fishweewee

A history lesson for those who would smear the moderate Right: the Nazis were socialists

Rate this topic

13 posts in this topic

A more recent article from across the pond.

 

From The Telegraph (UK)

 

A history lesson for those who would smear the moderate Right: the Nazis were socialists

 

24 SEPTEMBER 2018 • 12:34PM

NORMAN TEBBIT

 

The New Statesman magazine has become rather unsettled in recent weeks about what it describes, on the front page on September 14, as "the far Right wing rising again", and "the return of fascism".

 

Those headlines were printed across the cover picture of a huge Nazi rally of steel helmeted men. There was not much inside to back up the scary front cover.

 

Indeed, inside the cover story had the headline "The Dark European Stain" but the author, Thomas Meany, seemed to pour cold water over it all.

 

I think that perhaps seeking a diversion from the stench of anti-Semitism and sympathy for IRA/Sinn Fein which hangs around the Labour leadership, the New Statesman was at its old game of claiming that both Hitler's National Socialist German Workers Party and Mussolini's Fascists were extreme Right wing parties. That despite the very word 'socialist' used by Hitler to describe his own party and the Fascists, whose collectivist values were signalled by the choice of the bundle of sticks, the "fasces", which could not be broken so long as they remained bound together.

 

Here in Britain fascism has never enjoyed much support. Its most prominent proponent was Oswald Mosley, who started out in the late 1920s as a Conservative but defected to Labour and held high office in the Cabinet of the Labour Government of 1931. He resigned to form first The New Party and later the British Union of Fascists before being interned as a Nazi supporter in 1940.

 

It is either delusional or deceitful to call the Nazi or Fascist parties "Right wing".

 

There could hardly be any more clear example of the tin containing exactly what is said on the label than Hitler's Nazis, the National Socialist German Workers Party, nor Mussolini's collectivist Fascists. They were the Left-wing of politics on the European mainland. And they both proudly wore the racist badge of anti-Semitism.

 

Here in Britain it was very different. Our democratic Left had grown out of the non-conformist Christian values of the Welsh valleys and the self-help activism of the Rochdale Pioneers, which coalesced to form the Labour Party. Later, led by Attlee and Bevin, Labour became a bulwark of the wartime coalition led by Churchill.

 

As the Coalition broke up at the end of the Second World War, Attlee won the 1945 general election. That Labour Government did not only found that lasting institution of post war Britain, the NHS. It led the moves to create Nato, embarked on the rebuilding of our armed forces and the creation of our independent nuclear weapons as Stalin's communist regime threatened the West with nuclear war.

 

The political struggle in the United Kingdom today is not between an authoritarian far Right and a democratic Labour Party of the kind led by Attlee and Wilson. It is a struggle between a moderate (though sadly muddled) Conservative Party and an increasingly extreme Left-wing Labour Party. The latter is determined to follow economic policies which have failed wherever they have been imposed and which even China has abandoned in order to bring prosperity to its people.

 

Talk of an extreme political Right here is wild exaggeration and ridiculous misunderstanding of the kind seen in the murder of the perfectly decent Labour MP Jo Cox. Her assailant, Alexander Mair, had a history of mental health problems, was obsessed with Nazi regalia and books, and information about foreign white supremacists. There was nothing to link him with those of us on the Right of British politics who seek a less intrusive state, lower taxation and personal freedom.

 

That is well illustrated elsewhere in The New Statesman of September 7, in which Jason Cowley makes a bold effort to give shadow chancellor John McDonnell a blue rinse. In the past McDonnell has said that the "most significant intellectual" influences on him were the "fundamental Marxist writers of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky".  And he was a supporter and good friend to the IRA/SinnFein terrorists, saying: "It was the bombs and sacrifices made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table," and "the peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA".

 

In fact as all the rest of us know, it was the cowardice of Martin McGuiness who – knowing that the IRA was on the verge of a military defeat that would have brought him to justice – chose to save his skin by means of the Good Friday Agreement.

