DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Colonial Era
*****************************************************
#Post#: 10742--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: January 21, 2022, 10:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"pre-state hunter-gatherer societies theoretically resembled a
communist society:"
This is correct in that communism does not care about
non-humans. This is a fundamental inferiority of communism that
leftist anti-communists should spend more time attacking
communism with.
"this raises the question as to what "merit" means."
Exactly. The implication is that there should be distinct
versions of socialism for each distinct conception of merit.
This demands every socialist first answer the question of
precisely what they mean by merit before even beginning to
expound on how they plan to promote it. Thus we can evaluate
different systems of socialism on two axes: 1) whether or not we
agree on their proposed notion of merit; 2) how effective we
consider their proposed methods of promoting their notion of
merit.
The only thing common among all socialists should be the belief
that unrestricted competition does not promote merit. Which
brings us to your next point:
"Obviously, a rightist would disagree with socialism entirely
since they believe an individual possessing a natural
competitive advantage _is_ merit/virtue in and of itself. "
Yes. To make things clear, though, we need a term to explicitly
describe this way of thinking. I suggest competitionism.
Capitalism should be re-understood as only one of many possible
forms of competitionism. The progressive call for innovationism
to replace capitalism, for example:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/progressive-yahwism/msg10496/#msg10496
should thus be viewed as conflict between two different forms of
competitionism, since doubtless those more efficient at
innovating machines (who may turn out indeed not to be the
capitalists) will sooner or later gain a runaway competitive
advantage over those less efficient at this. This is why we call
progressives False Leftists: they may appear opposed to the
current form of competitionism, but merely wish to replace it by
a different - probably worse - form of competitionism.
Democracy is also a form of competitionism (hence democrats are
necessarily also False Leftists). Being popular with the
majority of the demos is a competitive advantage, and is likely
to be negatively correlated with any ethical conception of
merit, since trying to stop the demos from oppressing those
outside the demos is probably the fastest way to become
unpopular with the majority of the demos!
And so on.
"business-owners (which actually includes non-evil people and
people who managed to build a successful business due to actual
talent, as well as non-productive parasitic elites like
financial speculators and talentless hacks who inherited great
wealth)."
The issue of what you call "talent" is where we must be most
careful. How much of talent is merit, and how much is
competitive advantage? If A is content to serve just enough
customers to make a humble living, whereas B supplying a similar
product wants to keep expanding its customer base, the
predictable eventual result absent state intervention is that B
will drive A out of business over time. Is this a problem or
not? For those who only care about product quality, so long as
B's product is as good as A's, B deserves to win on account of
its higher commercial aggressiveness. I of course see it
differently: I consider B* to be inferior precisely because it
is more aggressive, and believe the state should intervene to
keep A in business by limiting B's ability to expand, such as by
putting a cap on the maximum quantity of assets anyone can own.
(As a National Socialist I would additionally eliminate B's
bloodline.) Here we have two notions of merit leading to
different conclusions about how the state should respond.
(* To state the obvious, B is how Hitler saw Jewish businesses.)
"Hitler says Jesus is one of the originators of real Socialism"
The state intervening to help A over B in the example above can
be considered action towards realizing Jesus' presciption that
the meek inherit the earth.
[quote]Tier 0. (Temperament)
- Leftism
Tier 1. (Abstract/general attitudes)
- Socialism (further expanded below)
- Enlightenment-based forms of liberalism(?) (not listed
below)
- others?[/quote]
I question whether the "Enlightenment" stuff should be included
at all. Elsewhere we have agreed to classify Romanticism within
leftism, and Romanticism was a movement against the
"Enlightenment", so.....
#Post#: 10802--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Zea_mays Date: January 24, 2022, 11:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Yes. To make things clear, though, we need a term to
explicitly describe this way of thinking. I suggest
competitionism.[/quote]
I don't object to this, but it seems like such a concept may
already have a name? (Although from what I've written below,
perhaps competitionism is the most concise way to describe
this.)
For example, in biology, whichever individual has a higher
competitive advantage has higher fitness, and higher fitness
means their traits are under natural selection. Not all traits
under natural selection are HERITABLE (so, for example, a
business owner outcompeting someone else is "economic natural
selection", but a bureaucratic business strategy itself isn't
biologically heritable).
When it comes to science, compare this chart of how "machine
learning" algorithms are "trained"/pruned to Darwin's tree of
evolution. The most efficient/successful/advanced routes are
selected for:
HTML https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Will-Serrano/publication/313408173/figure/fig8/AS:669010169438243@1536515862984/Artificial-Neural-Network-Deep-Learning-model.png
HTML http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/Cdfig3.gif
Capitalism is similar to primal natural selection in that, at
the root of things, everyone is fighting for themselves (or, if
they are successful enough, for their families/clans/ethnic
group).
