, we see our program in our
flag. In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the
nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for
victory of the Aryan man, and by the same token, the victory of the
idea of creative work, which as such always has been and always will
be anti-Semitic."66
At first in the quote above, Hitler is referring to the old flag of
Germany. The choice of red was based on stealing from the communists
and was chosen deliberately to enflame the Marxists. Throughout Mein
Kampf, Hitler refers to the value of propaganda and made extensive use
of symbols to convene a subtle message of hatred.
The similarities to the right wing in America is seen. The Republicans
have introduced a flag desecration amendment to protect their
symbolism. Even more revealing was the letter Newt Gingrich
distributed to members of GOPAC. In this letter, members were to use
the following words to impart a negative image: decay, failure, sick,
liberal, unionized, welfare, corrupt, greed and intolerant. The
following words were to impart a positive imagine: share, legacy,
control, truth, and courage.68
Cults are inherently fascist in nature. The leader demands total
submersion into the cult. America today has seen far too many examples
of cults and cult behavior. A recent example, would be the Waco
incident that ended badly. However, there are several right wing
groups that do exhibit cult behavior besides the religious groups; the
LaRouchians, many of the militias, and the Order would all qualify as
cults. In addition, much of the hard right inside the Republican Party
has taken on a cult like behavior in their idolizing Reagan. The 105th
Congress renamed the Washington airport after him. In the present
Congress Congressman Matt Salmmon of Arizona has introduced a bill to
deface Mt Rushmore by adding Reagan's imagine to the monument.69
It has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt that Hitler and the
Nazis were right wing extremists best described as social darwinists,
the antithesis of socialism. It was showed that the Nazis were best
described by syndicalism model and that syndicalism is neither
socialistic nor capitalistic, inherently. Syndicalism can be either
depending upon the makeup; the Nazis were definitely capitalists in
that there was no input from labor. All input was reserved for the
industrialist. Further, it was shown that the industrialists openly
defied Nazi desires in the case of the use of low-grade ores. It was
also shown that many of the businesses that was government owned were
taken over by the government prior to the Nazis, some dating all the
way from the monarchy. Likewise, it was shown that many of the Nazi
programs would be classified as corporate welfare today. And it was
shown that the real power behind the Nazi movement was the top
elitist. This should be sufficient for anyone to dispel the myth that
the Nazis were socialist, when in fact they were capitalistic
extremists.
In defining fascism, three traits stand above all others,
totalitarian, nationalism, and extreme corporatism. In fact, one can
not have fascism without corporatism. Other traits of fascism, such as
destructive divisionism and the use of violence are secondary. As
fascist ideology evolved in the later half of the 20th Century, a
happy face was put on fascism by its leaders as they down played the
violence and racism. This can be seen best in the far right wing
extremist groups currently active in the United States.
Additionally, there is one fact that absolutely places the Nazis and
fascism in the extreme right wing portion of the political spectrum,
and not the left. No one disputes that a communist revolution attacks
the ruling elite of a country. Similarly, socialism and liberalism
also attacks the same ruling elite, but the right wing extremists try
to claim the opposite. In reality these systems merely seek methods to
ease the burden and allow the lower classes to prosper rather than
attacking the elite. The Nazis, on the other hand, did not attack the
ruling elite of Germany. The rich industrialists were allowed to
continue their ways, eased by laws that the Nazis enacted for their
benefit. Likewise, the nobility of Germany was supported by the Nazis.
In short, the Nazis adopted the ruling elite in Germany and supported
them, the exact opposite of what a left leaning political ideology
would support.
There is no better proof of the Nazi support for the ruling elite than
looking at who supported Hitler in the 1930s in America. Granted, many
lower class people were involved in the pro-Hitler movement just as in
Germany. But like Germany, it was the rich industrialists that funded
these groups. Hearst ordered his newspapers to print pro-Nazi
articles. In fact, he had them print the Nazi propaganda directly from
Gobbels. Irenee du Pont funded several pro-fascist groups. Henry Ford
was well known for his praise of Hitler and funded many pro-Nazis in
the 30s. Andrew Mellon and John D. Rockefeller were supporters of
Hitler as well. No one is foolish enough to argue that these men were
not part of the ruling elite or rich industrialists in America at the
time. In fact, support for Hitler among the rich industrialists was
rampant.
The continued propagation of such nonsense by the present right wing
is nothing short of propaganda. It fits closely with the Nazis' use of
propaganda and the symbolism proposed by Gingrich and his negative
words. nor will it change the history of the right wing support of the
Nazis.

1. http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1124.cfm
2. Why Americans Hate Politics, E. J. Dionne, Touchstone, 1991,
p152-154.
3. Thomas Jefferson: In his Own Words, Maureen Harrison & Steve
Gilbert, Barnes & Noble, 1996, p369.
4. http://www.friesian.com/arthur.htm
5. http://www.miami.edu/phi/schopnh.htm
http://members.aol.com/KathorenaE/private/philo/Nietz/nietz.html
http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri/nietz.html
http://users.aol.com/Irdetrigen/index4.html
< http://www.us.itd.umich.edu/~alexboko/zar/
http://www.pitt.edu/~wbeurry/nietzsche.html
http://www.ewu.edu/~millerj/nietzsche.index.html
6. http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/bergson.htm
7. Himmler, Peter Padfield, MJF books,1990, p260.
8. Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Houghton Mifflin, 1971, p 394.
9. Mein Kampf, p325.
< 10. Lott renounces White Racialist Group He praised in 1992, Thomas
Edsell, Washington Post, Dec 16,1998.
11. http://www.cofcc.org/
12. Thirty Days, Henry Ashby Turner, Addison-Welsey, 1996, p5.
13. Thirty Days, p9-15.
14. Thirty Days, p164.
15. Mein Kampf, p645-646.<
16. Mein Kampf, p218.
17. Adolf Hitler, Robert Payne, Barnes & Noble,1995, p213.
18. Adolf Hitler, p237
19. Who Financed Hitler, James Pool, Pocket Books, 1997, p11.
< 20. Who Financed Hitler, p45
21. Who Financed Hitler, p83.<
22. U. S. Firms' Connections to Nazis Detailed, Reuters, 1/14/1999.
Appeared in Boston Globe of same date
23. German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler, Henry Ashby Turner,
Oxford University Press, 1985.
24. German Big Business, p151-152.
25. German Big Business, p198-200.
26. German Big Business, p159.
27. Trading with the Enemy, Charles Higham, Barnes & Noble,
1983,p131-132.
28. Hitler and His secret Partners, James Pool, Pocket Books,1997,
p52-53
29. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William Schirer, Fawcett,
1992, p202.
30.The Rise and Fall, p203.
31. http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-02-16-13-index.html
32. http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/
33. What Real Hate Speech Sounds Like, Jeff Jacony, Boston Globe, 11,
2, 1998.
34. http://www.tialliance.org/tia/page4.htm
35. A Trial of Alleged hate to Begin in Texas, AP wire, Boston Globe,
1, 24, 1999 .
36. Minority Voter Intimidation Becomes election Eve Issue, AP wire,
11, 3, 1998.
37. Quite and Odd Couple to Sit in Judgement, Jim Dwyer, New York
Daily news, 1, 7, 1999.
38. RNC Chiarman Urges Party Member to Leave Conservative Group, Glen
Johnson, AP wire, Boston Globe, 1, 19, 1999.
39. Mein Kampf, p248.
40. http://www.fair.org/current/buchanan-bigot.html<
41. Mein Kampf, p678.
42. Mein Kampf, p651.
43. Mein Kampf, p449.
44. Big Business &
45. Mein Kampf, p575.
46. Mein Kampf, p396.
47. Fascism, Roger Eatwell, Penguin, 1995, p149.
48. >Fascism, p77.
49. The Rise and Fall, p181. <
50. Big Business, p288.
51. Big Business, p 81
52. Hitler, John Toland, Doubleday, 1976, p276.<
53. Hitler, p221.
54. Fascism, p156.
55.Hitler, p308.
56. Fascism, p155.
57. Fascism, p160.
58. Fascism, p53-54.
59. The Age of Extremes, Eric Hobsbawm, Vintage Books, 1996, p 175.
60. The Age of Extremes, p124.
61. http://www.isrp.org/
62. http://www.tialliance.org/tia/page6.htm
63. http://www.pioneerplanet.com/archive/cent/dox/cent13.htm
64. http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afries/88/sacvan.html
65. http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~n9517146/everettmassacre.html
66. Mein Kampf, p498-499.
67. http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.religion.alert.html
68. http://www.fair.org/extra/9502/language-control.html
69. Reagan Wanted on Mt Rushmore, Rueters wire appearing in the 2/2/99
Boston Globe
70. The Road To Serfdom, F..A. Hayek, University of Chicago Press,
1994, Fiftieth Anniversary Edition.
71. The Road to Serfdom, p52.
72. The Road to Serfdom, p44. <
73. Fascism and Big Business, Daniel Guerin, Pathfinder, 1973,
p208-213
74. Time Bomb, E.A. Piller, Arco Publishing, 1945, p13-14.
75. Southern Exposure, Stetson Kennedy, DoubleDay, 1946, p189

1. The government must take steps to lower the cost of production and
widen the profit margin.
2. Lower taxes
3. Reduce the size of government.
4. Lower unemployment insurance benefit
5. The government must allow wages to progress to lower levels, by
voiding labor contracts and binding arbitration.

Nickname unavailable

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 1:59:01 AM11/12/12

On Nov 11, 11:28 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:

as usual, you cannot refute a thing. as usual, i have proven to you
that you are a crony capitalist. hitler was bankrolled by german
capitalists, and what was said in public, and what actually happened
in private were two different matters.

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Socialism_and_Nazism/

• Socialism and Nazism
Nazism and socialism refers to a polemical, and political claim that
Nazism, or the "German National Socialism" of the 1930s to mid 1940s
is comparable in some way to the ideology of socialism. Political
figures —in the US, Britain, and elsewhere —may at times employ the
comparison as a rhetorical device aimed at discrediting pro-labor and
otherwise socially liberal platforms, by implying a guilt by
association between socialist economic philosophy and the tyrannical
rule of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.
While the claim has little meaning among educated scholars, the
argument has some social resonance among "layman majorities" who tend
to be less able to discern (or have less access to) factual claims and
materials related to history and economics —easy to sway with polemic
rhetoric, even if the claim has little substance or merit.

The definition of Nazism
The name "National Socialist German Workers Party," was a misnomer,
much like the "Peoples Republic of China," the "Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics," the "German Democratic Republic" and the
"Liberal Democratic Party of Russia." Few would argue that any of the
above countries were infact democracies or republics, and it is to
this above category that the Hitlerian self-image as a "National
Socialist German Workers Party," belongs.
The shortened term, "National Socialism," is a misnomer as well, and
by itself simply means a 'nationalist flavor of socialism.' But
because it is a very general term, it has some current resonance in
popular discourse —particularly when it's used synonymously with
Nazism.
It's polemical use within Western capitalist societies, is designed to
evoke the twin demons of Naziism and (Soviet) "socialism," perhaps
generating a Pavlovian response to the common "enemy", in this case .
The accusation of political liberals as "socialists," (and hence by
implication "Nazis" and "Soviets Communists") is a rather typical and
well-documented cornerstone of conservative rhetoric in the United
States and other capitalist democracies. (See smear campaign, Red
scare, McCarthyism)
The Nazi party-appropriated-term "socialism," like "democracy" in the
cases above, was used to appeal to German workers for political
support during the tentative early years of Hitler's ascent to power.
Apart from the occasional use of empty pro-worker political rhetoric,
Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party had no inclination towards true
socialism, in the sense (democratic socialism) that it's used today.
Within the context of Hitler's unified, "racially-pure" Germany,
Hitler instituted and supported social programs that on their surface
had socialist structure. For example, his youth programs, education
and indoctrination programs, reproduction programs, all borrowed some
of their structure from existing "socialist" ideas, but insead of
keeping the democratic spirit of socialist ideals, he simply borrowed
what was popular to serve is quest for power. Whatever appeals Nazism
made to the German worker, family, culture, and society —while in a
very general sense were socialist —they were simply components in the
totalitarian rule of the Nazi party.
The claim that socialism and nazism are one in the same are an example
of the ignatoriao ilenchi fallacy —for example, the same could be said
of the United States military industrial complex, which operates with
socialist/communist-like safeguards and protections, though its a part
of a capitalist system.