 

The hard-Left Marxists who now own the Labour Party have been all too successful in smearing those of us on the moderate Right as extremists. The true face of the hard Left was on display in the contemptible screaming mob outside the home of Jacob Rees-Mogg.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/03/13/leftists_become_incandescent_when_reminded_of_the_socialist_roots_in_nazism_121913.html

 

Leftists Become Incandescent When Reminded of the Socialist Roots in Nazism

 

By Daniel Hannan


March 13, 2014


On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver "der echte Sozialismus": real socialism.

 

Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it would operate within the unit of the Volk.

 

So total is the cultural victory of the modern Left that the merely to recount this fact is jarring. But few at the time would have found it especially contentious. As George Watson put it in The Lost Literature of Socialism:


It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.

 

The clue is in the name. Subsequent generations of Leftists have tried to explain away the awkward nomenclature of the National Socialist German Workers' Party as either a cynical PR stunt or an embarrassing coincidence. In fact, the name meant what it said.

 

Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun," he boasted, adding that "the whole of National Socialism" was "based on Marx".

 

Marx's error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity - to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order. His aim, he told his economic adviser, Otto Wagener, was to "convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists" - by which he meant the bankers and factory owners who could, he thought, serve socialism better by generating revenue for the state. "What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish," he told Wagener, "we shall be in a position to achieve."

 

Leftist readers may by now be seething.   Whenever I touch on this subject, it elicits an almost berserk reaction from people who think of themselves as progressives and see anti-fascism as part of their ideology. Well, chaps, maybe now you know how we conservatives feel when you loosely associate Nazism with "the Right".

 

To be absolutely clear, I don't believe that modern Leftists have subliminal Nazi leanings, or that their loathing of Hitler is in any way feigned. That's not my argument. What I want to do, by holding up the mirror, is to take on the equally false idea that there is an ideological continuum between free-marketers and fascists.

 

The idea that Nazism is a more extreme form of conservatism has insinuated its way into popular culture. You hear it, not only when spotty students yell "fascist" at Tories, but when pundits talk of revolutionary anti-capitalist parties, such as the BNP and Golden Dawn, as "far Right".

 

What is it based on, this connection? Little beyond a jejune sense that Left-wing means compassionate and Right-wing means nasty and fascists are nasty. When written down like that, the notion sounds idiotic, but think of the groups around the world that the BBC, for example, calls "Right-wing": the Taliban, who want communal ownership of goods; the Iranian revolutionaries, who abolished the monarchy, seized industries and destroyed the middle class; Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who pined for Stalinism. The "Nazis-were-far-Right" shtick is a symptom of the wider notion that "Right-wing" is a synonym for "baddie".

 

One of my constituents once complained to the Beeb about a report on the repression of Mexico's indigenous peoples, in which the government was labelled Right-wing. The governing party, he pointed out, was a member of the Socialist International and, again, the give-away was in its name: Institutional Revolutionary Party. The BBC's response was priceless. Yes, it accepted that the party was socialist, "but what our correspondent was trying to get across was that it is authoritarian".

 

In fact, authoritarianism was the common feature of socialists of both National and Leninist varieties, who rushed to stick each other in prison camps or before firing squads. Each faction loathed the other as heretical, but both scorned free-market individualists as beyond redemption. Their battle was all the fiercer, as Hayek pointed out in 1944, because it was a battle between brothers.

 

Authoritarianism - or, to give it a less loaded name, the belief that state compulsion is justified in pursuit of a higher goal, such as scientific progress or greater equality - was traditionally a characteristic of the social democrats as much as of the revolutionaries.

 

Jonah Goldberg has chronicled the phenomenon at length in his magnum opus, Liberal Fascism. Lots of people take offence at his title, evidently without reading the book since, in the first few pages, Jonah reveals that the phrase is not his own. He is quoting that impeccable progressive H.G. Wells who, in 1932, told the Young Liberals that they must become "liberal fascists" and "enlightened Nazis".

