Communism, Socialism and the 2A

[wooderson]

I see, amusedly, that this 'Progressives Were Fascists, No Really' stuff pretty much has its genesis in that Jonah Goldberg book where everyone to the left of Ronald Reagan was a Stalinist, or a Nazi, or both, and that all good in mankind's history was thanks to hard-working conservatives.

Good to know.

[De Selby]

I see, amusedly, that this 'Progressives Were Fascists, No Really' stuff pretty much has its genesis in that Jonah Goldberg book where everyone to the left of Ronald Reagan was a Stalinist, or a Nazi, or both, and that all good in mankind's history was thanks to hard-working conservatives.

Good to know.

Jonah Goldberg-one of the dumbest people in journalism.  Not surprised.

[Scout26]

Wooderson, did you even read the article   How about any of the writings of Hitler and his minions ??
 

Far from being victims of Nazism, Aly argues, the majority of Germans were indirect war profiteers. Requisitioned Jewish property, resources stolen from the conquered, and punitive taxes levied on local businesses insulated citizens from shortages and allowed the regime to create a racist-totalitarian welfare state. The German home front, Aly claims, suffered less privation than its English and American counterparts. To understand Hitlers popularity, Aly proposes, it is necessary to focus on the socialist aspect of National Socialism.

While underemphasized by modern historians, this socialism was stressed in many contemporaneous accounts of fascism, especially by libertarian thinkers. F.A. Hayek famously dedicated The Road to Serfdom to the socialists of all partiesthat is, Labourites, Bolsheviks, and National Socialists. It was the union of the anti-capitalist forces of the right and the left, the fusion of radical and conservative socialism, Hayek wrote, which drove out from Germany everything that was liberal. Ludwig von Mises agreed, arguing in 1944 that both Russia and Germany are right in calling their systems socialist.

The Nazis themselves regarded the left-right convergence as integral to understanding fascism. Adolf Eichmann viewed National Socialism and communism as quasi-siblings, explaining in his memoirs that he inclined towards the left and emphasized socialist aspects every bit as much as nationalist ones. As late as 1944, Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels publicly celebrated our socialism, reminding his war-weary subjects that Germany alone [has] the best social welfare measures. Contrast this, he advised, with the Jews, who were the very incarnation of capitalism.

Using a farrago of previously unpublished statistics, Aly describes in detail a social system larded with benefits open only to Aryan comrades, naturally. To achieve a truly socialist division of personal assets, he writes, Hitler implemented a variety of interventionist economic policies, including price and rent controls, exorbitant corporate taxes, frequent polemics against landlords, subsidies to German farmers as protection against the vagaries of weather and the world market, and harsh taxes on capital gains, which Hitler himself had denounced as effortless income.

Aly demonstrates convincingly that Nazi domestic policies were remarkably friendly toward the German lower classes, soaking the wealthy and redistributing the burdens of wartime. And with fresh memories of Weimer inflation, transferring the tax burden to corporations earned the leadership in Berlin considerable political capital, as the government keenly registered.

For instance, at the outset of war Nazi economists established a wartime tax of 50 percent on all wages that applied only to the wealthiest Germans. In the end, Aly writes, only 4 percent of the population paid the full 50 percent surcharge. In occupied Holland, administrators dramatically raised taxes to fund an anti-Bolshevik campaign, while some Dutch companies paid upward of 112 percent of profits in tax.

[Iain]

By no means perfect, but near enough for discussions and illustrations sake - http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2



Of course they seem to rate almost everyone as being a bit authoritarian


Bigger than I thought.

Now, the purpose of my previous comment is that there is a tendency in some to deny that a libertarian/lefty or a authoritarian/righty can exist. Others deny that a libertarian/righty or an authoritarian/lefty can exist (I don't mean those whole squares in the diagram above, more the areas towards each corner).

It's all just elaborate Godwinning - you lot are the Nazis. In reality a left/right political centrist like me is the one that should be most careful of the slide to authoritarianism - it's those beasts that can justify the most, appeal to the many.

[wooderson]

Scout, did you miss the part where I said that Hitler wasn't a 'capitalist' in the sense that libertarians would choose or Americans can understand or relate to?

All your excerpt argues is that "Hitler was a socialist, cuz he wasn't our particular brand of capitalist." No mention of widespread support among the industrial class, breaking labor unions, depriving workers of what power they might have held. No mention of the privatization of resources and industries the Weimar Republic had nationalized. Certainly no mention of Hitler's belief that Bolshevism was a Jewish plot. Not a moment spent on trying to argue the Marxist roots of any of those policies (a 'welfare state' is not 'socialism' - it is a 'welfare state').

All we see is a desire to separate one's ideology from 'pure evil' - and if at all possible, assign it to the other side.

It is more useful to simply regard Nazism and Stalinism (etc.) as outside the political spectrum. Quit trying to use either one to attack one's opponents unless there is a clear and undeniable connection between the two.