Ad-Hominem
The term Nazism typically has such a bad name that to link it to
anything tends to tarnish the reputation of that other thing. A "law"
of internet culture called Godwin's Law humorously states that whoever
first brings up Hitler or the Nazis in a usenet discussion
automatically loses the argument.
[1] [2] (tarring them with the same brush, as it were). Those who see
a connection insist that rather then being driven by ideology, they
seek only greater accuracy in political science.

Reasons Nazism is considered socialist

• Self-depiction: the German Nazi Party called itself the "National
Socialist Worker's Party", and in 1927, Hitler said, "We are
socialists."
•
• The Left Wing (examples include Gregor Strasser and Ernst Röhm),
and working class brownshirts (or Sturmabteilung) within the Nazi
Party supported socialist programs.
•
• One writer, Lew Rockwell at the Ludwig von Mises Institute,
suggests that the chief difference beween Nazism and (as he puts it)
others forms of socialism is that the Hitler's socialism was
nationalistic while other forms (such as Communism) were
internationalist. [3]

Reasons Nazism is not considered socialist

• Throughout its rise to power and rule, the Nazis were strongly
opposed by left-wing and socialist parties, and Nazi rhetoric was
virulently anti-Marxist, attacking both communists and social
democrats. A central appeal of Nazism was its opposition to Marxism
and other forms of socialism and its claim to be a bulwark against
Bolshevism and this is why they recieved so much material and
political support from industrialists and conservatives.
•
• The Nazi ideology saw socialist collectivism as part of a Jewish
conspiracy (Judeo-Bolshevism) meant to undermine the elitist
principle.
•
• Nazis proposed that only people who were considered "racially pure"
or Aryan would benefit from their policies. This can be seen as
contrary to the socialist ideal of a society for the benefit of all.
•
• In his rise to power, Hitler reassured German industrialists that
he would respect private property and fight labor unions. To the
extent that permitting private property to exist is contrary to
"socialism", then Nazism was not "socialist". On the other hand, some
democratic countries (like Sweden) have adopted some (but not all)
socialist ideas while retaining a degree of freedom to own private
property and have labor unions.
•
• Hitler received strong support from conservatives for the "Enabling
Act." This legislation was opposed by social democrats.
•
• After coming to power, Hitler sent thousand of communists, social
democrats and unionists to concentration camps and killed communist
leaders in Germany. He outlawed labor unions and guaranteed corporate
profits for Krupp & Co.
•
• The profits of large corporations soared under the Nazis. With the
exception of Jewish property which was seized and sold, capitalist
enterprises were not expropriated or nationalised but remained in
private hands.
•
• The Nazis were anti-egalitarian believing in neither equality
(either among Germans or between Germans and non-Germans),
collectivism, nor the rights of the "masses". According to Hitler
biographer Ian Kershaw they had an elitist view of society and
asserted that in competition with each other the superior individual
would emerge on top. Despite the use of slogans such as "the common
good comes before the private good" their vision of social relations,
in practice, was in line with the ideas of Nietzche rather than Karl
Marx.
•
• During the party's ascendency in the 1930s, so called "left wing"
Nazis such as Gregor Strasser and Ernst Röhm were ruthlessly purged
and even killed.

Nickname unavailable

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 1:59:59 AM11/12/12

On Nov 11, 11:28 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:

ROTFLOL!!! have fun explaining away why corporate profits soared
under the fascists. what a small brain you have. you got nothing as
usual.

BeamMeUpScotty

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 10:10:01 AM11/12/12

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic
system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair
salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to
wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we
are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
--Adolf Hitler--

(Speech of May 1, 1927

BeamMeUpScotty

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 10:18:20 AM11/12/12

LudovicoVan

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 10:46:59 AM11/12/12

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:Iq8os.468565$iq1.2...@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...

> *Welcome to Socialism*

One doesn't need to be socialist to be against today's (or even yesterday's)
capitalism. Just read Friedrich von Hayek, a pioneer of pure liberalism:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law,_Legislation_and_Liberty>

-LV

Bert

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 10:57:45 AM11/12/12

In news:k7r5ln$tlq$1...@dont-email.me "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name>
wrote:

> One doesn't need to be socialist to be against today's (or even
> yesterday's) capitalism.

Then call it by its proper name: Crony Capitalism, or more formally,
Fascism.

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

LudovicoVan

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 11:11:12 AM11/12/12

"Bert" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA10965580BF...@216.250.188.140...

> In news:k7r5ln$tlq$1...@dont-email.me "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name>
> wrote:
>
>> One doesn't need to be socialist to be against today's (or even
>> yesterday's) capitalism.
>
> Then call it by its proper name: Crony Capitalism, or more formally,
> Fascism.

Capitalism is in fact worse than fascism.

Read Friedrich von Hayek about pure liberalism and how that cannot exist
without law and its observation.

Or read Oswyn Murray about the inexistent but faked continuity between
classical democracy and modern democracy.

Or, similarly, read Karl Marx, not the Reader's Digest, to know what
socialism is actually about...

-LV

Bert

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 11:27:43 AM11/12/12

In news:k7r735$8eg$1...@dont-email.me "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name>
wrote:

> "Bert" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> news:XnsA10965580BF...@216.250.188.140...
>> In news:k7r5ln$tlq$1...@dont-email.me "LudovicoVan"
>> <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
>>
>>> One doesn't need to be socialist to be against today's (or even
>>> yesterday's) capitalism.
>>
>> Then call it by its proper name: Crony Capitalism, or more formally,
>> Fascism.
>
> Capitalism is in fact worse than fascism.
>
> Read Friedrich von Hayek about pure liberalism and how that cannot
> exist without law and its observation.
>

You seem to have somehow confused capitalism with anarchy.

BeamMeUpScotty

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 11:16:57 AM11/12/12

On 11/12/2012 11:11 AM, LudovicoVan wrote:
> "Bert" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> news:XnsA10965580BF...@216.250.188.140...
>> In news:k7r5ln$tlq$1...@dont-email.me "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> One doesn't need to be socialist to be against today's (or even
>>> yesterday's) capitalism.
>>
>> Then call it by its proper name: Crony Capitalism, or more formally,
>> Fascism.
>
> Capitalism is in fact worse than fascism.

Standing in the Marxist spot that you are looking at life from.... YES,
yes it is.

Socialism and Fascism are closer together.

From a standpoint of freedom(or looking from the other direction on this
circle), Capitalism is better than Socialism or Fascism.

LudovicoVan

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 11:35:35 AM11/12/12

"Bert" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message

news:XnsA1096A6D2CF...@216.250.188.140...

No, I don't think I am the one confused or dishonest here.

-LV

LudovicoVan

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 11:38:00 AM11/12/12

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:Rh9os.689120$xK2....@en-nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com...

> On 11/12/2012 11:11 AM, LudovicoVan wrote:
>> "Bert" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>> news:XnsA10965580BF...@216.250.188.140...
>>> In news:k7r5ln$tlq$1...@dont-email.me "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One doesn't need to be socialist to be against today's (or even
>>>> yesterday's) capitalism.
>>>
>>> Then call it by its proper name: Crony Capitalism, or more formally,
>>> Fascism.
>>
>> Capitalism is in fact worse than fascism.
>
> Standing in the Marxist spot that you are looking at life from.... YES,
> yes it is.

One doesn't need to be socialist or marxist to be against today's (or even
yesterday's) capitalism: it is sufficient to be against crime.

-LV

Bert

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 11:51:51 AM11/12/12

In news:k7r8gq$hr8$1...@dont-email.me "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name>

wrote:

> "Bert" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> news:XnsA1096A6D2CF...@216.250.188.140...
>> In news:k7r735$8eg$1...@dont-email.me "LudovicoVan"
>> <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
>>
>>> "Bert" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>>> news:XnsA10965580BF...@216.250.188.140...
>>>> In news:k7r5ln$tlq$1...@dont-email.me "LudovicoVan"
>>>> <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One doesn't need to be socialist to be against today's (or even
>>>>> yesterday's) capitalism.
>>>>
>>>> Then call it by its proper name: Crony Capitalism, or more
>>>> formally, Fascism.
>>>
>>> Capitalism is in fact worse than fascism.
>>>
>>> Read Friedrich von Hayek about pure liberalism and how that cannot
>>> exist without law and its observation.
>>
>> You seem to have somehow confused capitalism with anarchy.
>
> No, I don't think I am the one confused or dishonest here.

Then what's your bit about capitalism, "pure liberalism" and law?

Capitalism, or better a free market, cannot exist without law.

And, why did you decide it was proper to throw in a charge of
dishonesty?

Planet Visitor II

unread,

Nov 13, 2012, 12:32:16 AM11/13/12

I don't have to explain anything. You seem to quite strongly agree with
fascism, as you announce how successful it was. Little wonder that you
would feel both fascism and socialism are more productive and profitable
than capitalism. Or are you trying to will the human race back to the
dark ages??

You should try explaining why the views of so many Nazis agreed with your views.

========================================
Why Are We Socialists? Written by Dr. Joseph Goebbels

We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the
only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom
and renew our German state.

Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise
of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland,
and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and the regaining of
German freedom. Socialism therefore is not merely a matter of the oppressed
class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is
the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total
combat brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened
nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a mere theory, a castle
in the sky, a book. With it it is everything, the future, freedom, the Fatherland!

The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism's nation-building strengths,
thereby allowing its energies to go in anti-national directions. The sin of Marxism
was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it in
conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these
facts leads us to a new sense of socialism, which sees its nature as nationalistic,
state-building, liberating and constructive.

The bourgeois is about to leave the historical stage. In its place will come the
class of productive workers, the working class, that has been up until today
oppressed. It is beginning to fulfill its political mission. It is involved in a hard and
bitter struggle for political power as it seeks to become part of the national organism.
The battle began in the economic realm; it will finish in the political. It is not merely
a matter of pay, not only a matter of the number of hours worked in a day—though
we may never forget that these are an essential, perhaps even the most significant
part of the socialist platform—but it is much more a matter of incorporating a
powerful and responsible class in the state, perhaps even to make it the dominant
force in the future politics of the Fatherland. The bourgeois does not want to recognize
the strength of the working class. Marxism has forced it into a straitjacket that will ruin
it. While the working class gradually disintegrates in the Marxist front, bleeding itself
dry, the bourgeois and Marxism have agreed on the general lines of capitalism, and
see their task now to protect and defend it in various ways, often concealed.