 

In those days, most prominent Leftists intellectuals, including Wells, Jack London, Havelock Ellis and the Webbs, tended to favour eugenics, convinced that only religious hang-ups were holding back the development of a healthier species. The unapologetic way in which they spelt out the consequences have, like Hitler's actual words, been largely edited from our discourse. Here, for example, is George Bernard Shaw in 1933:

 

Extermination must be put on a scientific basis if it is ever to be carried out humanely and apologetically as well as thoroughly... If we desire a certain type of civilisation and culture we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it.

 

Eugenics, of course, topples easily into racism. Engels himself wrote of the "racial trash" - the groups who would necessarily be supplanted as scientific socialism came into its own. Season this outlook with a sprinkling of anti-capitalism and you often got Leftist anti-Semitism - something else we have edited from our memory, but which once went without saying. "How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-Semite?" Hitler had asked his party members in 1920.

 

Are contemporary Leftist critics of Israel secretly anti-Semitic? No, not in the vast majority of cases. Are modern socialists inwardly yearning to put global warming sceptics in prison camps? Nope. Do Keynesians want the whole apparatus of corporatism, expressed by Mussolini as "everything in the state, nothing outside the state"? Again, no. There are idiots who discredit every cause, of course, but most people on the Left are sincere in their stated commitment to human rights, personal dignity and pluralism.

 

My beef with many (not all) Leftists is a simpler one. By refusing to return the compliment, by assuming a moral superiority, they make political dialogue almost impossible. Using the soubriquet "Right-wing" to mean "something undesirable" is a small but important example.

 

Next time you hear Leftists use the word fascist as a general insult, gently point out the difference between what they like to imagine the NSDAP stood for and what it actually proclaimed. 

Edited by fishweewee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marxism as interpreted by the Russkies was inspired by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
 

Both were German thinkers.

 

Hitler wanted a less bolshevik version of socialism and created his own brand of German socialism.

 

Readers of Mein Kampf will see this partly as a treatise on his vision of German Socialism.

 

Eugenics and mass-murder were weaved into National Socialism and were inspired by Hitler's so-called PROGRESSIVE literary comtemporaries.  

 

 

Edited by fishweewee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Independent UK

 

Hitler and the socialist dream


He declared that 'national socialism was based on Marx' Socialists have always disowned him. But a new book insists that he was, at heart, a left-winger


George Watson
Sunday 22 November 1998

 

In April 1945, when Adolf Hitler died by his own hand in the rubble of Berlin, nobody was much interested in what he had once believed. That was to be expected. War is no time for reflection, and what Hitler had done was so shattering, and so widely known through images of naked bodies piled high in mass graves, that little or no attention could readily be paid to National Socialism as an idea. It was hard to think of it as an idea at all. Hitler, who had once looked a crank or a clown, was exposed as the leader of a gang of thugs, and the world was content to know no more than that.

 

Half a century on, there is much to be said. Even thuggery can have its reasons, and the materials that have newly appeared, though they may not transform judgement, undoubtedly enrich and deepen it. Confidants of Hitler. such as the late Albert Speer, have published their reminiscences; his wartime table-talk is a book; early revelations like Hermann Rauschning's Hitler Speaks of 1939 have been validated by painstaking research, and the notes of dead Nazis like Otto Wagener have been edited, along with a full text of Goebbels's diary.

 

It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not hypocritical. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself. In public Hitler was always anti-Marxist, and in an age in which the Soviet Union was the only socialist state on earth, and with anti-Bolshevism a large part of his popular appeal, he may have been understandably reluctant to speak openly of his sources. His megalomania, in any case, would have prevented him from calling himself anyone's disciple. That led to an odd and paradoxical alliance between modern historians and the mind of a dead dictator. Many recent analysts have fastidiously refused to study the mind of Hitler; and they accept, as unquestioningly as many Nazis did in the 1930s, the slogan "Crusade against Marxism" as a summary of his views. An age in which fascism has become a term of abuse is unlikely to analyse it profoundly.

 

His private conversations, however, though they do not overturn his reputation as an anti-Communist, qualify it heavily. Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. "I have learned a great deal from Marxism" he once remarked, "as I do not hesitate to admit". He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that "they had never even read Marx", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history! His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on Marx.

