“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, from speech delivered on May 1, 1927
As I have frequently contended, the fascism of the Nazis (as well as “fascism” in general) was a species of socialism – and socialism, as the belief that a giant government should usurp power to itself and take from individuals to give to other individuals, is inherently leftist. [Here is a longer article another author has written detailing the inherent leftism of fascism and of Hitler].
This is important to understand as we see history repeating itself (“Deja vu all over again!”).
Gene Edward Veith, Jr. pointed out many of the elements that communism and fascism held in common:
“The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. [And in fact, Both movements were “revolutionary socialist ideologies.” Going on,] Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. [And finally,] Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].
What did the the communist “U.S.S.R.” stand for?
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
What did “Nazi” stand for?
Nazis “believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” of the right AND the left even as they openly acknowledged that they were socialist. So why have they so frequently been branded as “the extreme right wing”? Because the winner gets to write the history, and in the case of the European theater, the big winner of the war between the Nazis and the communists were the communists. And far too many American writers and intellectuals were significantly influenced by leftist thinking. And these “thinkers” were motivated not by historical accuracy or by truth, but by the desire to create a “right wing bogeyman.” Which they proceeded to do and let the truth be damned.
Both fascism and communism clearly and overtly labelled themselves as “socialist” and both claimed that the “worker” was their base. Both rose to power using “workers” as their muscle.
And, as I will show, both socialist movements inevitably crushed the worker. Just as all socialist movements invariably do.
Now, I have had liberals frequently assert that Nazism/fascism was not actually socialist and they have offered as their “evidence” that Hitler abolished the labor unions.
- “I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the economic life of the nation.”
- “Before everything else, the trades unions are necessary as building stones for the future economic parliament, which will be made up of chambers representing the various professions and occupations.”
- “As I have already said, the germ cells of this State must lie in the administrative chambers which will represent the various occupations and professions, therefore first of all in the trades unions. If this subsequent vocational representation and the Central Economic Parliament are to be National Socialist institutions, these important germ cells must be vehicles of the National Socialist concept of life. The institutions of the movement are to be brought over into the State; for the State cannot call into existence all of a sudden and as if by magic those institutions which are necessary to its existence, unless it wishes to have institutions that are bound to remain completely lifeless.
Looking at the matter from the highest standpoint, the National Socialist Movement will have to recognize the necessity of adopting its own trade-unionist policy.”
- “The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing the National Socialist People’s State, must always bear steadfastly in mind the principle that every future institution under that State must be rooted in the movement itself.”
And so what did Hitler do? He did NOT “abolish” labor unions, as the modern left charges; rather, the Führer – having stated categorically that such unions were essential to his National Socialism – merged labor unions into the apparatus of the State. Hitler created one mega-union that he was able to control:
“The National Socialist Trades Union is not an instrument for class warfare, but a representative organ of the various occupations and callings. The National Socialist State recognizes no ‘classes’. But, under the political aspect, it recognizes only citizens with absolutely equal rights and equal obligations corresponding thereto. And, side by side with these, it recognizes subjects of the State who have no political rights whatsoever.”
Which is to say that Hitler did PRECISELY the same thing that the communist U.S.S.R. did with labor unions:
The Communist Party exerted increasing control over trade unions, which even many Communist trade union leaders resisted. By the end of the Civil War a dispute over the role of trade unions occurred within the ruling Communist Party. Leon Trotsky, Nikolay Krestinsky and some others insisted on militarization of trade unions and actually turning them into part of the government apparatus. The Workers’ Opposition (Alexander Shlyapnikov, Alexandra Kollontai) demanded that trade unions manage the economy through an “All-Union Congress of Producers” and that workers comprise a majority of Communist Party members and leaders. There were several other factions. Eventually, all of them were defeated at the 10th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) by the so-called “Platform of the Ten” headed by Lenin, which called for trade unions to educate workers, under the control of the Communist Party. Since these times Vladimir Lenin‘s saying, “Trade Unions are a School of Communism” become an indisputable slogan.
A resolution entitled About the Party Unity dissolved and banned any factions within the Party under the pretext that intra-Party discussions distract from “solving actual practical problems”. This resolution radically shifted the balance in the notion “democratic centralism” from “democratic” to “centralism” and enhanced the groundwork of Joseph Stalin‘s future dictatorship.
Unlike labor unions in the West, Soviet trade unions were, in fact, actually governmental organizations whose chief aim was not to represent workers but to further the goals of management, government, and the CPSU. As such, they were partners of management in attempting to promote labor discipline, worker morale, and productivity. Unions organized “socialist competitions” and awarded prizes for fulfilling quotas
Thus, both fascism and communism were rival brands of socialism (international socialism versus national socialism) which systematically dissolved workers’ rights after making whatever false promises were necessary to secure their cooperation. Both fascism and communism were revolutionary socialist ideologies. Both fascism and communism opposed the bourgeoisie. Both fascism and communism attacked the conservatives. Both fascism and communism were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers – which they both forms of socialism continue to have as their bases to this very day. Both fascism and communism fascism and communism favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. Both fascism and communism were easily able to become militarized societies. Both fascism and communism were inherently totalitarian and dictatorial. And, yes, both fascism and communism exploited the labor unions the exact same way and then subsequently controlled the labor unions the exact same way.