We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and
justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity
or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that
corresponds to what he produces. We have no intention of begging for that right.
Incorporating him in the state organism is not only a critical matter for him, but for
the whole nation. The question is larger than the eight-hour day. It is a matter of
forming a new state consciousness that includes every productive citizen. Since
the political powers of the day are neither willing nor able to create such a situation.
socialism must be fought for. It is a fighting slogan both inwardly and outwardly. It
is aimed domestically at the bourgeois parties and Marxism at the same time,
because both are sworn enemies of the coming workers' state. It is directed abroad
at all powers that threaten our national existence and thereby the possibility of the
coming socialist national state.

Socialism is possible only in a state that is united domestically and free internationally.
The bourgeois and Marxism are responsible for failing to reach both goals, domestic
unity and international freedom. No matter how national and social these two forces
present themselves, they are the sworn enemies of a socialist national state.

We must therefore break both groups politically. The lines of German socialism are
sharp, and our path is clear.

We are against the political bourgeois, and for genuine nationalism!

We are against Marxism, but for true socialism!

We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature!

We are for the National Socialist German Workers Party!
==============================================

Hitler's words -- "There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual
belongs to himself. This is Socialism—not such trifles as the private
possession of the means of production."
---------------------------------------------------

Goebbels words -- “The worker in a capitalist state—and that is his deepest
misfortune—is no longer a living human being, a creator, a maker. He has
become a machine. A number, a cog in the machine without sense or
understanding. He is alienated from what he produces.”

---------------------------------------------------
Goebbels' words -- "As socialists, we are opponents of the Jews,

because we see, in the Hebrews, the incarnation of capitalism"

-------------------------------------------------
Hitler's words -- "“To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme.
Point No. 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public
companies, in other words socialisation, or what is known here as socialism. …
the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made
perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority … the good of the
community takes priority over that of the individual."
-------------------------------------------------
Hitler's words -- “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic

economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its
unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according
to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and

we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

Hitler's words -- "“We will do what we like with the bourgeoisie. … We
give the orders; they do what they are told. Any resistance will be broken
ruthlessly.”

Notice how Hitler also considers "wealth" to be the object which must
pay a higher price to society. Just as you have argued.

Planet Visitor II

unread,

Nov 13, 2012, 12:33:04 AM11/13/12

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:52:01 -0800 (PST), Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>On Nov 11, 11:28 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>
>
> ROTFLOLl!!! you must agree with these statements correct,

Fallacy of presupposition. For example -- You beat your wife. And using
your own words -- "You must agree that this statement is correct."

>"We must take from state authority those functions for which it is
>incompetent and which it performs badly... I believe the state should
>renounce its economic functions, especially those carried out through
>monopolies, because the state is incompetent in such matters... We
>must put an end to state railways, state postal service and state
>insurance."
>"hasten the privatization of municipal enterprises."
> "We have broken with the practice of persecuting capital."

Why would I need to agree with that statement?? Just because you
printed it doesn't mean I agree with it. Only Nazi thinking would claim
that I "must" agree with it.

But what we have in positive terms is that agreement with your view on
capitalism can be found in direct quotes from Nazi leaders. Certainly
you have ADMITTED your feelings about capitalism are the very SAME
feeling that the Nazis had about capitalism. It is not about what others
might say about socialism or capitalism, but about what you've stated,
and what the Nazis stated, which proves categorically that your views
are no different than the views held by the Nazis. You haven't ever
tried to distance yourself from the views expressed by those Nazis.
There is not one comment from those Nazis that I've quoted that you
have stated you disagree with.

Need proof?? See it at the bottom.

>http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/chpt1.htm

>What Fascism Is & Isn't
>

There is no question that YOUR views are in agreement with fascist
and Nazi views. The fact that "the author" is another one who tries
to argue fascism isn't connected to socialism doesn't prove anything,
other than his views are biased. It's simply more of your efforts to
muddy the water with meaningless and lengthy quotes from those who
think as you do, which does not make them any more relevant than
your own view.

What I've done, however, is show how YOUR view, and those who also
hold your view, think along the same lines as the Nazis. You are the
one who considers the Nazi view on capitalism to be relevant and
in line with your own view on capitalism.

The standard of socialism is "government ownership of the means of
production." This stands in contrast to the standard of capitalism which is
"private ownership of the means of production." The fact is therefore,
that fascism takes its doctrine from socialism rather than capitalism (since
socialism preceded fascism as a political and social doctrine). For example. See --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Quote -- "Fascism advocates a state-controlled and regulated mixed economy."

EVERY definition of socialism (and there are as many as there are socialists, with
each believing they are qualified to define "socialism" as they WISH IT TO BE
DEFINED), holds that "government ownership of the means of production," is the
gold standard of all socialism. Once private ownership is accepted it certainly no
longer meets the gold standard of socialism. Thus, it is impossible to deny
that socialism, which holds the doctrine of state ownership of the means of
production, is not closer to fascism, which also holds the doctrine of a
state-controlled means of productions, than capitalism, which holds the doctrine
of "private ownership of the means of production."

Need proof?? See it at the bottom.

>?What is less understood about the totalitarian power Hitler achieved

>?The extent of Ford's financial donations to Hitler still remains a

>?Often times, this divisionism takes the form of racism or class

>essence, they were merely self-preservation measures.??>
>?Secondly, they will point toward many of the public works projects

Thank you for offering your defense of fascism... insisting that socialism
is closer to fascism than capitalism, making socialism superior in your
view. But it only goes to show how deeply your affection for fascism
and Nazism runs, in trying to apply it to socialism.

Now here are the words of various Nazis regarding how they felt about
capitalism and socialism. Where exactly in the lengthy article you
offered is there even the slightest mention or reference to those
comments which fly directly in the face of anyone claiming that there
is some friendly connection between fascism, Nazism, and capitalism,
when all PROOF shows exactly the opposite?

============================
Hitler's words -- "There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual
belongs to himself. This is Socialism—not such trifles as the private
possession of the means of production."
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------

Goebbels' words -- "As socialists, we are opponents of the Jews,
because we see, in the Hebrews, the incarnation of capitalism"
-------------------------------------------------

Hitler's words -- "“To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme.
Point No. 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public
companies, in other words socialisation, or what is known here as socialism. …
the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made
perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority … the good of the
community takes priority over that of the individual."

-------------------------------------------------

Hitler's words -- “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic
economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its
unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according
to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and
we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

Hitler's words -- "“We will do what we like with the bourgeoisie. … We
give the orders; they do what they are told. Any resistance will be broken
ruthlessly.”

Notice how Hitler also considers "wealth" to be the object which must
pay a higher price to society. Just as you have argued.

Planet Visitor II

unread,

Nov 13, 2012, 12:34:45 AM11/13/12

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:59:01 -0800 (PST), Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>On Nov 11, 11:28 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>
>
> as usual, you cannot refute a thing. as usual, i have proven to you
>that you are a crony capitalist.

As usual, the creepy little weasel of a socialist feels the same about
capitalists as did the Nazis.

Goebbels' words -- “the money pigs of capitalist democracy: Money
has made slaves of us. Money is the curse of mankind. It smothers
the seed of everything great and good. Every penny is sticky with
sweat and blood.”

> hitler was bankrolled by german capitalists,

And even if that were true how would that go to prove that Hitler loved
capitalists, when his entire ideology expressed the belief that the Jews
represented capitalists? Are you claiming that Hitler sought help from
the Jews in return for him being kind to the Jews?

The real question is why do you hate the Jews?

> and what was said in public, and what actually happened
>in private were two different matters.
>
>http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Socialism_and_Nazism/

ROTFLMAO.... See --

http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/

> • Socialism and Nazism
>Nazism and socialism refers to a polemical, and political claim that
>Nazism, or the "German National Socialism" of the 1930s to mid 1940s
>is comparable in some way to the ideology of socialism.

And there it is. Clearly neither you nor anyone else can take the doctrine
of socialism and insist that it isn't "socialism" when YOU don't agree with
it. Perhaps you're confused and would also argue that "murder" isn't
really "murder," when you define it different than what it is defined as.

Hitler considered himself a "socialist," and developed the Nazi party around
the belief of socialism that government control over all significant economic
and social matters was _for the good of the working man_. Read the sign
over the entrance to Auschwitz, to see what he demanded of the Jews in
order for them to be "free."

See --
http://c.suite101.com/files/styles/article_full/public/000/181/000181590.jpg

“The art of propaganda,” writes Hitler, “lies in understanding the emotional
ideas of the great masses and finding...the way to the attention and...hearts
of the broad masses.” One example that Hitler used was the concept of
“Arbeit und Brot” (Work and Bread). Borrowing the idea from the propaganda
of the KPD, the Nazis made it a slogan to market their party to the working class.

Every bit of that is the very essence of the doctrine of socialism.

<queue deranged Hitlerism hate for capitalism response from "Nickname
unavailable.">

Planet Visitor II

Planet Visitor II

unread,

Nov 13, 2012, 12:35:03 AM11/13/12

<deathly silence>

Heh... I notice that you don't deny being an opponent of the Jews and capitalism.

> ROTFLOL!!! have fun explaining away why corporate profits soared
>under the fascists. what a small brain you have. you got nothing as
>usual.

Fallacy of Ignoratio elenchi.

Why would I need to prove anything other than proving that Hitler and
his cronies hated capitalism exactly the same as you do? The Nazi
ideology reflects exactly the same opinion that you hold.

Now -- why do you hate the Jews???

Planet Visitor II

Nickname unavailable

unread,

Nov 13, 2012, 12:37:53 AM11/13/12

On Nov 12, 11:32 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:

you are to stupid to see propaganda. you are a crony capitalist. you
have much in common with your fellow righties:)

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.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/7EugaH/www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

Myth: Hitler was a leftist.  Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs
placed him on the far right.     Summary  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 the international 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 Firearms and 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 the training 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, friendliness, 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.

Nickname unavailable

unread,

Nov 13, 2012, 12:45:00 AM11/13/12

On Nov 12, 11:33 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:

ROTFLOL!! you will not answer it, because those are conservative
values. lets look at them again,

We must take from state authority those functions for which it is
incompetent and which it performs badly... I believe the state should
renounce its economic functions, especially those carried out through
monopolies, because the state is incompetent in such matters... We
must put an end to state railways, state postal service and state
insurance."

yes, that is what "THE CONSERVATIVES" have been saying for over three
decades, and we just had a election where they said the same things.

"hasten the privatization of municipal enterprises."

yes "CONSERVATIVES" are promoting this right now, its one of the
reasons why you lost so badly.

"We have broken with the practice of persecuting capital."

yes, its one of the cornerstones of "CONSERVATISM", you just lost a
election because you standard bearer said the same exact things. face
it, you got nothing. every point i make, you cannot refute, including
your latest, when you said shortages would not happen under
capitalism. and i proved to you that you are either a liar, or so
tightly rolled up in a sealed cocoon, that you have no idea what
capitalism really is.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/09/the_origins_of_.html

Monday, September 11, 2006

The Origins of the Term "Privatization"

Michael Perelman on the origins of the term "privatization." I first
met Michael many, many years ago as an undergraduate at CSU Chico
where he was teaching:

The Nazi Heritage of Privatization, by Michael Perelman: Privatization
is very popular among laissez-faire types today. The recent issue of
the Journal of Economic Perspectives offers a ... tale in which the
term privatization is falsely credited to Peter Drucker. In fact,
Nazis coined the term. Their intent was to skew the distribution of
income toward the rich, with the objective of reducing consumption.
After all, the rich have a lower marginal propensity to consume.

The term seems to have been first introduced into academic social
science by Maxine Yaple Sweezy, wife of the distinguished Marxist
economist, Paul Sweezy.