 

That is a devastating remark and it is blunter than anything in his speeches or in Mein Kampf.; though even in the autobiography he observes that his own doctrine was fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason that it recognised the significance of race - implying, perhaps, that it might otherwise easily look like a derivative. Without race, he went on, National Socialism "would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground". Marxism was internationalist. The proletariat, as the famous slogan goes, has no fatherland. Hitler had a fatherland, and it was everything to him.

 

Yet privately, and perhaps even publicly, he conceded that National Socialism was based on Marx. On reflection, it makes consistent sense. The basis of a dogma is not the dogma, much as the foundation of a building is not the building, and in numerous ways National Socialism was based on Marxism. It was a theory of history and not, like liberalism or social democracy, a mere agenda of legislative proposals. And it was a theory of human, not just of German, history, a heady vision that claimed to understand the whole past and future of mankind. Hitler's discovery was that socialism could be national as well as international. There could be a national socialism. That is how he reportedly talked to his fellow Nazi Otto Wagener in the early 1930s. The socialism of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed. The state could control, after all, without owning, guided by a single party, the economy could be planned and directed without dispossessing the propertied classes.

 

That realisation was crucial. To dispossess, after all, as the Russian civil war had recently shown, could only mean Germans fighting Germans, and Hitler believed there was a quicker and more efficient route. There could be socialism without civil war.

 

Now that the age of individualism had ended, he told Wagener, the task was to "find and travel the road from individualism to socialism without revolution". Marx and Lenin had seen the right goal, but chosen the wrong route - a long and needlessly painful route - and, in destroying the bourgeois and the kulak, Lenin had turned Russia into a grey mass of undifferentiated humanity, a vast anonymous horde of the dispossessed; they had "averaged downwards"; whereas the National Socialist state would raise living standards higher than capitalism had ever known. It is plain that Hitler and his associates meant their claim to socialism to be taken seriously; they took it seriously themselves.

 

For half a century, none the less, Hitler has been portrayed, if not as a conservative - the word is many shades too pale - at least as an extreme instance of the political right. It is doubtful if he or his friends would have recognised the description. His own thoughts gave no prominence to left and right, and he is unlikely to have seen much point in any linear theory of politics. Since he had solved for all time the enigma of history, as he imagined, National Socialism was unique. The elements might be at once diverse and familiar, but the mix was his.

 

Hitler's mind, it has often been noticed, was in many ways backward-looking: not medievalising, on the whole, like Victorian socialists such as Ruskin and William Morris, but fascinated by a far remoter past of heroic virtue. It is now widely forgotten that much the same could be said of Marx and Engels.

 

It is the issue of race, above all, that for half a century has prevented National Socialism from being seen as socialist. The proletariat may have no fatherland, as Lenin said. But there were still, in Marx's view, races that would have to be exterminated. That is a view he published in January-February 1849 in an article by Engels called "The Hungarian Struggle" in Marx's journal the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, and the point was recalled by socialists down to the rise of Hitler. It is now becoming possible to believe that Auschwitz was socialist-inspired. The Marxist theory of history required and demanded genocide for reasons implicit in its claim that feudalism was already giving place to capitalism, which must in its turn be superseded by socialism. Entire races would be left behind after a workers' revolution, feudal remnants in a socialist age; and since they could not advance two steps at a time, they would have to be killed. They were racial trash, as Engels called them, and fit only for the dung-heap of history.

 

That brutal view, which a generation later was to be fortified by the new pseudo-science of eugenics, was by the last years of the century a familiar part of the socialist tradition, though it is understandable that since the liberation of Auschwitz in January 1945 socialists have been eager to forget it. But there is plenty of evidence in the writings of HG Wells, Jack London, Havelock Ellis, the Webbs and others to the effect that socialist commentators did not flinch from drastic measures. The idea of ethnic cleansing was orthodox socialism for a century and more.