I.e., this is decentralized capitalism:
[quote]Competition lowers the fitness of both organisms
involved, since the presence of one of the organisms always
reduces the amount of the resource available to the other.[2]
[...]
There are three major mechanisms of competition: interference,
exploitation, and apparent competition (in order from most
direct to least direct). Interference and exploitation
competition can be classed as "real" forms of competition, while
apparent competition is not, as organisms do not share a
resource, but instead share a predator.[4] Competition among
members of the same species is known as intraspecific
competition, while competition between individuals of different
species is known as interspecific competition.[/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_(biology)
On the other hand, it seems "collectivist" style False Left
progressivism aims to maximize fitness among the entire
population.
False Left progressivists want to reduce/eliminate human
intra-specific competition to maximize average human fitness.
Not just reproductively (e.g. transhumanism), but also in terms
of knowledge-generation-algorithms (i.e. in the post you linked,
they want to get rid of capitalism for more efficient methods of
'technological advancement').
I think "Social Darwinism" is basically "competitionism". Many
conservatives would want nature to simply run its course, but
"progressive" False Leftists 100+ years ago were heavily
involved in the eugenics movement, basically using state power
to more efficiently promote competitively-successful Western
traits!
[quote]Social Darwinism refers to various theories and societal
practices that applied biological concepts of natural selection
and survival of the fittest to sociology, economics and
politics, and which were largely defined by scholars in Western
Europe and North America in the 1870s.[1][2]
[...]
In 1883 Sumner published a highly-influential pamphlet entitled
"What Social Classes Owe to Each Other", in which he insisted
that the social classes owe each other nothing, synthesizing
Darwin's findings with free-enterprise capitalism for his
justification.[citation needed] According to Sumner, those who
feel an obligation to provide assistance to those unequipped or
under-equipped to compete for resources, will lead to a country
in which the weak and inferior are encouraged to breed more like
themselves, eventually dragging the country down. Sumner also
believed that the best equipped to win the struggle for
existence was the American businessman, and concluded that taxes
and regulations serve as dangers to his survival.
[...]
On the basis of U.S. theory and practice, commercial Darwinism
operates in markets worldwide, pitting corporation against
corporation in struggles for survival.[65]
[...]
In contrast, Fabians in the early 1900s sought to use the state
as the means through which a collectivist social Darwinism was
to be put into effect. The common Fabian views of the time
reconciled a specific form of state socialism and the goal of
reducing poverty with eugenics policies.[/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
[quote]Universal Darwinism aims to formulate a generalized
version of the mechanisms of variation, selection and heredity
proposed by Charles Darwin, so that they can apply to explain
evolution in a wide variety of other domains, including
psychology, linguistics, economics, culture, medicine, computer
science and physics.[/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Darwinism
In contrast, we want to use state power to REDUCE FITNESS to
zero and end this madness once and for all. (Which is also the
only way to end both intra-specific and inter-specific species
competition.)
[quote]Is this a problem or not?[/quote]
In the long term, yes, but I suppose in the short term a
centrally-directed economy will ensure that a 'competitive'
business owner is serving the needs of the state/nation, rather
than enriching themselves, and therefore it won't be a massive
problem. This is basically what Hitler complains to Strasser
about. If you are too rapid at disrupting the economy (like the
Soviets), then your nation becomes weak and cannot even persist
long enough to defend itself and implement the true long-term
goals of Socialism.
[quote]The state intervening to help A over B in the example
above can be considered action towards realizing Jesus'
presciption that the meek inherit the earth.[/quote]
Indeed, the meek inheriting the literal earth makes no sense
without statist Socialism!
[quote]I question whether the "Enlightenment" stuff should be
included at all. Elsewhere we have agreed to classify
Romanticism within leftism, and Romanticism was a movement
against the "Enlightenment", so.....[/quote]
I suppose so. I've seen "classical liberalism" (i.e. ~18th
century democratic/constitutionalist ideas) grouped under
conservatism before. (And communists call liberals "rightists",
although communists call everyone rightists, including communist
factions they don't like...)
I briefly skimmed this article, and if it can be believed, it
seems "liberalism" only got serious about social issues in the
2nd half of the 19th century, once actual Socialism became
influential against the "laissez-faire" social and economic
approaches of "classical liberalism".
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism
#Post#: 10804--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Zea_mays Date: January 25, 2022, 12:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Some information from Alfred Rosenberg's memoirs.
