The
Rational Argumentator
Socialism and Fascism:
A Conversation With a Friend
"We demand that the State shall make it its first duty to promote the industry and livelihood of citizens…(point 7). We demand extensive development of provision for old age (point 15). We demand creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, immediate communalization of department stores, and their lease at cheap rate to small traders (point 16). We demand development of the gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State (point 20). The state must see to raising the standard of health in the nation (point 21). We demand an end to the power of the financial interests (point 11). We demand nationalization of all trusts (point 13). The Nazi party is convinced that our nation can only achieve permanent health from within on the principle: The Common Interest Before Self (point 24).”
Der Nationalsozialismus: Dokumente 1933-1945 ed W. Hofer 1957. Die 25 Punkte des programms der NSDAP. Translation of the points are from Problems in Western Civilization,ed L.F Shaefer et all 1968
It reminds you of something, doesn't it?
"I have learned a great deal from Marxsim, as I do not hesitate to admit," Hitler told Rauschning. "The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun... I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attemts to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order." (The Voice of Destruction, p. 186) (Hitler was right about that; Marxsim is based on the theory of dictatorship of proletariat, not democracy.) And if you are still not sure what were ideological roots of Nazism, let me remind you of the meaning of the full name of the Nazi Party: NSDAP: National-Socialistic Party of German Workers.
“Even the title ‘national-socialism’ attests to this point; you pointed out the socialist element, but you ignore the ‘national’ prefix; why? I wonder. If you are interested in the ideological roots of Nazism, I don’t think you can afford such biased selectivity. It is the luxury of fanatics everywhere to “prove” their points by attending only to the facts that fit the picture but we can do better, can’t we?“
Well, this is an honest question, and I think you deserve the full answer. National is an adjective which describes certain type of Socialism. As you undoubtedly know, there are many different kinds of Socialism: National Socialism, Marxist Socialism, Russian, Chinese, Cuban, English, Swedish, Democratic Socialism, Christian Socialism and many other Socialisms. There is even the Islamic Socialism of Libya and Syria. However, Socialism is the essence of all these political trends, and qua Socialism it has only one meaning: subjection of the Individual to the collective, society. Society can be based on different foundations: blood and soil as in case of Nazism, or class of proletariat as in case of Marxist Socialism, or Ubuntu as in case of African Socialism and so on. The basis is still the same: sacrifice. Does it really make any difference for what one’s freedom, happiness, and very life has been throttled: race, class, future generations, or the “common good”? Socialism in every form, as Ayn Rand once observed, “is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good” (For The New Intellectual, 43). And that belongs to any kind of Socialism. That is why I think the “national” prefix is insignificant, as would be “African”, “ Democratic “, “Christian” or any other.
“Hitler was very much eclectic and adopted a motley crew of ideas from various sources – left, right, traditional, quasi-religious and so forth – whatever served the cause; second, and quite disturbingly I think, you ignore the contribution of European right-wing ideology to Hitler’s twisted world – radical nationalism in the sense of aggrandizing the folk and the nation were part and parcel of traditional European right wing ideology, as are authoritarianism and militarism and, last but not least, xenophobia and rabid anti-Semitism."
Your second objection also deserves to be checked thoroughly. I think that a lot of confusion exists in the left-right terminology. Today, everybody means by these concepts whatever he or she pleases and mostly uses “right-wing ideology” as a derogatory term without attaching much meaning to it. For example, your claim about traditional European right wing ideology begs a question. Bismarck was a typical representative of authoritarianism and militarism, but he created the first par excellence welfare State and, therefore, according to today’s standards, he was left-wing. Hitler, a self-proclaimed Marxist (“I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit”), started World War II. Nietzsche, for example with his intense individualism and will to power, according to any criteria was right-wing but here is what he said about anti-Semitism and Nationalism:
“About the Jews, for example: listen—I have never met a German who was favorably inclined toward Jews…The Jews, however, are beyond all doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race at present living in Europe…for which it would perhaps be a good idea to eject the anti-Semitic ranters from the country…. If a people is suffering and wants to suffer from nationalistic nervous fever and political ambition, it must be expected that all sorts of clouds and disturbances—in short, little attacks of stupidity—will pass over its spirit.” (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil. 1974, pgs 162-163)
So much for right-wing anti-Semitism. However, as I previously mentioned, I think that this terminology — “left or right-wing” — unlike Socialism — is poorly defined and cannot be used in proper discussion. I think I’ve done my best to avoid further accusations of a biased fanatical approach. If you think I’ve missed something and you can contribute to this discussion, I’d very much appreciate your comments.