 

So the socialist intelligentsia of the western world entered the First World War publicly committed to racial purity and white domination and no less committed to violence. Socialism offered them a blank cheque, and its licence to kill included genocide. In 1933, in a preface to On the Rocks, for example, Bernard Shaw publicly welcomed the exterminatory principle which the Soviet Union had already adopted. Socialists could now take pride in a state that had at last found the courage to act, though some still felt that such action should be kept a secret. In 1932 Beatrice Webb remarked at a tea-party what "very bad stage management" it had been to allow a party of British visitors to the Ukraine to see cattle-trucks full of starving "enemies of the state" at a local station. "Ridiculous to let you see them", said Webb, already an eminent admirer of the Soviet system. "The English are always so sentimental" adding, with assurance: "You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs." A few years later, in 1935, a Social Democratic government in Sweden began a eugenic programme for the compulsory sterilisation of gypsies, the backward and the unfit, and continued it until after the war.

 

The claim that Hitler cannot really have been a socialist because he advocated and practised genocide suggests a monumental failure, then, in the historical memory. Only socialists in that age advocated or practised genocide, at least in Europe, and from the first years of his political career Hitler was proudly aware of the fact. Addressing his own party, the NSDAP, in Munich in August 1920, he pledged his faith in socialist-racialism: "If we are socialists, then we must definitely be anti-semites - and the opposite, in that case, is Materialism and Mammonism, which we seek to oppose." There was loud applause. Hitler went on: "How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-semite?" The point was widely understood, and it is notable that no German socialist in the 1930s or earlier ever sought to deny Hitler's right to call himself a socialist on grounds of racial policy. In an age when the socialist tradition of genocide was familiar, that would have sounded merely absurd. The tradition, what is more, was unique. In the European century that began in the 1840s from Engels's article of 1849 down to the death of Hitler, everyone who advocated genocide called himself a socialist, and no exception has been found.

 

The first reactions to National Socialism outside Germany are now largely forgotten. They were highly confused, for the rise of fascism had caught the European left by surprise. There was nothing in Marxist scripture to predict it and must have seemed entirely natural to feel baffled. Where had it all come from? Harold Nicolson, a democratic socialist, and after 1935 a Member of the House of Commons, conscientiously studied a pile of pamphlets in his hotel room in Rome in January 1932 and decided judiciously that fascism (Italian-style) was a kind of militarised socialism; though it destroyed liberty, he concluded in his diary, "it is certainly a socialist experiment in that it destroys individuality". The Moscow view that fascism was the last phase of capitalism, though already proposed, was not yet widely heard. Richard remarked in a 1934 BBC talk that many students in Nazi Germany believed they were "digging the foundations of a new German socialism".

 

By the outbreak of civil war in Spain, in 1936, sides had been taken, and by then most western intellectuals were certain that Stalin was left and Hitler was right. That sudden shift of view has not been explained, and perhaps cannot be explained, except on grounds of argumentative convenience. Single binary oppositions - cops-and-robbers or cowboys-and-indians - are always satisfying. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was seen by hardly anybody as an attempt to restore the unity of socialism. A wit at the British Foreign Office is said to have remarked that all the "Isms" were now "Wasms", and the general view was that nothing more than a cynical marriage of convenience had taken place.

 

By the outbreak of world war in 1939 the idea that Hitler was any sort of socialist was almost wholly dead. One may salute here an odd but eminent exception. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, Orwell saw the disaster as a "physical debunking of capitalism", it showed once and for all that "a planned economy is stronger than a planless one", though he was in no doubt that Hitler's victory was a tragedy for France and for mankind. The planned economy had long stood at the head of socialist demands; and National Socialism, Orwell argued, had taken from socialism "just such features as will make it efficient for war purposes". Hitler had already come close to socialising Germany. "Internally, Germany has a good deal in common with a socialist state." These words were written just before Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union. Orwell believed that Hitler would go down in history as "the man who made the City of London laugh on the wrong side of its face" by forcing financiers to see that planning works and that an economic free-for-all does not.