Bel, Germa'. 2006. ""The Coining of "Privatization" and Germany's
National Socialist Party." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20: 3
(Summer): pp. 187-94 [author web page link]: 187-8: "The standard
story on the coining of "privatization" reports that in 1969 Peter
Drucker used the term "reprivatization" in the sense that economists
understand it today. In The Age of Discontinuity (1969, p. 229),
Drucker makes a negative appraisal on the managerial capabilities of
the public sector: "Government is a poor manager …. It has no choice
but to be 'bureaucratic.'" Drucker's (p. 233) analysis of how
government works leads him to what he takes as "the main lesson of the
last fifty years: the government is not a doer." Thus, Drucker (p.
234) proposed adopting a "systematic policy of using the other, the
nongovernmental institutions of the society of organizations, for the
actual 'doing,' i.e., for performance, operations, execution. Such a
policy might be called 'reprivatization.'" Drucker referred to
"reprivatization" because he proposed giving back to the private
sector executive responsibilities that had been private before the
public sector took them over through nationalization and
municipalization starting in the last decades of the nineteenth
century."

189-90: "In the late 1930s and the early 1940s, a number of works were
devoted to the analysis of economic policy in Germany under the rule
of the National Socialist Party. One major work was Maxine Yaple
Sweezy's (1941) The Structure of the Nazi Economy. Sweezy stated that
industrialists supported Hitler's accession to power and his economic
policies: "In return for business assistance, the Nazis hastened to
give evidence of their good will by restoring to private capitalism a
number of monopolies held or controlled by the state" (p. 27). This
policy implied a large-scale program by which "the government
transferred ownership to private hands" (p. 28). One of the main
objectives for this policy was to stimulate the propensity to save,
since a war economy required low levels of private consumption. High
levels of savings were thought to depend on inequality of income,
which would be increased by inequality of wealth. This, according to
Sweezy (p. 28), "was thus secured by 'reprivatization' …. The
practical significance of the transference of government enterprises
into private hands was thus that the capitalist class continued to
serve as a vessel for the accumulation of income. Profit-making and
the return of property to private hands, moreover, have assisted the
consolidation of Nazi party power." Sweezy (p. 30) again uses the
concept when giving concrete examples of transference of government
ownership to private hands: "The United Steel Trust is an outstanding
example of 'reprivatization.'" This may be the first use of the term
"reprivatization" in the academic literature in English, at least
within the domain of the social sciences."

192-3: "The primary modern argument against privatization is that it
only enriches and entrenches business and political elites, without
benefiting consumers or taxpayers. The discussion here suggests a rich
historical irony: these modern arguments against privatization are
strikingly similar to the arguments made in favor of privatization in
Germany in the 1930s. As Sweezy (1941) and Merlin (1943) explicitly
point out, German privatization of the 1930s was intended to benefit
the wealthiest sectors and enhance the economic position and political
support of the elite. Of course, this historical connection does not
prove that privatization is always a sound or an unsound policy, only
that the effects of privatization may depend considerably on the
political, social and economic contexts. German privatization in the
1930s differed from the privatization of Volkswagen in the 1950s, and
both of these situations differ from, say, the British privatizations
of the 1980s, the Russian privatizations of the 1990s, or the
privatizations across Latin America over the last two decades."

Planet Visitor II

unread,

Nov 13, 2012, 1:10:19 AM11/13/12

You mean you don't disagree with the views expressed by those Nazis.
Thank you... that's all I needed. All your pitiful ad hominems and
irrational hate for capitalism and scatological love for socialism is irrelevant,
once you accept that you have no answer to those comments from
Nazis wherein you would disagree with any of them.

BERLIN, RHEINMETALL-BORSIG WORKS

HITLER SPEECH OF DECEMBER 10, 1940

FELLOW-COUNTRYMEN, workers of Germany:

Nowadays I do not speak very often. In the first place I have little time for speaking, and in the second place I believe that this is a time for action rather than speech. We are involved in a
conflict in which more than the victory of only one country or the other is at stake; it is rather a war of two opposing worlds. I shall try to give you, as far as possible in the time at my disposal,
an insight into the essential reasons underlying this conflict. I shall, however, confine myself to Western Europe only. The peoples who are primarily affected - 85 million Germans, 46 million
Britishers, 45 million Italians, and about 37 million Frenchmen -are the cores of the States who were or still are opposed in war. If I make a comparison between the living conditions of these peoples
the following facts become evident:

Forty-six million Britishers dominate and govern approximately 16 million square miles of the surface of the earth. Thirty-seven million Frenchmen dominate and govern a combined area of approximately
4 million square miles. Forty-five million Italians possess, taking into consideration only those territories in any way capable of being utilized, an area of scarcely 190,000 square miles.
Eighty-five million Germans possess as their living space scarcely 232,000 square miles. That is to say: 85 million Germans own only 232,000 square miles on which they must live their lives and 46
million Britishers possess 16 million square miles.

Now, my fellow-countrymen, this world has not been so divided up by providence or Almighty God. This allocation has been made by man himself. The land was parcelled out for the most part during the
last 300 years, that is, during the period in which, unfortunately, the German people were helpless and torn by internal dissension. Split up into hundreds of small states in consequence of the Treaty
of Muenster at the end of the Thirty Years' War, our people frittered away their entire strength in internal strife.... While during this period the Germans, notwithstanding their particular ability
among the people of Western Europe, dissipated their powers in vain internal struggles, the division of the world proceeded beyond their borders. It was not by treaties or by binding agreements, but
exclusively by the use of force that Britain forged her gigantic Empire.

The second people that failed to receive their fair share in this distribution, namely the Italians, experienced and suffered a similar fate. Torn by internal conflicts, devoid of unity, split up into
numerous small states, this people also dissipated all their energy in internal strife. Nor was Italy able to obtain even the natural position in the Mediterranean which was her due.

Thus in comparison with others, these two powerful peoples have received much less than their fair share. The objection might be raised: Is this really of decisive importance?

My fellow-countrymen, man does not exist on theories and phrases, on declarations or on systems of political philosophy; he lives on what he can gain from the soil by his own labor in the form of food
and raw materials. This is what he can eat, this is what he can use for manufacture and production. If a man's own living conditions offer him too little, his life will be wretched. We see that within
the countries themselves, fruitful areas afford better living conditions than poor barren lands. In the one case there are flourishing villages; in the other poverty-stricken communities. A man may
live in a stony desert or in a fruitful land of plenty. This handicap can never be fully overcome by theories, nor even by the will to work.

We see that the primary cause for the existing tensions lies in the unfair distribution of the riches of the earth. And it is only natural that evolution follows the same rule in the larger framework
as it does in the case of individuals. Just as the tension existing between rich and poor within a country must be compensated for either by reason or often if reason fails, by force, so in the life
of a nation one cannot claim everything and leave nothing to others....

The great task which I set myself in internal affairs was to bring reason to bear on the problems, to eliminate dangerous tensions by invoking the common sense of all, to bridge the gulf between
excessive riches and excessive poverty. I recognized, of course, that such processes cannot be consummated overnight. It is always preferable to bring together widely separated classes gradually and
by the exercise of reason, rather than to resort to a solution based on force. . .

Therefore, the right to live is at the same time a just claim to the soil which alone is the source of life. When unreasonableness threatened to choke their development, nations fought for this sacred
claim. No other course was open to them and they realized that even bloodshed and sacrifice are better than the gradual extinction of a nation. Thus, at the beginning of our National Socialist
Revolution in 1933, we set forth two demands. The first of these was the unification of our people, for without this unification it would not have been possible to mobilize the forces required to
formulate and, particularly, to secure Germany's essential claims. . . .

For us, therefore, national unity was one of the essential conditions if we were to co-ordinate the powers inherent in the German nation properly, to make the German people conscious of their own
greatness, realize their strength, recognize and present their vital claims, and seek national unity by an appeal to reason.

I know that I have not been successful everywhere. For nearly fifteen years of my struggle I was the target of two opposing sides. One side reproached me: 'You want to drag us who belong to the
intelligentsia and to the upper classes down to the level of the others. That is impossible. We are educated people. In addition to that, we are wealthy and cultured. We cannot accept this.'

These people were incapable of listening to reason; even today there are some who cannot be converted. However, on the whole the number of those who realize that the lack of unity in our national
structure would sooner or later lead to the destruction of all classes has become greater and greater.

I also met with opposition from the other side. They said: 'We have our class consciousness.' However, I was obliged to take the stand that in the existing situation we could not afford to make
experiments. It certainly would have been simple to eliminate the intelligentsia. Such a process could be carried out at once. But we would have to wait fifty or perhaps a hundred years for the gap to
refill - and such a period would mean the destruction of the nation. For how can our people, its 360 per square mile, exist at all if they do not employ every ounce of brain power and physical
strength to wrest from their soil what they need? This distinguishes us from the others. In Canada, for example, there are 2.6 persons per square mile; in other countries perhaps 16, 18, 20 or 26
persons. Well, my fellow-countrymen, no matter how stupidly one managed one's affairs in such a country, a decent living would still be possible.

Here in Germany, however, there are 360 persons per square mile. The others cannot manage with 26 persons per square mile, but we must manage with 360. This is the task we face. That is why I
expressed this view in 1933: 'We must solve these problems and, therefore, we shall solve them.' Of course that was not easy; everything could not be done immediately. Human beings are the product of
their education, and, unfortunately, this begins practically at birth. Infants are clothed in different ways. After this has been going on for centuries, someone suddenly comes along and says: - 'I
want to unwrap the child and remove all its clothing so that I may discover its true nature' - which is, of course, the same in every case. You have only created the difference by the external
wrappings; underneath these they are all alike.

However, it is not so easy to do this. Everyone resists being unwrapped. Everyone wishes to retain the habits he has acquired through his upbringing. But we will carry out our task just the same. We
have enormous patience. I know that what has been done for three, four, or five centuries cannot be undone in two, three, or five years. The decisive point is to make a start....

It has been a tremendous task. The establishment of a German community was the first item on the program in 1933. The second item was the elimination of foreign oppression as expressed in the Treaty
of Versailles, which also prevented our attaining national unity, forbade large sections of our people to unite, and robbed us of our possessions in the world, our German colonies.

The second item on the program was, therefore, the struggle against Versailles. No one can say that I express this opinion for the first time today. I expressed it, my fellowcountrymen, in the days
following the Great War when, still a soldier, I made my first appearance in the political arena. My first address was a speech against the collapse, against the Treaty of Versailles, and for the
re-establishment of a powerful German Reich. That was the beginning of my work. What I have brought about since then does not represent a new aim but the oldest aim. It is the primary reason for the
conflict in which we find ourselves today. The rest of the world did not want our inner unity, because they knew that, once it was achieved, the vital claim of our masses could be realized. They
wanted to maintain the Dictate of Versailles in which they saw a second peace of Westphalia. However, there is still another reason. I have stated that the world was unequally divided. American
observers and Englishmen have found a wonderful expression for this fact: They say there are two kinds of peoples - the 'haves' and the 'have-nots.' We, the British, are the 'haves.' It is a fact that
we possess sixteen million square miles. And we Americans are also 'haves,' and so are we Frenchmen. The others - they are simply the 'have-nots.' He who has nothing receives nothing. He shall remain
what he is. He who has is not willing to share it.