I think that by using the term “right-wing ideology,” you commit what I’d call the historical fallacy— that is— you apply a modern political term to the historical period in which this term has had an altogether different meaning or didn’t exist at all. The political distinction between “left” and “right” originated during the French Revolution. By that time, “leftists” supported the Republic and “rightists” were royalists. Then “leftists” became “rightists” (in modern meaning of the word) - that is- creators and supporters of almost laissez-faire capitalism. The 19th century, when the “traditional right wing” was ruling Europe, was also the longest period of peace in the history of this continent—from Napoleon’s wars until World War I – almost one hundred years! During this period, the State anti-Semitism and prosecutions of Jews completely disappeared in Western Europe. Jews became equal citizens even in Germany. The borders in Europe practically disappeared, trade and movement were free, and the idea of united Europe was born. So much for “traditional right-wing ideology” as a root of militarism and anti-Semitism. This situation changed when German Statism was born. Its father was Bismarck—the creator of the first in history welfare State and thus by modern standards a “left-wing” politician—pretty much like today’s American Democrats. That eventually led to World War I. His ideas Hitler adopted, not “European right wing” ideology. And from the West Hitler adopted the very "left-wing" ideas of social Darwinism and Eugenics.
Nazism arose in the period between World War I and World War II. In that period, the only European country which could be called “left-wing” was Soviet Russia. But this country in that period was literally bloody mess. Only in the civil war instigated by communists (“left-wing”) more then 2 million people were brutally killed. Thereafter, in Stalin’s purges, roughly 25-30 million people perished in his concentration camps (nobody knows the exact numbers; there wasn’t any Nuremberg trial for communists). You’ve said: “It is only natural that something as big, at the time, as Marxist socialism and the Russian revolution would make someone like Hitler take notes.” Indeed, Hitler was a good student. His camps of extermination had been first constructed and tried in Soviet Russia. After World War II, during the “Cold War,” the “Left” was pro-Soviet and anti-West. Every “freedom fighter” against capitalist or Zionist oppression was considered as “Left Wing”. That included such cold-blood murderers as Che Guevara and Yasir Arafat, tyrannical Fidel Castro, and many other sundry terrorist organizations around the Globe. Paradoxically enough, Soviet dissidents who were fighting the communist regime (for example, prior to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia) also called themselves “left-wing”. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and then September 11, Socialism and “freedom fighters” lost their appeal, and today’s “Left” is just an amorphic conglomerate of ecological, anti-globalization, animal rights, feminist and many other loosely connected movements. Their ideas, however, are still the same: sacrifice of actual human beings to potential ecological threats, to animals, to landscapes etc… Hopefully they’ll never acquire the power of Hitler and Stalin. You mentioned that “Hitler was very much eclectic and adopted a motley crew of ideas from various sources – left, right, traditional, quasi-religious and so forth, whatever served the cause”- and that is true. One can trace the ideological roots of Nazism to Kant and even to Plato’s Republic. But that is the theme for another discussion.
Leonid Fainberg is an Objectivist philosopher and a contributor to The Rational Argumentator.
Click here to return to TRA's Issue CXLVI Index.
Learn about Mr. Stolyarov's novel, Eden against the Colossus, here.Read Mr. Stolyarov's new comprehensive treatise, A Rational Cosmology, explicating such terms as the universe, matter, space, time, sound, light, life, consciousness, and volition, here.
Disclaimer: The presence of the following advertisement serves as an attempt to eventually enable The Rational Argumentator to generate sufficient revenues to cover the costs of its domain name. TRA does not foresee making an actual profit with these advertisements for a long time. The advertisement does not necessarily reflect the views of TRA or any of its contributors, and the readers are encouraged to judge it on its own merits.