|
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. Adolph Hitler
As a kid, I was always taught (in school, mind you) that Hitler was some kind of right-winger, a "facist" -- if he was an American, he'd be a Republican. I cannot recall anyone ever explaining why this should be so, but I also remember this not making any sense as far as my tiny mind could reason about it. I mean, after all, he was from the National Socialist Party, right? How would that make him not a socialist? His religion was an occultic sect which was a lot closer to the New Age movement (which is full of socialists and greens) than something like Christianity. (And, in fact, quite a few clergy went to jail.) He exerted state control over industry. And his eugenics was based on Darwinism and the lastest "science" of the times, also embraced by people who are currently viewed as leftists, like Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. I failed to understand how any of this made Hitler anything but a socialist. John Jay Ray, author of Dissecting Leftism weighs in to the same effect, with his eye-opening paper "Hitler was a Socialist". If the question interests you, it's worth a read or bookmark. It contains countless examples of Hitler's policies which, if one is considering the question as one reads, demonstrate how close Hitler's own views and policies were to those embraced by contemporary leftists. A few highlights... General OutlookEd Feser:
Economic Redistributionsocialism - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods Miriam-Webster Dictionary
Policy manifesto written by Adolph Hitler, 1925:
State Economic ControlLeonard Peikoff: Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property -- so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property. Adolph Hitler, 1931: What matters is to emphasize the fundamental idea in my party's economic program clearly -- the idea of authority. I want the authority; I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the priniciple: benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual. But the state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (How is this different than any other non-Marxist socialist government?) John Ray: He championed the rights of workers, regarded capitalist society as brutal and unjust, and sought a third way between communism and the free market. In this regard, he and his associates greatly admired the strong steps taken by President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal to take large-scale economic decision-making out of private hands and put it into those of government planning agencies. His aim was to institute a brand of socialism that avoided the inefficiencies that plagued the Soviet variety, and many former communists found his program highly congenial. And: And while Hitler did not nationalize all industry, there was extensive compulsory reorganization of it and tight party control over it. It might be noted that even in the post-war Communist bloc there was never total nationalization of industry. In fact, in Poland, most agriculture always remained in private hands. And: This policy is broadly similar to the once much acclaimed Swedish model of socialism in more recent times, so it is amusing that it has often been this policy which has underpinned the common claim that Hitler was Rightist. What is Leftist in Sweden was apparently Rightist in Hitler! EnvironmentalismAndrew Bolt, emphases mine:
Gun ControlJohn Ray:
NationalismHitler's party was the National Socialist Party -- its aim was to be (unsuprisingly) both national and socialist. Some claim is that since Hitler was a nationalist (patriot), he couldn't possibly be a socialist. This is amusing, given the recent effort in the US of many of our left-leaning citizens to earnestly assert the opposite: That leftism is not unpatriotic. Ray:
And:
AlliancesRay, on support from German labor unions:
On opposition from conservatives:
Update: Further ReadingSince I wrote this six months ago, I've discovered a number of good resources for similar information. There's Dr. John Ray's "Hitler was a Lefist" website, broken down into different areas, and also an interesting book review by Anthony Flew of George Waton's "The Lost Works of Socialism". In particular, Flew writes:
Also see John Ray's new website "Marx Words" where he posts the translated versions of some of Marx's and Engel's words, demonstrating the eerie similarity between the views of Socialism's founders and those of Adolph Hitler. Also see another article of mine, "Myth: Hitler was a Leftist", where I decontruct a leftist's argument that Hitler had nothing to do with socialism. (His basic approach is to claim there has never been any such thing as socialism. Sure, but that's because it doesn't work, not because it wasn't tried.) Great refutation! Posted by: Tim on June 18, 2004 04:00 AM Thoughtful and well-researched, just the way I like it. Thanks for bringing this article to light! Posted by: mike on June 18, 2004 12:06 PM "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. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