What is most ironic is that the ultimate model the left points to – communism – has been more brutal to the workers than any ideology that has ever existed. Joseph Stalin solved the unemployment problem by declaring unemployed workers indolent and throwing some thirty million of them into slave labor camps to be worked to death. How is THAT kind of treatment for a “workers’ party”?
Communism versus Fascism is Coke Versus Pepsi. Both amount to a slightly different version of the exact same thing. And fascism and communism warred so fiercely with one another because both movements were competing for the same base of adherents using substantially the same arguments.
Why is this understanding important? Because we’re seeing these same forces that gave us first communism and then fascism banding (perhaps “mobbing” is a better verb) together to produce the same inevitable results. And in fact we have both the Nazis and the Communists joining the labor unions and the intelligentsia, students and artists in their Occupy movement. And we’re seeing this happen on a scale that the world has not seen since the WWI (Soviet communism) and WWII (Nazi fascism) eras.
The same categories of people who reared their ugly heads during the worst periods in the history of the human race are rearing their ugly heads again.
The base of the Democrat Party is composed from the same base that has ALWAYS gone the most profoundly wrong before in serving as the useful idiots that ushered in totalitarianism. And now they are mobbing together so that we can suffer the results of deja vu all over again.
Jonah Goldberg in his great book Liberal Fascism uncovers how liberal societies invariably militarize in their own way before they look to attack external enemies:
What comes to mind when you hear the word “fascism” – immediate responses are dictatorship, genocide, anti-Semitism, racism, and (of course) right wing. Delve a little deeper, and you’ll hear a lot about eugenics, social Darwinism, state capitalism, or the sinister rule of big business. War, militarism, and nationalism will also come up a lot… But very few of these things are unique to fascism, and almost none of them are distinctly right-wing or conservative – at least not in the American sense.
Consider militarism, which will come up again and again in the course of this book. Militarism was indisputably central to fascism (and communism) in countless countries. But it has a much more nuanced relationship with fascism than one might suppose… But for far more people, militarism was a pragmatic expedient: the highest, best means for organizing society in productive ways. Inspired by ideas like those in William James’ famous essay “The Moral Equivalent of War,” militarism seemed to provide a workable and sensible model for achieving desirable ends. Mussolini, who openly admired and invoked James, used this logic for his famous “Battle of the Grains” and other sweeping social initiatives. Such ideas had an immense following in the United States, with many leading progressives championing the use of “industrial armies” to create the ideal workers’ democracy. Later, Franklin Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps – as militaristic a social program as one can imagine – borrowed from these ideas, as did JFK’s Peace Corps.
This trope has hardly been purged from contemporary liberalism. Every day we hear about the “war on cancer,” the “war on drugs,” the “War on poverty,” and exhortations to make this or that social challenge the “moral equivalent of war.” From health care to gun control to global warming, liberals insist that we need to “get beyond politics” and “put ideological differences behind us” in order to “do the people’s business.” The experts and scientists know what to do, we are told; therefore the time for debate is over. This, albeit in a nicer and more benign form, is the logic of fascism – and it was on ample display in the administrations of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and yes, even John F. Kennedy. [Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, pp. 5-6]
The Occupy movement is using the moral equivalent of war even as it uses outright war to accomplish its fascist ends. As are the labor unions. As are the students. Of that group Adolf Hitler said:
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf Hitler, 1930
The same people are up to the same antics. It’s deja vu all over again.
The left is also constantly demagoguing the sense of crisis to continue to ram home their increasingly failing policies. Goldberg again:
“The utility of terror was multifaceted, but among its chief benefits was its tendency to maintain a permanent sense of crisis. Crisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation. Hence all fascistic movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened state of emergency.” [Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, p. 42]
And of course we have the infamous words still echoing:
“Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.” – Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, November 2008.
“Never waste a good crisis … Don’t waste it..” — Obama Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, March 6, 2009.
The left is plunging out into the very same dark and violent waters of class warfare that it has carried the world into before.
Allow me to re-submit the Hitler quote I began with:
“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.”
What is frightening is that, apart from the admission “We are socialists,” it is a quote that could have come out of the mouth of Barack Obama. Think about it.
Jesus said to us, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock” (Revelation 3:20) to a world that is rejecting him. But the left is demanding in more and more shrill terms that we open the door wide for the coming of Antichrist.
The beast is coming.