[CAnnoneer]

Quit trying to use either one to attack one's opponents unless there is a clear and undeniable connection between the two.

Ironically, you are doing the same thing you criticize others for. Because you like socialism, you are trying to redefine what nazism and stalinism were, so people cannot attack your stance by association. Just like in the abortion issue, you are essentially playing Clintonian semantics games here as well. You have to understand that while there were differences between the two (e.g. nazism allowing pseudocapitalist economy), they were both versions of socialism.

[Paddy]

You know, I was about to write a long explanation of how and why fascism and socialism differ. How they are, in fact, opposite forms of oppression.  How Benito Mussolini, who coined the term 'fascismo', eschewed and derided socialism when he said things like "Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail" and "The Liberal State is a mask behind which there is no face; it is a scaffolding behind which there is no building" and "Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere."

He further explained what fascism is when he said things like "The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organization of production is a function of national concern, the organizer of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production."  He means a ruling state corporate structure, like what's happening here in the U.S.  IOW, we're rapidly moving to a corporatist state, where a small group of wealthy elites run government, which has ceased to be representative.  We no longer live in a democracy.

But I realized that any in depth, open minded examination of fascism v socialism is beyond the abilities of most Rush/Hannity/Bush apologists who see everything in a simple left/right framework.  Thus they're totally unable to grasp the concept of corporate run state tyranny.

So I'll just pass.  I don't have the time and besides I just had a really nice myofascial release session and don't need the buzzkill.

[Iain]

You have to understand that while there were differences between the two (e.g. nazism allowing pseudocapitalist economy), they were both versions of socialism.

He doesn't have to accept anything of the sort. From a couple of quick google searches I see that Nazi=socialist has become something of an article of faith.

Doesn't mean its right. Doesn't mean it grasps the full complexity of the situation. Doesn't mean you and others aren't just Godwinning and trying to deny an association that Wooderson ("It is more useful to simply regard Nazism and Stalinism (etc.) as outside the political spectrum") and others are explicitly not trying to lay at right-wingers doors.

From my recollections there is much dispute regarding pinning down what National Socialism is. As I alluded to above, for many it seemed to be about expediency, a route to power. Something like that was supposedly said about Goering pre-trial (and pre-suicide) - that he was the type of man who would have done anything at any time in order to gain power and influence, utterly amoral.

And on a separate issue and aimed at a separate poster - did we see the left/right - authoritarian/libertarian axis and the position it placed the present British prime minister? Funny how far apart it placed him from Stalin and Hitler, in fact it put him well into the right wing and less authoritarian than Bush. Fascinating.

[wooderson]

Ironically, you are doing the same thing you criticize others for.

No, I'm not. I am explicitly not laying Nazism at the foot of either capitalism or American conservatism or any other mainstream (or quasi-mainstream) ideology.
Stalinism and Nazism existed beyond ideology as we know it. There were dueling elements of nationalist pride (Stalin being rather fond of the strongest Tsars, playing them up for popular consumption) and desire on the part of one individual for absolute power that are difficult to understand. Even compared to other authoritarian regimes, be they Mao or Franco or Pinochet or apartheid South Africa - the level of megalomania involved is remarkable.

It is ironic, however, that you try to accuse me of altering the definitions to suit - when it is actually your argument that is outside the mainstream.

You have to understand that while there were differences between the two (e.g. nazism allowing pseudocapitalist economy), they were both versions of socialism

They were different, but the same. Uh, ok...

The basic fallacy here is that you're going to look at the 'capitalist' economy of Nazi Germany (in terms of private ownership and profit-making - not a laissez-faire situation, but they never actually exist) and decide that it's really 'pseudocapitalist' because they were like, totally, closet socialists man. Why? Just because, man. Like, it says socialist in their name, man.

[CAnnoneer]

It is ironic, however, that you try to accuse me of altering the definitions to suit - when it is actually your argument that is outside the mainstream.

Mainstream of what? The leftist propaganda in school or your own bizarre definitions?

Maybe we need to go back to the basics and look at definitions that normal people use:

Main Entry: so?cial?ism 
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Stalinism satisfies 1, 2b, 3. Nazism satisfies 1, 2b. Ergo, both are versions of socialism.

You have to decouple characteristics as in a linear orthogonal decomposition in linear algebra. Nazism was ultranationalist but stalinism was internationalist. Both were totalitarian. Both used forced resettlements. Both used slave labor camps as political tools. Nazism made use of private ownership and private corporations but subjugated them to central planning and also added slave labor. Stalinism did not use corporations, at least not internal ones, but also used central planning and slave labor. Both were socialist.

Looking at the above, they were quite more similar than dissimilar. Also, saying that both existed in some 9th dimension outside whatever you call normal is poorly defined and thus meaningless.

[K Frame]

I think I'll just kill this one off before it gets out of hand, as it's showing distinct trends towards... impoliteness.

I'll just say I'm avoiding the Christmas rush.