All my life I have been a 'have-not.' At home I was a 'have-not.' I regard myself as belonging to them and have always fought exclusively for them. I defended them and, therefore, I stand before the
world as their representative. I shall never recognize the claim of the others to that which they have taken by force. Under no circumstances can I acknowledge this claim with regard to that which has
been taken from us. It is interesting to examine the life of these rich people. In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy, which means the rule of the people by the people. Now
the people must possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their wishes. Examining this problem more closely, we see that the people themselves have originally no convictions of
their own. Their convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them? In those countries, it is actually capital that
rules; that is, nothing more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and, as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are more or less independent and free.
They say: 'Here we have liberty.' By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to make absolutely free use of it.
That means freedom from national control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak of liberty. These capitalists
create their own press and then speak of the 'freedom of the press.'

In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the
editor tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Public
opinion thus mobilized by them is, in its turn, split up into political parties. The difference between these parties is as small as it formerly was in Germany. You know them, of course - the old
parties. They were always one and the same. In Britain matters are usually so arranged that families are divided up, one member being a conservative, another a liberal, and a third belonging to the
labor party. Actually, all three sit together as members of the family, decide upon their common attitude and determine it. A further point is that the 'elected people' actually form a community which
operates and controls all these organizations. For this reason, the opposition in England is really always the same, for on all essential matters in which the opposition has to make itself felt, the
parties are always in agreement. They have one and the same conviction and through the medium of the press mold public opinion along corresponding lines. One might well believe that in these countries
of liberty and riches, the people must possess an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no! On the contrary, it is precisely in these countries that the distress of the masses is greater than anywhere
else. Such is the case in 'rich Britain.'

She controls sixteen million square miles. In India, for example, a hundred million colonial workers with a wretched standard of living must labor for her. One might think, perhaps, that at least in
England itself every person must have his share of these riches. By no means! In that country class distinction is the crassest imaginable. There is poverty - incredible poverty - on the one side, and
equally incredible wealth on the other. They have not solved a single problem. The workmen of that country which possesses more than one-sixth of the globe and of the world's natural resources dwell
in misery, and the masses of the people are poorly clad.. In a country which ought to have more than enough bread and every sort of fruit, we find millions of the lower classes who have not even
enough to fill their stomachs, and go about hungry. A nation which could provide work for the whole world must acknowledge the fact that it cannot even abolish unemployment at home. For decades this
rich Britain has had two and a half million unemployed; rich America, ten to thirteen millions, year after year; France, six, seven, and eight hundred thousand. Well, my fellow-countrymen - what then
are we to say about ourselves?

It is self-evident that where this democracy rules, the people as such are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters is the existence of a few hundred gigantic capitalists who
own all the factories and their stock and, through them, control the people. The masses of the people do not interest them in the least. They are interested in them just as were our bourgeois parties
in former times - only when elections are being held, when they need votes. Otherwise, the life of the masses is a matter of complete indifference to them.

To this must be added the difference in education. Is it not ludicrous to hear a member of the British Labor Party - who, of course, as a member of the Opposition is officially paid by the government
- say: 'When the war is over, we will do something in social respects'?

It is the members of Parliament who are the directors of the business concerns - just as used to be the case with us. But we have abolished all that. A member of the Reichstag cannot belong to a Board
of Directors, except as a purely honorary member. He is prohibited from accepting any emolument, financial or otherwise. This is not the case in other countries.

They reply: 'That is why our form of government is sacred to us.' I can well believe it, for that form of government certainly pays very well.. But whether it is sacred to the mass of the people as
well is another matter.

The people as a whole definitely suffer. I do not consider it possible in the long run for one man to work and toil for a whole year in return for ridiculous wages, while another jumps into an express
train once a year and pockets enormous sums. Such conditions are a disgrace. On the other hand, we National Socialists equally oppose the theory that all men are equals. Today, when a man of genius
makes some astounding invention and enormously benefits his country by his brains, we pay him his due, for he has really accomplished something and been of use to his country. However, we hope to make
it impossible for idle drones to inhabit this country.

I could continue to cite examples indefinitely. The fact remains that two worlds are face to face with one another. Our opponents are quite right when they say: 'Nothing can reconcile us to the
National Socialist world.' How could a narrow-minded capitalist ever agree to my principles? It would be easier for the Devil to go to church and cross himself with holy water than for these people to
comprehend the ideas which are accepted facts to us today. But we have solved our problems.

To take another instance where we are condemned: They claim to be fighting for the maintenance of the gold standard as the currency basis. That I can well believe, for the gold is in their hands. We,
too, once had gold, but it was stolen and extorted from us. When I came to power, it was not malice which made me abandon the gold standard. Germany simply had no gold left. Consequently, quitting the
gold standard presented no difficulties, for it is always easy to part with what one does not have. We had no gold. We had no foreign exchange. They had all been stolen and extorted from us during the
previous fifteen years. But, my fellow countrymen, I did not regret it, for we have constructed our economic system on a wholly different basis. In our eyes, gold is not of value in itself. It is only
an agent by which nations can be suppressed and dominated.

When I took over the government, I had only one hope on which to build, namely, the efficiency and ability of the German nation and the German workingman; the intelligence of our inventors, engineers,
technicians, chemists, and so forth. I built on the strength which animates our economic system. One simple question faced me: Are we to perish because we have no gold; am I to believe in a phantom
which spells our destruction? I championed the opposite opinion: Even though we have no gold, we have capacity for work.

The German capacity for work is our gold and our capital, and with this gold I can compete successfully with any power in the world. We want to live in houses which have to be built. Hence, the
workers must build them, and the raw materials required must be procured by work. My whole economic system has been built up on the conception of work. We have solved our problems while, amazingly
enough, the capitalist countries and their currencies have suffered bankruptcy.

Sterling can find no market today. Throw it at any one and he will step aside to avoid being hit. But our Reichsmark, which is backed by no gold, has remained stable. Why? It has no gold cover; it is
backed by you and by your work. You have helped me to keep the mark stable. German currency, with no gold coverage, is worth more today than gold itself. It signifies unceasing production. This we owe
to the German farmer, who has worked from daybreak till nightfall. This we owe to the German worker, who has given us his whole strength. The whole problem has been solved in one instant, as if by
magic.

My dear friends, if I had stated publicly eight or nine years ago: 'In seven or eight years the problem of how to provide work for the unemployed will be solved, and the problem then will be where to
find workers,' I should have harmed my cause. Every one would have declared: 'The man is mad. It is useless to talk to him, much less to support him. Nobody should vote for him. He is a fantastic
creature.' Today, however, all this has come true. Today, the only question for us is where to find workers. That, my fellow countrymen, is the blessing which work brings.

Work alone can create new work; money cannot create work. Work alone can create values, values with which to reward those who work. The work of one man makes it possible for another to live and
continue to work. And when we have mobilized the working capacity of our people to its utmost, each individual worker will receive more and more of the world's goods.

We have incorporated seven million unemployed into our economic system; we have transformed another six millions from part-time into full-time workers; we are even working overtime. And all this is
paid for in cash in Reichsmarks which maintained their value in peacetime. In wartime we had to ration its purchasing capacity, not in order to devalue it, but simply to earmark a portion of our
industry for war production to guide us to victory in the struggle for the future of Germany.

My fellow-countrymen, we are also building a world here, a world of mutual work, a world of mutual effort, and a world of mutual anxieties and mutual duties. It did not surprise me that other
countries started rationing only after two, three, five, and seven months, and in some cases only after a year. Believe me, in all these countries, this was not due to chance but to policy. Many a
German may have been surprised that food cards appeared on the first morning of the war. Yet, there are, of course, two sides to this food card system. Some people may say: 'Wouldn't it be better to
exclude this or that commodity from rationing? What use are a few grams of coffee when nobody gets much anyway? Without rationing, at least a few would get more.' Now that is exactly what we want to
avoid. We want to avoid one person having more of the most vital commodities than another. There are other things - a valuable painting, for instance. Not everybody is in a position to buy a Titian,
even if he had the money. Because Titian painted only a few pictures, only a few can afford his work. This or that man can buy one if he has enough money. He spends it, and it circulates through the
country. But in the case of food, everybody must be served alike.

The other countries waited to see how things would develop. The question was asked: 'Will meat be rationed?' That was the first sounding of a warning. In other words: 'If you are a capitalist, cover
your requirements, buy yourself a refrigerator and hoard up a few sides of bacon.'

'Shall we ration coffee? There are two opinions as to whether it should be rationed or not. It might be possible that in the end those who think that coffee should be rationed might triumph.' They
devote four whole weeks to the discussion and everybody who has a spark of egotism - as they have in the democracies - says to himself: 'Aha, so coffee is to be rationed in the near future; let us
hoard it.' Then, when the supplies are exhausting themselves, it is at last rationed.

It was just this that we wanted to avoid. That is why in order to ensure equal distribution, we have had to impose certain restrictions from the very start. And we are not well disposed toward those
who do not observe regulations.

One thing is certain, my fellow-countrymen: All in all, we have today a state with a different economic and political orientation from that of the Western democracies.

Well, it must now be made possible for the British worker to travel. It is remarkable that they should at last hit upon the idea that traveling should be something not for millionaires alone, but for
the people too. In this country, the problem was solved some time ago. In the other countries - as is shown by their whole economic structure - the selfishness of a relatively small stratum rules
under the mask of democracy. This stratum is neither checked nor controlled by anyone.

It is therefore understandable if an Englishman says: 'We do not want our world to be subject to any sort of collapse.' Quite so. The English know full well that their Empire is not menaced by us. But
they say quite truthfully: 'If the ideas that are popular in Germany are not completely eliminated, they might become popular among our own people, and that is the danger. We do not want this.' It
would do no harm if they did become popular there, but these people are just as narrow-minded as many once were in Germany. In this respect they prefer to remain bound to their conservative methods.
They do not wish to depart from them, and do not conceal the fact.

They say, 'The German methods do not suit us at all.'

And what are these methods? You know, my comrades, that I have destroyed nothing in Germany. I have always proceeded very carefully, because I believe - as I have already said - that we cannot afford
to wreck anything. I am proud that the Revolution of 1933 was brought to pass without breaking a single windowpane. Nevertheless, we have wrought enormous changes.

I wish to put before you a few basic facts: The first is that in the capitalistic democratic world the most important principle of economy is that the people exist for trade and industry, and that
these in turn exist for capital. We have reversed this principle by making capital exist for trade and industry, and trade and industry exist for the people. In other words, the people come first.
Everything else is but a means to this end. When an economic system is not capable of feeding and clothing a people, then it is bad, regardless of whether a few hundred people say: 'As far as I am
concerned it is good, excellent; my dividends are splendid.'

However, the dividends do not interest me at all. Here we have drawn the line. They may then retort: 'Well, look here, that is just what we mean. You jeopardize liberty.'

Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it. British capitalists, to mention only one instance, can pocket dividends
of 76, 80, 95, 140, and even 160 per cent from their armament industry. Naturally they say: 'If the German methods grow apace and should prove victorious, this sort of thing will stop.'

They are perfectly right. I should never tolerate such a state of affairs. In my eyes, a 6 per cent dividend is sufficient. Even from this 6 per cent we deduct one-half and, as for the rest, we must
have definite proof that it is invested in the interest of the country as a whole. In other words, no individual has the right to dispose arbitrarily of money which ought to be invested for the good
of the country. If he disposes of it sensibly, well and good; if not, the National Socialist state will intervene.