 

At its height, Hitler's appeal transcended party division. Shortly before they fell out in the summer of 1933, Hitler uttered sentiments in front of Otto Wagener, which were published after his death in 1971 as a biography by an unrepentant Nazi. Wagener's Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant, composed in a British prisoner-of-war camp, did not appear until 1978 in the original German, and arrived in English, without much acclaim, as recently as 1985. Hitler's remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made utopian socialism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as Victorian socialism had done before it, an intense economic radicalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe.

 

Socialism, Hitler told Wagener shortly after he seized power, was not a recent invention of the human spirit, and when he read the New Testament he was often reminded of socialism in the words of Jesus. The trouble was that the long ages of Christianity had failed to act on the Master's teachings. Mary and Mary Magdalen, Hitler went on in a surprising flight of imagination, had found an empty tomb, and it would be the task of National Socialism to give body at long last to the sayings of a great teacher: "We are the first to exhume these teachings." The Jew, Hitler told Wagener, was not a socialist, and the Jesus they crucified was the true creator of socialist redemption. As for communists, he opposed them because they created mere herds, Soviet-style, without individual life, and his own ideal was "the socialism of nations" rather than the international socialism of Marx and Lenin. The one and only problem of the age, he told Wagener, was to liberate labour and replace the rule of capital over labour with the rule of labour over capital.

 

These are highly socialist sentiments, and if Wagener reports his master faithfully they leave no doubt about the conclusion: that Hitler was an unorthodox Marxist who knew his sources and knew just how unorthodox the way in which he handled them was. He was a dissident socialist. His programme was at once nostalgic and radical. It proposed to accomplish something that Christians had failed to act on and that communists before him had attempted and bungled. "What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish," he told Wagener, "we shall be in a position to achieve."

 

That was the National Socialist vision. It was seductive, at once traditional and new. Like all so- cialist views it was ultimately moral, and its economic and racial policies were seen as founded on universal moral laws. By the time such conversations saw the light of print, regrettably, the world had put such matters far behind it, and it was less than ever ready to listen to the sayings of a crank or a clown.

 

That is a pity. The crank, after all, had once offered a vision of the future that had made a Victorian doctrine of history look exciting to millions. Now that socialism is a discarded idea, such excitement is no doubt hard to recapture. To relive it again, in imagination, one might look at an entry in Goebbels's diaries. On 16 June 1941, five days before Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, Goebbels exulted, in the privacy of his diary, in the victory over Bolshevism that he believed would quickly follow. There would be no restoration of the tsars, he remarked to himself, after Russia had been conquered. But Jewish Bolshevism would be uprooted in Russia and "real socialism" planted in its place - "Der echte Sozialismus". Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but no one can explain why he would lie to his diaries. And to the end of his days he believed that socialism was what National Socialism was about.

 

The Lost Literature of Socialism by George Watson is published by Lutterworth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The similarities are pretty evident to anyone with even the faintest idea of what socialism really is. The reason the left have become the easiest people to root against since the Nazis is that they're more closely resembling Nazis every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 mins ago, fishweewee said:

A more recent article from across the pond.

 

From The Telegraph (UK)

 

A history lesson for those who would smear the moderate Right: the Nazis were socialists

 

24 SEPTEMBER 2018 • 12:34PM

NORMAN TEBBIT

 

The New Statesman magazine has become rather unsettled in recent weeks about what it describes, on the front page on September 14, as "the far Right wing rising again", and "the return of fascism".

 

Those headlines were printed across the cover picture of a huge Nazi rally of steel helmeted men. There was not much inside to back up the scary front cover.

 

Indeed, inside the cover story had the headline "The Dark European Stain" but the author, Thomas Meany, seemed to pour cold water over it all.

 

I think that perhaps seeking a diversion from the stench of anti-Semitism and sympathy for IRA/Sinn Fein which hangs around the Labour leadership, the New Statesman was at its old game of claiming that both Hitler's National Socialist German Workers Party and Mussolini's Fascists were extreme Right wing parties. That despite the very word 'socialist' used by Hitler to describe his own party and the Fascists, whose collectivist values were signalled by the choice of the bundle of sticks, the "fasces", which could not be broken so long as they remained bound together.