Posted by: libertarianlove on January 7, 2005 09:18 PM Hitler also said "the whole of national socialism is based on Marx." This quote can be searched for and verified in many sources on the internet. He made plans for a network of communes based on land taken in the Ukraine, which would be the national socialist utopia. Posted by: John S Bolton on January 10, 2005 02:48 AM Hmmm. We could use you at www.jihadwatch.org to refute a liberal who would have everyone believe exactly the opposite. I always wondered why Robert Borke (sp?) made the statement that the nazis were liberals, and now I have a much better understanding of it. Thanks! Posted by: Gary on January 11, 2005 03:08 PM this is such an important message that should be available to more, it is something you don't enough of, thank you Posted by: yukoncornileus on January 12, 2005 03:17 PM Some quotes from the left would help reinforce the case that there is no qualitive difference between Marxism and Nazism: eg. "In January 1849, months before he migrated to London, Karl Marx published an article by Friedrich Engels in Die Neue Rheinische Zeitung announcing that in Central Europe only Germans, Hungarians and Poles counted as bearers of progress. The rest must go. "The chief mission of all other races and peoples, large and small, is to perish in the revolutionary holocaust." Posted by: JohnM on May 24, 2005 08:13 AM Good quote, John. The current bunch of "liberals" has been kept utterly ignorant of how their movement and party previously supported eugenics, slavery, racism, etc. Two words: "Social darwinism." Wasn't an idea that came from the bible, that's for sure. Dr. John Ray is working with someone who is translating many of Marx's letters from German to English, and is showing more of the kinds of quotes you mention here, over at MarxWords. There are all kinds of quotes showing that Marx (and friends) believed in a master race, the supreme role of Germany, and it's need to control the same regions Hitler annexed, his disgust towards blacks and Jews. For example, here's a recent entry, showing Marx spoiling for a race war between Germany and the rest of Europe, and here's another example where Marx says we need to "emancipate" the world from the "Jewery" -- a belief Hitler obviously shared. All very appropriate leftist thinking. Posted by: Tim (Random Observations) on May 24, 2005 01:09 PM The current bunch of "liberals" has been kept utterly ignorant of how their movement and party previously supported eugenics, slavery, racism, etc. Tim, aren't you the Archie of "All in the family", exposing the 'Meatheads' of the world :) Meathead: Wait a second, Arch. Are you saying that Nixon rules because of divine right? :D Posted by: Imran Aziz on May 24, 2005 03:41 PM Imran, Remember how I recently said liberals often skip the step where they address whether something is actually true, and move directly into the name-calling and ad hominem arguments? Sadly, your comment seems to follow that playbook pretty well. (Or is likening someone to a racist mysogynistic sexist jerk something you normally do as a friendly conversation starter?) To address the point: I think it's a reasonable statement. I was never told about Hitler's socialist leanings, nor about the American eugenics movement, nor the tight alliance between the Democratic party and the KKK -- and I certainly wasn't atypical of my generation. What I see daily seems to indicate that trend has only worsened. For example, just recently ABC News wrote:
That's backwards: Democrats opposed and filibustered civil rights legislation, not Republicans. Undoubtedly that reporter believed it, and undoubtedly many or most readers would too. And here's another recent one, from the Congressional Black Caucus:
Again, completely backwards: The filibusters referenced here were done (by Democrats) to prevent giving blacks rights, not as an aid to that cause. (For example, the NAACP has traditionally opposed filibusters for this very reason.) And, again, many people will read such statements and believe them. (Ironically, this would-be 'unbiased' article is titled, evenhandedly: "Bush, GOP seek to reinvent reality." That's a common liberal trick: accuse your opponents of a crime (rewriting history, in this case) while doing the exact thing you're accusing them of.) It was these and other such things I'd read, as well as similar statements I'd heard from liberal friends this week that I had in mind when I wrote that statement. I consider rewriting history despicable, like burning down a library of rare books. I see such statements, like the one you quote, as standing there, pointing at the flames, saying: "Look what they're doing to our collective understanding." You come across -- being charitable -- as saying: "Gosh, you sound a bit excited. Isn't that allegation a bit extreme?" (In reality, you're comparing me to a racist, but we'll let that go.) Earth to Imran: Democracy depends upon the character and understanding of the voters to work. And if the charge is extreme, then I why do I even have to write articles like the one above? And why do you think the Nazis created and taught a mythical past, anyway? Were they just fun, imaginative folks? No: by teaching people a historical myth, you cut people off from the actual lessons of history, and provide a framework for justifying bad behavior. A radical reworking of history has preceded some of the worst times of abuses we've witnessed. You, apparently, just think it's just a bit over the top to complain about it while it's actually happening. Sorry, I have little sense of humor about lies and slander passed off as history. There's not much I can do about it, Imran, except speak out and hope someone thinks about it. Sorry if that seems a bit uncool to you. Posted by: Tim (Random Observations) on May 25, 2005 12:16 AM Sorry if that seems a bit uncool to you. Posted by: Imran Aziz on May 25, 2005 11:21 AM Dude, have you ever even taken a 100-level political science class, or read a basic (i.e. encyclopaedia-article-length) history of the Third Reich? Seriously, now. Posted by: Pinktrees on September 8, 2005 11:37 AM Hitler was not a leftist, If you look at the sorts of people who supported him,, you can not sday that, The fact is he was supported by big buisness by milliopns of pounds worth of funds, He was supported in massive ways, the other fact is that Hindenbrurg did not oppose him becoming leaders, this was amazing, as when you cionsider he felt it was omk to cl;ose the prussian socialist government in teh 1930s, you could say well he stood up to what he was agaionst but he did not in teh