To take another instance, besides dividends there are the so-called directors' fees. You probably have no idea how appallingly active a board of directors is. Once a year its members have to make a
journey. They have to go to the station, get into a first-class compartment and travel to some place or other. They arrive at an appointed office at about 10 or 11 A.M. There they must listen to a
report. When the report has been read, they must listen to a few comments on it. They may be kept in their seats until 1 P.M. or even 2. Shortly after 2 o'clock they rise from their chairs and set out
on their homeward journey, again, of course, traveling first class. It is hardly surprising that they claim 3,000, 4,000, or even 5,000 as compensation for this: Our directors formerly did the same -
for what a lot of time it costs them! Such effort had to be made worth while! Of course, we have got rid of all this nonsense, which was merely veiled profiteering and even bribery.

In Germany, the people, without any doubt, decide their existence. They determine the principles of their government. In fact it has been possible in this country to incorporate many of the broad
masses into the National Socialist party, that gigantic organization embracing millions and having millions of officials drawn from the people themselves. This principle is extended to the highest
ranks.

For the first time in German history, we have a state which has absolutely abolished all social prejudices in regard to political appointments as well as in private life. I myself am the best proof of
this. Just imagine: I am not even a lawyer, and yet I am your Leader!

It is not only in ordinary life that we have succeeded in appointing the best among the people for every position. We have Reichsstatthalters who were formerly agricultural laborers or locksmiths.
Yes, we have even succeeded in breaking down prejudice in a place where it was most deep-seated -in the fighting forces. Thousands of officers are being promoted from the ranks today. We have done
away with prejudice. We have generals who were ordinary soldiers and noncommissioned officers twenty-two and twenty-three years ago. In this instance, too, we have overcome all social obstacles. Thus,
we are building up our life for the future.

As you know we have countless schools, national political educational establishments, Adolf Hitler schools, and so on. To these schools we send gifted children of the broad masses, children of working
men, farmers' sons whose parents could never have afforded a higher education for their children. We take them in gradually. They are educated here, sent to the Ordensburgen, to the Party, later to
take their place in the State where they will some day fill the highest posts....

Opposed to this there stands a completely different world. In the world the highest ideal is the struggle for wealth, for capital, for family possessions, for personal egoism; everything else is
merely a means to such ends. Two worlds confront each other today. We know perfectly well that if we are defeated in this war it would not only be the end of our National Socialist work of
reconstruction, but the end of the German people as a whole. For without its powers of coordination, the German people would starve. Today the masses dependent on us number 120 or 130 millions, of
which 85 millions alone are our own people. We remain ever aware of this fact.

On the other hand, that other world says: 'If we lose, our world-wide capitalistic system will collapse. For it is we who save hoarded gold. It is lying in our cellars and will lose its value. If the
idea that work is the decisive factor spreads abroad, what will happen to us? We shall have bought our gold in vain. Our whole claim to world dominion can then no longer be maintained. The people will
do away with their dynasties of high finance. They will present their social claims, and the whole world system will be overthrown.'

I can well understand that they declare: 'Let us prevent this at all costs; it must be prevented.' They can see exactly how our nation has been reconstructed. You see it clearly. For instance, there
we see a state ruled by a numerically small upper class. They send their sons to their own schools, to Eton. We have Adolf Hitler schools or national political educational establishments. On the one
hand, the sons of plutocrats, financial magnates; on the other, the children of the people. Etonians and Harrovians exclusively in leading positions over there; in this country, men of the people in
charge of the State.

These are the two worlds. I grant that one of the two must succumb. Yes, one or the other. But if we were to succumb, the German people would succumb with us. If the other were to succumb, I am
convinced that the nations will become free for the first time. We are not fighting individual Englishmen or Frenchmen. We have nothing against them. For years I proclaimed this as the aim of my
foreign policy. We demanded nothing of them, nothing at all. When they started the war they could not say: 'We are doing so because the Germans asked this or that of us.' They said, on the contrary:
'We are declaring war on you because the German system of Government does not suit us; because we fear it might spread to our own people.' For that reason they are carrying on this war. They wanted to
blast the German nation back to the time of Versailles, to the indescribable misery of those days. But they have made a great mistake.

If in this war everything points to the fact that gold is fighting against work, capitalism against peoples, and reaction against the progress of humanity, then work, the peoples, and progress will be
victorious. Even the support of the Jewish race will not avail the others.

I have seen all this coming for years. What did I ask of the other world? Nothing but the right for Germans to reunite and the restoration of all that had been taken from them - nothing which would
have meant a loss to the other nations. How often have I stretched out my hand to them? Ever since I came into power. I had not the slightest wish to rearm.

For what do armaments mean? They absorb so much labor. It was I who regarded work as being of decisive importance, who wished to employ the working capacity of Germany for other plans. I think the
news is already out that, after all, I have some fairly important plans in my mind, vast and splendid plans for my people. It is my ambition to make the German people rich and to make the German
homeland beautiful. I want the standard of living of the individual raised. I want us to have the most beautiful and the finest civilization. I should like the theater - in fact, the whole of German
civilization - to benefit all the people and not to exist only for the upper ten thousand, as is the case in England.

The plans which we had in mind were tremendous, and I needed workers in order to realize them. Armament only deprives me of workers. I made proposals to limit armaments. I was ridiculed. The only
answer I received was 'No.' I proposed the limitation of certain types of armament. That was refused. I proposed that airplanes should be altogether eliminated from warfare. That also was refused. I
suggested that bombers should be limited. That was refused. They said: 'That is just how we wish to force our regime upon you.'

I am not a man who does things by halves. If it becomes necessary for me to defend myself, I defend myself with unlimited zeal. When I saw that the same old warmongers of the World War in Britain were
mobilizing once more against the great new German revival, I realized that this struggle would have to be fought once more, that the other side did not want peace.

It was quite obvious: Who was I before the Great War? An unknown, nameless individual. What was I during the war? A quite inconspicuous, ordinary soldier. I was in no way responsible for the Great
War. However, who are the rulers of Britain today? They are the same people who were warmongering before the Great War, the same Churchill who was the vilest agitator among them during the Great War;
Chamberlain, who recently died and who at that time agitated in exactly the same way. It was the whole gang, members of the same group, who believe that they can annihilate nations with the blast of
the trumpets of Jericho.

The old spirits have once more come to life, and it is against them that I have armed the German people. I, too, had convictions: I myself served as a soldier during the Great War and know what it
means to be fired at by others without being able to shoot back. I know what it means not to have any ammunition or to have too little, what it means always to be beaten by the other side. I gained my
wholehearted faith in the German people and in the future. during those years, from my knowledge of the German soldier, of the ordinary man in the trenches. He was the great hero in my opinion. Of
course, the other classes also did everything they could. But there was a difference.

The Germany of that time certainly seemed quite a tolerable country to anybody living at home amid wealth and luxury. One could have his share of everything, of culture, of the pleasures of life, and
so on. He could enjoy German art and many other things; he could travel through the German countryside; he could visit German towns and so forth. What more could he wish for? Naturally, he defended it
all.

On the other hand, however, there was the ordinary common soldier. This unimportant proletarian, who scarcely had sufficient to eat, who always had to slave for his existence, nevertheless fought at
the front like a hero for four long years. It was in him that I placed my trust, and it is with his help that I won back confidence in myself. When the others had lost their faith in Germany, I
regained mine, never losing sight of the ordinary man in the street. I knew that Germany could not perish.

Germany will not perish so long as she possesses such men. I have also seen how these combatants, these soldiers again and again faced an enemy who could annihilate them simply by his superior
material. I was not of the opinion at that time that the British were personally superior to us. Only a madman can say that I have ever had any inferiority complex with respect to the British. I have
never had any such feeling of inferiority.

The problem of the individual German against the individual Englishman did not present itself at all at that time. Even at that time they went whining round the whole world until they found support.
This time I was determined to make preparations throughout the world to extend our position, and secondly, to arm at home in such a manner that the German soldier would no longer be obliged to stand
alone at the front, exposed to superior forces.

The trouble has come. I did everything humanly possible - going almost to the point of self-abasement - to avoid it. I repeatedly made offers to the British. I had discussions with their diplomats
here and entreated them to be sensible. But it was all in vain. They wanted war, and they made no secret of it. For seven years Churchill had been saying: 'I want war.' Now he has got it.

It was regrettable to me that nations whom I wished to bring together and who, in my opinion, could have cooperated to such good purpose, should now be at war with one another. But these gentlemen are
aiming at destroying the National Socialist State, at disrupting the German people and dividing them again into their component parts. Such were the war aims they proclaimed in the past and such are
their war aims today. However, this time they will be surprised, and I believe that they have already had a foretaste of it.

There are among you, my fellow-countrymen, many old soldiers who went through the Great War and who know perfectly well what space and time mean. Many of you fought in the East during that war, and
all the names which you read about in 1939 were still quite familiar to you. Perhaps many of you marched in bad weather or under the burning sun at that time. The roads were endless. And how desperate
was the struggle for every inch of ground. How much blood it cost merely to advance slowly, mile by mile. Think of the pace at which we covered these distances this time. Eighteen days, and the state
which wished to cut us to pieces at the gates of Berlin was crushed.

Then came the British attack on Norway. As a matter of fact, I was told by those Englishmen who always know everything that we had slept through the winter. One great statesman even assured me that I
had missed the bus. Yet we arrived just in time to get into it before the British. We had suddenly reawakened. In a few days we made sure of this. We took Norwegian positions as far north as Kirkenes,
and I need not tell you that no one will take the soil on which a German soldier stands.

And then they wanted to be cleverer and speedier in the West - in Holland and Belgium. It led to an offensive that many, especially among our older men, envisaged with fear and anxiety. I am perfectly
well aware of what many were thinking at that time. They had experienced the Great War on the Western Front, all the battles in Flanders, in Artois, and around Verdun. They all imagined: 'Today the
Maginot line is there. How can it be taken? Above all, how much blood will it cost; what sacrifices will it call for; how long will it take?' Within six weeks this campaign too, had been concluded.

Belgium, Holland, and France were vanquished; the Channel Coast was occupied; our batteries were brought into position there and our bases established. Of these positions, too, do I say: 'No power in
the world can drive us out of this region against our will.'

'And now my fellow-countrymen, let us think of the sacrifices. For the individual, they are very great. The woman who has lost her husband has lost her all, and the same is true of the child that has
lost its father. The mother who has sacrificed her child, and the betrothed or the sweetheart who have been parted from loved ones never to see them again have all made great sacrifices. However, if
we add all these losses together and compare them with the sacrifices of the Great War, then - however great they may be for the individual - they are incomparably small. Consider that we have not
nearly so many dead as Germany had in 1870-71 in the struggle against France. We have broken the ring encircling Germany by these sacrifices. The number of wounded is also extremely small, merely a
fraction of what was expected.

For all this, our thanks are due to our magnificent army, inspired by a new spirit and into which the spirit of our national community has also penetrated. The army now really knows for what it is
fighting. We owe thanks to our soldiers for their tremendous achievements. But the German soldier gives thanks to you, the munitions workers, for forging the weapons for his use. For this is the first
time that he has gone into battle without feeling that he was inferior to the enemy in numbers or that his weapons were of poorer quality. Our weapons were better in every respect.

That is your doing; the result of your workmanship, of your industry, your capacity, your devotion. Millions of German families still have their breadwinners today and will have them in the future,
innumerable fathers and mothers still have their sons - and their thanks are due to you, my munitions workers. You have forged for them the weapons with which they were able to go forward to victory,
weapons which today give them so much confidence that everyone knows we are not only the best soldiers in the world but that we also have the best weapons in the world. Not only is this true today; it
will be more so in the future.