 

Here in Britain fascism has never enjoyed much support. Its most prominent proponent was Oswald Mosley, who started out in the late 1920s as a Conservative but defected to Labour and held high office in the Cabinet of the Labour Government of 1931. He resigned to form first The New Party and later the British Union of Fascists before being interned as a Nazi supporter in 1940.

 

It is either delusional or deceitful to call the Nazi or Fascist parties "Right wing".

 

There could hardly be any more clear example of the tin containing exactly what is said on the label than Hitler's Nazis, the National Socialist German Workers Party, nor Mussolini's collectivist Fascists. They were the Left-wing of politics on the European mainland. And they both proudly wore the racist badge of anti-Semitism.

 

Here in Britain it was very different. Our democratic Left had grown out of the non-conformist Christian values of the Welsh valleys and the self-help activism of the Rochdale Pioneers, which coalesced to form the Labour Party. Later, led by Attlee and Bevin, Labour became a bulwark of the wartime coalition led by Churchill.

 

As the Coalition broke up at the end of the Second World War, Attlee won the 1945 general election. That Labour Government did not only found that lasting institution of post war Britain, the NHS. It led the moves to create Nato, embarked on the rebuilding of our armed forces and the creation of our independent nuclear weapons as Stalin's communist regime threatened the West with nuclear war.

 

The political struggle in the United Kingdom today is not between an authoritarian far Right and a democratic Labour Party of the kind led by Attlee and Wilson. It is a struggle between a moderate (though sadly muddled) Conservative Party and an increasingly extreme Left-wing Labour Party. The latter is determined to follow economic policies which have failed wherever they have been imposed and which even China has abandoned in order to bring prosperity to its people.

 

Talk of an extreme political Right here is wild exaggeration and ridiculous misunderstanding of the kind seen in the murder of the perfectly decent Labour MP Jo Cox. Her assailant, Alexander Mair, had a history of mental health problems, was obsessed with Nazi regalia and books, and information about foreign white supremacists. There was nothing to link him with those of us on the Right of British politics who seek a less intrusive state, lower taxation and personal freedom.

 

That is well illustrated elsewhere in The New Statesman of September 7, in which Jason Cowley makes a bold effort to give shadow chancellor John McDonnell a blue rinse. In the past McDonnell has said that the "most significant intellectual" influences on him were the "fundamental Marxist writers of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky".  And he was a supporter and good friend to the IRA/SinnFein terrorists, saying: "It was the bombs and sacrifices made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table," and "the peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA".

 

In fact as all the rest of us know, it was the cowardice of Martin McGuiness who – knowing that the IRA was on the verge of a military defeat that would have brought him to justice – chose to save his skin by means of the Good Friday Agreement.

 

The hard-Left Marxists who now own the Labour Party have been all too successful in smearing those of us on the moderate Right as extremists. The true face of the hard Left was on display in the contemptible screaming mob outside the home of Jacob Rees-Mogg.

 

 

Under the leadership of Hillary and her buds ANTIFA is using the exact same tactics as Hitlers Brown Shirts,  yet somehow conservatives, just as the brown shirt's victims the Jews are the bad guys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 mins ago, Cayotica said:

Under the leadership of Hillary and her buds ANTIFA is using the exact same tactics as Hitlers Brown Shirts,  yet somehow conservatives, just as the brown shirt's victims the Jews are the bad guys?

Yep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 mins ago, Cayotica said:

Under the leadership of Hillary and her buds ANTIFA is using the exact same tactics as Hitlers Brown Shirts,  yet somehow conservatives, just as the brown shirt's victims the Jews are the bad guys?

Our wonderful Media gave them control of the Narrative :mad:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 mins ago, Harf said:

Our wonderful Media gave them control of the Narrative :mad:  

Yes they have, I swear, I don't know what's worse a state run media or a complicit media. 

Edited by Cayotica
Missing Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comparisons that are drawn are due to the tactics of populism, racial scapegoating, and the undermining of the free press not the underlying political ideology. Up until very recently Trumps politics were not in line with either the left or the right. He would readily attack established conservatives in his own party as often as liberals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.