During the German civil war in 1919, the communist Bavarian
Soviet Republic spared DAP co-founder Dietrich Eckart because of
his leftism:
[quote]He published a leaflet, To all workers, in which he
called them to arms against usury, and which he signed with his
full name and address. He printed quite a large edition, and
hired two taxicabs from which we scattered them on the streets
of Munich. Since many such pamphlets were printed and
distributed in these days of revolutionary fermentation, Eckart
at first had no difficulties. In fact, when he was about to be
arrested during the Raterepublik (the short-lived Communist
regime in Munich), and placed among the hostages, this pamphlet
may very well have saved his life, for his own janitor and the
men who came to arrest him declared with one accord that the
author of such a leaflet could not possibly by a reactionary. He
went free.[/quote]
Alfred Rosenberg. (written 1946, published in German 1949).
Memoirs. (English translator and date unspecified). Pages not
numbered.
HTML https://archive.org/details/MemoirsOfAlfredRosenberg/page/n1/mode/2up
Actual rightists in the 1930s accused National Socialists of
being nothing more than Communists:
[quote]In their attacks our opponents spared us absolutely
nothing. For the middle classes we were camouflaged Bolshevists
and atheists, for the Marxists, agents of Deterding,
capitalistic varlets, and monarchistic reactionaries.[/quote]
Again, right-leaning citizens in the 1920s had been prejudiced
against the National Socialist party because it had the word
"Socialist" in it. I.e., they perceived it to be leftist.
[quote]In later years Heinrich Lohse, the son of Holstein
peasants, told me repeatedly that it was from me that he had
first heard details about Hitler, his speeches, the
Feldherrnhalle and our program. The decision he made that day at
Weimar was final. So he went to call on his hard-headed,
mistrustful peasants who, like those in Oldenburg, were
constantly up in arms against any name that contained the world
Socialist. It took a long time to break down their resistance,
but he did finally succeed.[/quote]
Rosenberg criticizes Goebbels for being too egocentric (and he
seems quite jealous that the propaganda-minded, rather than
intellectual-minded, Goebbels was favored by Hitler over
himself), but it was obvious to Rosenberg that Goebbels was
indeed a leftist:
[quote]It is not easy for me to talk about Doctor Joseph
Göbbels. From a purely human point of view, his dying in Berlin,
together with his wife and five children, takes the sting out of
much that is past. Nevertheless, his activities from 1925 until
the collapse remain something in the development of the National
Socialist revolution that must be studied from a historical
point of view. And that, whether open or secret, they were of
tremendous importance, I know very well without being cognisant
of details. He was the Mephisto of our once so straightforward
movement.
[...]
Hitler and I looked at each other and nodded. I was quite
willing to forget any instinctive aversion I might have felt.
The revolution set him afire. Stürtz and others told me how they
all wanted to re-enact, so to speak, certain parallel roles that
had once been played in the French Revolution. To become
important by joining the opposition was in Göbbels's mind, too,
when he came to the fore with articles and speeches. Considering
his character and the depth of his social thinking, I came to
the conclusion that there was no obstacle that would have
prevented Göbbels from joining the Communists. But somehow and
somewhere within himself-- this much I am willing to admit
unreservedly -- he, too, loved Germany. That's why he turned to
Hitler. This was the good that existed even in Göbbels, and that
gave to all his activities the magnetic power of the
genuine.[/quote]
Hermann Goering also blamed Goebbels for having too strong of an
impact on Hitler.
[quote]He influenced Hitler to become anti-Semitic more than
Hitler had been before. Hitler used to come to my house once in
a while for a cup of coffee, and because I led a normal life, he
would leave about nine o'clock. I was in the habit of retiring
early. However, Hitler used to spend practically all of his
nights, sometimes until four a.m., with Goebbels and his family.
God knows what evil influence Goebbels had on him during those
long visits.
-Hermann Goering to Leon Goldensohn, May 24, 1946[/quote]
HTML https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels#Quotes_about_Goebbels
Again, recall that Goebbels was a straight-up Communist
far-leftist when he joined the party. Hitler would not have
become so close to him if Hitler was a far-rightist. (I doubt
Rosenberg read Goebbel's diary where he said he was indeed a
Communist!)
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/national-socialists-were-socialists/msg10621/#msg10621
Back to Rosenberg. Hitler demanded social justice and a
Socialism that did not involve itself in nonsensical class
warfare:
[quote]In view of all these contradictory forces and
developments, Adolf Hitler, who had encountered such problems in
Austria, before serving for four and a half years as a soldier
in the German army, not only recognised the necessity of
national unity above everything else, but was also willing to
press to the hilt the demand for social justice. The National
Socialist Party entered the battle. Adolf Hitler became its
leader. The point of departure of his way of thinking was this:
If so many honest men stand in each of the two opposing camps,
no matter how their individual programs look, they must be
impelled by decent motives. But if the totality of the
bourgeoisie and the totality of the proletariat are such bitter
enemies, there must needs be spiritual, political and social
causes that prevent understanding, to say nothing of
co-operation in regard to all great tasks confronting the Reich.