That is the difference between today and the Great War. But not only that. Above all, this time the German soldier is not short of ammunition. I do not know, my fellow countrymen, but it may be that
when exact calculations are made after the war, people will perhaps say: 'Sir, you were a spendthrift. You had ammunition made which was never used. It is still lying about.' Yes, my
fellow-countrymen, I have had ammunition made because I went through the Great War, because I wished to avoid what happened then and because shells are replaceable and bombs are replaceable but men
are not.

And thus the problem of ammunition in this struggle was no problem at all; perhaps only a supply problem. When the struggle was over we had scarcely used a month's production. Today we are armed for
any eventuality, whatever Britain may do. Every week that passes Britain will be dealt heavier blows, and if she wishes to set foot anywhere on the Continent she will find us ready once more. I know
that we are not out of practice. I hope that the British have also forgotten nothing.

As far as the war in the air is concerned, this too, I hoped to avert. We accepted it. We shall fight it to the finish. I did not want it. I always struggled against it. We did not wage such a war
during the whole of the Polish campaign. I did not allow any night attacks to be carried out. In London they said: 'Yes, because you couldn't fly by night.'

In the meantime, they have noticed whether we can fly by night or not. Naturally, it is not possible to aim so well at night and I wanted to attack military objects only, to attack at the front only,
to fight against soldiers, not against women and children. That is why we refrained from night attacks. We did not use this method in France. We carried out no night attacks from the air. When we
attacked Paris, only the munitions factories were our objectives. Our airmen aimed with wonderful precision. Anybody who saw it could convince himself of that.

Then it occurred to that great strategist, Churchill, to commence unrestricted war from the air by night. He began it in Freiburg im Breisgau and has continued it. Not one munitions plant has been
demolished. Yet according to British news reports, the one in which we are at present assembled is nothing but a mass of craters. They have not even caused a single munitions factory to cease
production. On the other hand, they have unfortunately hit many families, helpless women and children. Hospitals have been one of their favorite objectives. Why? It is inexplainable. You yourselves,
here in Berlin, know how often they have bombed our hospitals.

Very well, I waited for a month, because I thought that after the conclusion of the campaign in France the British would give up this method of warfare. I was mistaken. I waited for a second month and
a third month. If bombs were to be dropped I could not assume the responsibility before the German people of allowing my own countrymen to be destroyed while sparing foreigners. Now, this war, too,
had to be fought to its end. And it is being fought; fought with all the determination, with all the materials, with all the means and all the courage at our disposal. The time for the decisive
conflict will arrive. You may be sure it will take place. However, I should like to tell these gentlemen one thing: It is we who shall determine the time for it. And on this point I am cautious. We
might perhaps have been able to attack in the West during the autumn of last year, but I wanted to wait for good weather. And I think it was worth while waiting.

We ourselves are so convinced that our weapons will be successful that we can allow ourselves time. The German people will certainly hold out. I believe that they will be grateful to me if I bide my
time and thus save them untold sacrifices.

It is one of the characteristics of the National Socialist State that even in warfare, at times when it is not absolutely necessary, it is sparing of human life. After all, the lives of our
fellow-citizens are at stake.

In the campaign in Poland we forbade many attacks or rapid advances, because we were convinced that a week or a fortnight later the problem would solve itself.

We have gained many great successes without sacrificing a single man. That was also the case in the West. It must remain so in the future. We have no desire to gain any successes or to make any
attacks for the sake of prestige. We never wish to act except in accordance with sober military principles. What has to happen must happen. We wish to avoid everything else. As for the rest, all of us
hope that reason will again be victorious and peace will return. The world must realize one thing, however: Neither military force, economic pressure, nor the time factor will ever force Germany to
surrender. Whatever else may happen, Germany will be the victor in this struggle.

I am not the man to give up, to my own disadvantage, a struggle already begun. I have proved this by my life in the past and I shall prove to those gentlemen - whose knowledge of my life until now has
been gathered from the emigre' press - that I have remained unchanged in this respect.

When I began my political career, I declared to my supporters - they were then only a small number of soldiers and workers - 'There is no such word as capitulation in your vocabulary or mine.'

I do not desire war, but when it is forced upon me I shall wage it as long as I have breath in my body. And I can wage it today, because I know that the whole German nation is behind me. I am the
guardian of its future and I act accordingly.

I could have made my own life much more easy. I have been fighting for twenty years, and I have assumed the burden of all these anxieties and of this never-ceasing work, convinced that it must be done
for the German people. My own life and my own health are of no importance. I know that, above all, the German Army, every man and every officer of it, supports me in the same spirit. All those fools
who imagined that there could ever be any disruption here have forgotten that the Third Reich is not the same as the Second. The German people stand behind me to a man. And at this point I thank,
above all, the German workman and the German peasant. They made it possible for me to prepare for this struggle and to create, as far as armaments were concerned, the necessary conditions for
resistance. They also provide me with the possibility of continuing the war, however long it may last.

I also give special thanks to the women of Germany-to those numberless women, who must now perform part of the heavy work of men, who have adapted themselves to their war duties with devotion and
fanaticism and who are replacing men in so many positions. I thank you all - you who are making this personal sacrifice, who are bearing the many restrictions that are necessary. I thank you in the
name of all those who represent the German people today and who will be the German people of the future.

This struggle is not a struggle for the present but primarily a struggle for the future. I stated on September 3, 1939, that time would not conquer us, that no economic difficulties would bring us to
our knees, and that we could still less be defeated by force of arms. The morale of the German people guarantees this.

The German people will be richly rewarded in the future for all that they are doing. When we have won this war it will not have been won by a few industrialists or millionaires, or by a few
capitalists or aristocrats, or by a few bourgeois, or by anyone else.

Workers, you must look upon me as your guarantor. I was born a son of the people; I have spent all my life struggling for the German people, and when this hardest struggle of my life is over there
will be new tasks for the German people.

We have already projected great plans. All of our plans have but one aim: to develop still further the great German State, to make that great German nation more and more conscious of its existence
and, at the same time, to give it everything which makes life worth living.

We have decided to break down to an ever-increasing degree the barriers preventing individuals from developing their faculties and from attaining their just due. We are firmly determined to build up a
social state which must and shall be a model of perfection in every sphere of life....

When this war is ended, Germany will set to work in earnest. A great 'Awake!' will sound throughout the country. Then the German nation will stop manufacturing cannon and will embark on peaceful
occupations and the new work of reconstruction for the millions. Then we shall show the world for the first time who is the real master, capitalism or work. Out of this work will grow the great German
Reich of which great poets have dreamed. It will be the Germany to which every one of her sons will cling with fanatical devotion, because she will provide a home even for the poorest. She will teach
everyone the meaning of life.

Should anyone say to me: 'These are mere fantastic dreams, mere visions,' I can only reply that when I set out on my course in 1919 as an unknown, nameless soldier I built my hopes of the future upon
a most vivid imagination. Yet all has come true.

What I am planning or aiming at today is nothing compared to what I have already accomplished and achieved. It will be achieved sooner and more definitely than everything already achieved. The road
from an unknown and nameless person to Fuehrer of the German nation was harder than will be the way from Fuehrer of the German nation to creator of the coming peace.

Planet Visitor II

Topaz

unread,

Nov 13, 2012, 8:39:57 PM11/13/12

Mussolini was against Capitalism.

"He had a profound contempt for those whose overriding ambition was to
be rich. It was a mania, he thought, a kind of disease, and he
comforted himself with the reflection that the rich were rarely happy"
Here Hibbert (1962, p. 47) is describing a lifelong attitude of
Mussolini that continued right into his time as Italy's Prime Minister
- when he refused to take his official salary.

"There was much truth in the comment of a Rome newspaper that the new
fasci did not aim at the defense of the ruling class or the existing
State but wanted to lead the revolutionary forces into the Nationalist
camp so as to prevent a victory of Bolshevism.

even after coming to power, to take drives in the country with his
wife and stop at various
farmhouses on the way for a chat with the family there. He would enjoy
discussing the crops, the weather and all the usual rural topics and
obviously just liked the feeling of being one of the people. His claim
to represent the people was not just theory but heartfelt. And he
never gave up his "anti-bourgeois" rhetoric.

His policies were basically protectionist. He controlled the
exchange-rate of the Italian currency and promoted that old favorite
of the economically illiterate - autarky - meaning that he tried to
get Italy to become wholly self-sufficient rather than rely on foreign
trade. He wanted to protect Italian products from competing foreign
products.

By 1939 he had doubled Italy's grain production from its traditional
level, enabling Italy to cut wheat imports by 75% (Smith, 1967, p.
92).

He made Capri a bird sanctuary (Smith, 1967, p. 84) and in 1926 he
issued a decree reducing the size of newspapers to save wood pulp.
And, believe it or not, he even mandated gasohol - i.e. mixing
industrial alcohol with petroleum products to make fuel for cars
(Smith, 1967, p. 87). Mussolini also disliked the population drift
from rural areas
into the big cities and in 1930 passed a law to put a stop to it
unless official permission was granted

he advocated private enterprise within a strict set of State controls
designed, among other things, to prevent abuse of monopoly power
(Gregor, 1979, Ch. 5).

...a big expansion of public works and a great improvement in social
insurance measures. He also set up the "Dopolavoro" (after work)
organization to give workers cheap recreations of various kinds (cf.
the Nazi Kraft durch Freude movement). His public health measures
(such as the attack on tuberculosis and the setting up of a huge
maternal and child welfare organization) were particularly notable for
their rationality and efficiency and, as such, were rewarded with
great success. For instance, the incidence of tuberculosis
dropped dramatically and infant mortality declined by more than 20%
(Gregor, p. 259).
"instituted a programme of public works hitherto unrivalled in modern
Europe. Bridges, canals and roads were built, hospitals and schools,
railway stations and orphanages, swamps were drained and land
reclaimed, forest were planted and universities were endowed."

In 1929 Mussolini and Pope Pius 12th signed the Lateran treaty -
which is still the legal basis for the existence of the Vatican State
to this day - and Pius in fact at one stage
called Mussolini "the man sent by Providence". The treaty recognized
Roman Catholicism as the Italian State religion as well as recognizing
the Vatican as a sovereign state. What Mussolini got in exchange was
acceptance by the church - something that was enormously important in
the Italy of that time.

the great hatred that existed in prewar Germany between the Nazis and
the "Reds". And the early Fascists battled the "Reds" too, of course.

The 1919 election manifesto, for instance, contained policies of
worker control of industry, confiscation of war profits, abolition of
the Stock exchange, land for the
peasants and abolition of the Monarchy and nobility. Further,
Mussolini never ceased to inveigh against "plutocrats".

He wanted a harmonious and united Italy for all Italians of all
classes and was sure that achieving just treatment for the workers
needed neither revolution nor any kind of
artificially enforced equality.

This made Italian Fascism a much more popular creed than Stalin's
Communism. This is perhaps most clearly seen by the always persuasive
"voting with your feet" criterion. Mussolini made no effort to prevent
Italians from emigrating and although some anti-Fascists did, net
emigration actually FELL under Mussolini. Compare this with Stalin and
the Berlin wall.

Mussolini gained power through political rather than revolutionary
means. His famous march on Rome was only superficially revolutionary.
The King of Italy and the army
approved of him because of his pragmatic policies so did not oppose
the march. So this collusion ensured that Mussolini's "revolution" was
essentially bloodless.

His considerable popularity for many years among a wide range of
Italians shows how effective his recipe for achieving that was.

In his "corporate state", Mussolini was the first to create ...a
system of capitalism under tight government control. And his corporate
state was one where the workers had (at least in theory) equal rights
with management.