end to hitler, also Hitler was upported essentially by the middle classes, and Proestatnts, they were the time, also he supported franco, in teh civil war, a man who openly stated as often as possible he hated teh left, also hitler stated he hated blum, the leader sof teh frenmch socialists, that he loved teh british empire, that he hated communism, he ran his election campiagn on hatred of teh Bolsheviks, claioming teh Bolsheviks, were jews, teh only reaosn why he hated capitalism,was as he was so right wing he wanted an even more horrible ruthless system, which unlike socialism, and capitaislm, wdid not give other grousp any chance what so ever as he would kil them, he also supported teh freikrops, a far right group of pro-kaiser people, he also had aristocrats in his cabinet, he also called his nation teh reich, not a republic, but a reichm, like teh secong empire, of germany in 1870, and first empire that was ended in 1806, he also was supported by the aristocrat von papen, he also was [pals,. with edward the eight, he was a lover of the catholic chucrh, for it's ddictatorial tradtions,. the reason stralin made a pact with him in 1940, is as right wingers like you in britaion and france, were syaing yes germany, is moving against outr intrests but we must not ally with the USSR whatever, evenm though they did not mind allying with Tsarist Russia, in world war one, a state that treated it's people far worse than the ussr, the attituide of stalin,. was, if britain and france want the germans, to gobble us up, then we will not help mthem, and insteaqd, of us making a deal with teh societs, the germ,ans, invaded poland, then as of that britain and france, and then invaded teh ussr, in wars i killing around 42million people, there is no doubt that hitlwer was ar ightist, peter hitchen, often makes statem,ents that are word for word likle us, if you say hitler was not a rightist, you can say that of anybody, wanting to chuck out foreign races, is a classic right wing policy in every land, from arnie in california, opposing mexican immigration, too the manifesto of every tory campaign from 1900, onwards, when it opposed jews, too iraqid coming to britain, hitler was a rightist, who opposed equality, teh main priciple of teh left, he opposed equality sio much he wanted to kill everybody not like him, and when leftists said they wanted equality, he then criotised it, as he feklt it would make weverybodty the same, which it woul;d not have done, asleftists want freedom, andn ijn divisdualism Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 27, 2005 08:58 AM arnold schwarzanigger's "liberal" republican paerty passed an act in 1900s, california, to sterilise certain groups, in california, the lutheran church in norway sterilised gypsies, Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 27, 2005 09:01 AM far right vriginian rightists also sterilised people in teh 1900s, when they were rightists, and felt the dems, in the North were communists, the finnish far rioght sterilised finns, in teh 1930s Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 27, 2005 09:03 AM Dude, have you ever even taken a 100-level political science class... Higher than that. And I grew up in a house with probably the largest collection of books about the third reich that you'd ever seen. (Dad seriously loved reading about history, especially the events that shaped his wartime youth.) Everything I'm saying here is well-documented historically. But so what? We argue from the evidence before us. I've already admitted my argument goes against the flow. If you're the kind of person who mindlessly follows it, then contradictory evidence isn't going to have any traction on your brain. So fine: believe that everything you're told in a University is true, and don't bother looking at the evidence yourself. That's your right. It's not just not an approach I'd recommend. Posted by: Tim (Random Observations) on November 28, 2005 11:07 AM Man, this was the funniest thing I have read in a long time. By the same token, the People's Republic of China must be a republic and the former East Germany a democracy. "All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth." Posted by: Friedrich Nietzsche on March 15, 2006 05:22 PM I really shouldn't have to point this out, Mr. Nietzsche, but Tim's argument doesn't rest solely on the fact that the S in NSDAP stands for Socialist. Do try to read the entire entry next time, OK? Posted by: Varenius on March 15, 2006 07:11 PM By the way, for anyone who disputes Tim on this: Take one step back historically and investigate the background and ideas of the Italian Fascists, who were after all the original architects of the ideology. You'll find that they were largely former Communists who developed Fascism after concluding that the Leninist approach to socialism was flawed, and that their new syndicalist approach was the way to make it viable. Posted by: Varenius on March 15, 2006 07:24 PM Wow the comments you got on this piece sure had a lot of spelling errors. I'm thinking maybe ignorant foreigners from mostly leftist European countries suffering from a symptom of third or fourth hand Marxism, namely the delusion that all big business is right of center at the least or, even more laughably, laissez faire in economics Posted by: Chase Bradstreet on March 15, 2006 09:04 PM ... the delusion that all big business is right of center at the least or, even more laughably, laissez faire in economics Great point Chase. Many businesses love welfare, when they can get it, every bit as much as most individuals. What better than to have government shut down competition for you, or mandate that everyone buys your service? Posted by: Tim (Random Observations) on March 17, 2006 01:39 PM Add your two cents...
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once. |
moron
Posted by: on June 6, 2004 04:53 PM