REFERENCES Amis, M. (2002) Koba the Dread : laughter and the twenty
million.
N.Y.: Talk Miramax
Carsten, F.L. (1967) The rise of Fascism. London: Methuen.
Funk & Wagnall's New Encyclopedia (1983) Funk & Wagnall's
Galbraith, J.K. (1969) The affluent society. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Gilmour, I.H.J.L. (1978) Inside right. London: Quartet.
Greene, N. (1968) Fascism: An anthology. N.Y.: Crowell.
Gregor, A.J. (1979) Italian Fascism and developmental dictatorship
Princeton, N.J.: Univ. Press.
Hagan, J. (1966) Modern History and its themes. Croydon, Victoria,
Australia: Longmans.
Hibbert, C. (1962) Benito Mussolini Geneva: Heron Books. Herzer, I.
(1989)
The Italian refuge: Rescue of Jews during the holocaust. Washington,
D.C.:
Catholic University of America Press
Horowitz, D. (1998) Up from multiculturalism. Heterodoxy, January.
See:
http://www.cspc.org/het/multicul.htm
Lenin, V.I. (1952) "Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder. In:
Selected Works, Vol. II, Part 2. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing
House.
Martino, A. (1998) The modern mask of socialism. 15th John Bonython
lecture,
Centre for Independent Studies, Sydney. See
http://www.cis.org.au/Events/JBL/JBL98.htm
Muravchik, J. (2002) Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism
San
Francisco: Encounter Books.
Smith, D.M. (1967) The theory and practice of Fascism. In: Greene, N.
Fascism: An anthology N.Y.: Crowell.
Steinberg, J. (1990) All or nothing: The Axis and the holocaust
London:
Routledge.

http://www.ihr.org/ http://heretical.com/

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com

Topaz

unread,

Nov 13, 2012, 8:52:40 PM11/13/12

WHAT IS FASCISM?

By James Miller, PhD

Unfortunately, Fascism has an undeserved bad reputation. Regardless of
this reputation, Fascism is a very sensible economic and social
ideology. There are a few different "flavors" of Fascism, but
basically they all come down to the following.

Fascism is an economic system in which a nation's government plays a
central role in monitoring all banking, trade, production, and labor
activity which takes place within the nation. Such monitoring is done
for the sole purpose of safeguarding & advancing the nation and its
people. Under Fascism, the government will not approve of any business
activity unless that business has a positive impact on the nation as a
whole and the people of the nation - this is the axiom which
determines everything under Fascism.

In other words, the government asks, "Is XYZ Enterprises good for our
nation and our people?" If yes, it's approved. If no, it's not
approved. When they ask, "Is it good?", they mean, "Is XYZ Enterprises
good for the workers, do they pay a fair wage, do they produce a
product or provide a service which advances our nation & our people
technologically, morally, spiritually, health-wise, etc???" For
example, a pornography company would not be allowed because
pornography corrupts people generally and exploits & degrades women
particularly. Also, "free" trade agreements (such as what the U.S. has
with China) would never be allowed because such trade agreements
result in companies sending jobs overseas (where labor is dirt cheap).
Such an activity, of course, would undermine a nation's labor class.
This is entirely unnacceptable and thus not allowed under a Fascist
economic model.

Fascism is based on free enterprise - but with constraints (the
primary constraint being, "Is the particular economic activity in
question good for our nation?"). Also, a businessman can become
wealthy in a Fascist country, and the government has no objection to
this (this is in stark contrast to Communism). Fascism also encourages
private ownership of property (again, in stark contrast to Communism
where private property is not allowed).

In a nutshell, Fascism basically tells entrepreneurs, "Go ahead and
start a business, earn a lot of money, be successful, but don't
produce any products or services which damage our nation and our
nation's people... and make sure you treat your workers fair and pay
them a living wage. If you don't do these things, we'll shut you
down."

The above is the economic aspect of Fascism. There is also a
cultural/social aspect to Fascism as well. Under Fascism, government
plays a key role in monitoring: film, theatre, art, literature, music,
education, etc in order to maintain a high moral standard, keep things
clean and respectable, promote a strong sense of patriotism and honor,
and prevent the dissemination of depraved filth which corrupts
society.

A few other things to mention. Fascism encourages respect for the
enviroment as Fascists understand that nature is the giver of life and
thus must be preserved. Contrast this environmental view with that of
Capitalism which too often takes the short term view and foolishly
believes that pollution is a necessary byproduct of profit.

Also, under Fascism, if a person doesn't like things, he/she can leave
the country. Contrast this with Communism where if you don't like
things, you better keep your mouth shut. And, of course, there is no
option to leave the country. You will submit or else be sent to a
re-education camp where you'll be brainwashed to accept the Communist
system. And if you still resist, you'll probably be killed. Again,
there is no leaving. Submit or suffer the consequences.

Lastly, Fascism holds women in very high regard. Women are the
carriers of new life. They are expected to be educated, worldly, and
well read. Women are encouraged to pursue their interests and have a
career but only if a career won't interfere with her family's needs;
family comes first, always. Women are encouraged to be strong yet
feminine.

In Germany, the NSDAP essentially followed the above described Fascist
system.

###

For SERIOUS conservative writing, please visit my website:
http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com

Topaz

unread,

Nov 13, 2012, 8:54:46 PM11/13/12

"the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is
the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated."

"The largest so-called bourgeois mass meetings were accustomed to
dissolve, and those in attendance would run away like rabbits when
frightened by a dog as soon as a dozen communists appeared on the
scene."

"We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeosie
and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions, and our
aims.
"We chose red for our posters after particular and careful
deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to
arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings--if only
to break them up--so that in this way we got a chance of talking to
the people."

"At meetings, particularly outside Munich, we had in those days from
five to eight hundred opponents against fifteen to sixteen National
Socialists; yet we brooked no interference, for we were ready to be
killed rather than capitulate. More than once a handful of party
colleagues offered a heroic resistance to a raging and violent mob of
Reds. Those fifteen or twenty men would certainly have been
overwhelmed in the end had not the opponents known that three or four
times as many of themselves would first get their skulls cracked. And
that was a risk they were not willing to run."

When Hitler marched through the streets with his Storm Troops he
carried a walking stick. The Reds came to oppose them and throw stones
and things, but when it got very bad Hitler would raise the stick.
This was the signal to his men to clear the streets of the Reds. And
soon there was not a Red left to be found.

The Fascists also fought the Reds in the streets while the
Capitalists hid under their beds.

Nickname unavailable

unread,

Nov 13, 2012, 10:11:49 PM11/13/12

On Nov 13, 12:10 am, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:

ROTFLOL!! i only hater crony capitalism, you know, where deregulation
leads to artificial shortages, that jack up the price so bad, people
starve nitwit.

> ========================================
> Why Are We Socialists? Written by Dr. Joseph Goebbels
>

ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!

what a dimwit. that is why corporate profits soared under the nazis,
and wages sunk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Nazism (German: Nationalsozialismus; English long form National
Socialism) was the ideology of the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany.[1][2]
[3][4] It is a variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism
and antisemitism.[5] Nazism used elements of the far-right racist
Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps
paramilitary culture which fought against the communists in post-World
War I Germany.[6] It was designed to draw workers away from communism
and into Völkisch nationalism.[7] Major elements of Nazism have been
described as far-right, such as allowing domination of society by
people deemed racially superior, while purging society of people
declared inferior which were said to be a threat to national survival.
[8][9]
Nazi philosophy claimed that an Aryan master race was superior to all
other races.[10] To maintain what it regarded as the purity and
strength of the Aryan race, the Nazis sought to exterminate Jews and
Romani, and the physically and mentally disabled.[11] Other groups
deemed "degenerate" or "asocial" received exclusionary treatment by
the Nazi state and included homosexuals, blacks, Jehovah's Witnesses
and political opponents.[11] The Nazis promoted German territorial
expansionism to gain Lebensraum ("living space") for German settlers
and to bring labor, food and materials into the nation for growth.[12]
[13]
Nazi Führer Adolf Hitler had objected to the party's previous leader's
decision to use the word "Socialist" in its name as Hitler at the time
instead preferred to use "Social Revolutionary".[14] Upon taking over
the leadership, Hitler kept the term but defined socialism as meaning
a commitment of an individual to a community.[14] Hitler claimed that
true socialism does not repudiate private property unlike the claims
of Marxism, and claimed that the "Marxians have stolen the term and
confused its meaning" and said that "Communism is not socialism.
Marxism is not socialism."[15] Nazism favoured private property,
freedom of contract, and promoted the creation of national solidarity
that would transcend class differences.[16][17] The Nazis outlawed
strikes by employees and lockouts by employers, because these were
regarded a threat to national unity.[18] Instead, the state controlled
and approved wage and salary levels.[18]

>
> Planet Visitor II

in case you didn't know dimwit, night of the long knives purged any
lefties out of the nazi party. of course i have shown this to you
before, yet you cling to your stupidity.

Planet Visitor II

unread,

Nov 14, 2012, 8:49:27 PM11/14/12

Capitalism is exactly what Hitler and HIS cronies hated. I'm happy to
see you agree with Hitler... which was exactly the point I was making.
In fact the Nazis made the same arguments against capitalism that
you now gush out in admiration of their agenda.

There is absolutely no question about the proven fact that if you
hate capitalism, you are in direct agreement with the Nazis vis a vis
their hate for capitalism.

>> ========================================
>> Why Are We Socialists? Written by Dr. Joseph Goebbels
>>
>
>
> ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!

You're now laughing at socialism??? Can you make up your scatological
mind?

> what a dimwit. that is why corporate profits soared under the nazis,
>and wages sunk.

Actually the last sentence in the article you've given is the exact
ideology of socialism. "State controlled and approved wage and
salary levels." Certainly you can't dare claim that capitalism is
an economic theory that supports state controlled and approved
wage and salary levels." That would defeat the entire purpose
of capitalism, which stands in favor of PRIVATE ownership, and
socialism, which stands in favor of PUBLIC ownership. Capitalism
wants the state to butt out in any interference such as wage
or price controls. See --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Quote -- "Free-market capitalism refers to an economic system where
prices for goods and services are set freely by the forces of supply and
demand and are allowed to reach their point of equilibrium without
intervention by government policy."

I suspect you have little or no understanding of either socialism or
capitalism, and just enjoy spewing out agreement with Nazi doctrine,
as shown by the examples of the public statements of leading Nazis.

Thank you for showing just how strong the connection is between Nazi
ideology and socialism.

>>
>> Planet Visitor II
>
> in case you didn't know dimwit, night of the long knives purged any
>lefties out of the nazi party. of course i have shown this to you
>before, yet you cling to your stupidity.

While I am sickened by your arguments, I am a bit surprised by the
candor you show in your vivid agreement with the strong-arm tactics
of socialism as expressed by the action of the Nazis.

Planet Visitor II

BeamMeUpScotty

unread,

Nov 14, 2012, 8:58:42 PM11/14/12

Crystal Nacht was a NAZI night of broken glass, where they attacked all
the Jew businesses and homes and I believe that they burned Synagogues also.

It was intimidation, and violence to strike fear into helpless unarmed
people by agents of the GOVERNMENT.

BeamMeUpScotty

unread,

Nov 14, 2012, 9:05:16 PM11/14/12

And the night of the long knives killed anyone that was against Hitler
controlling the Socialists or a threat to HITLERS power. It was a
simple consolidation of power by knocking off all the COMPETITION NOT
any Right Wing enemies. There were NO Right-wingers that were competing
with Hitler for control of the Socialist Nazi Party.

0 new messages