Without going into economic details. National Socialism affirmed
the demand for justice for the working classes. But the
conviction that social justice could be secured only within the
national framework became ever more firm. And here basic dogmas
barred the way, dogmas which had been taught only too well to a
people more often than not inclined to place veracity above
practicality. The class war was looked upon as something
factual, and Marxism had not been able to offer anything beyond
still more class war -- An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
[...]
It was Adolf Hitler who declared war against all this. ...
Hitler had come to the conclusion that a just socialism had, PER
SE, nothing to do with class war and internationalism. To
perpetuate class war was wrong. It would have to be
eliminated.[/quote]
[quote]Hitler spoke to several small gatherings of the party,
which was now no longer called the German Workers' Party, but
the National Socialist German Workers' Party. This change
indicated the union of a cleansed nationalism and a purified
socialism.[/quote]
Rosenberg stresses how similar his views were to Hitler. Since
the other quotes have established Hitler was indeed a leftist
Socialist and also quite close to the leftist Socialist
Goebbels, then, transitively, Rosenberg must have been leftist
as well.
Although, briefly skimming through his memoirs, it seems his
ideological views were a bit traditionalist in some respects.
Perhaps this is why Hitler favored Goebbels more--he was more
anti-traditionalist and understood the mission of reshaping and
manifesting something entirely new in society? It seems
Rosenberg's intellectualism may have prejudiced him to become
too attached to the establishment culture to be able to fully
imagine a radically new society?
[quote]I must say that it was absolutely uncanny how similar our
opinions frequently were. Once, after I had written an article
on the problems of alcohol for the Folkish Observer, and was
just reading the galley proofs. Hitler called on me at the
editorial office. He had with him an article on the problems of
alcohol which he wanted me to publish in the near future. With a
laugh I showed him mine. Then we read each other's articles and
found that, starting from different premises, we had reached
identical conclusions. When I told him that I naturally would
kill my own article. Hitler said, under no circumstances; it was
excellent, and it would be a good thing if both of them were
published. Thus the Folkish Observer published the two articles
in the same issue. Hitler insisted that most of the important
speeches to be made at party conventions be submitted to him.
Once, when I personally handed him one of mine, he read it
immediately and said: This is as much like mine as if we had
compared notes beforehand. I might describe the gradually
developing personal relationship somewhat like this: he esteemed
me highly, but he did not love me. That PER SE was not
particularly surprising. For one who came from the Gulf of
Bothnia brought along an entirely different temperament than one
from Braunau on the Inn. What was surprising, on the contrary,
was our miraculously similar judgement regarding the basic
traits of so many problems.[/quote]
#Post#: 10805--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Zea_mays Date: January 25, 2022, 12:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Even in Mein Kampf, which we've seemed to dismiss as mostly
propaganda before, Hitler expresses similar left-wing criticisms
of Marxist Socialism, consistent with all the other quotes that
have been posted. Although, being a work of propaganda, he is
obviously not as explicit in how firmly leftist he is, compared
to the quotes from private conversations.
Commentary: Hitler criticizes Marxism for not being a radical
opposition to capitalism and Western Civilization, and that,
even if it wanted to, it does not have the ideological ability
to overthrow Western Civilization to replace it with something
meaningful!
[quote]Even if Marxism were a thousandfold capable of taking
over the economic life as we now have it and maintaining it in
operation under Marxist direction, such an achievement would
prove nothing; because, on the basis of its own principles,
Marxism would never be able to create something which could
supplant what exists to-day.
And Marxism itself has furnished the proof that it cannot do
this. Not only has it been unable anywhere to create a cultural
or economic system of its own; but it was not even able to
develop, according to its own principles, the civilization and
economic system it found ready at hand. It has had to make
compromises, by way of a return to the principle of personality,
just as it cannot dispense with that principle in its own
organization.
The racial Weltanschauung is fundamentally distinguished from
the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the
significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has
made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most
important factors of its Weltanschauung.
If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the
fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should
merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and
adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more
than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it
would not nave the right to call itself a Weltanschauung, If the
social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating
personality and putting the multitude in its place, then
National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of
Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.[/quote]
Adolf Hitler (1925-1926). Mein Kampf. Translation by James
Murphy (1939). Page 374.
HTML https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.526617/page/n375/mode/2up
Again, Marxism is not actually a radical opponent of rightism
(i.e. the bourgeois establishment, which Hitler had mentioned in
previous speeches represents mainstream conservatism):
[quote]Thus the Marxist doctrine is the concentrated extract of
the mentality which underlies the general concept of life today.
For this reason alone it is out of the question and even
ridiculous to think that what is called our bourgeois world can
put up any effective fight against Marxism. For this bourgeois
world is permeated with all those same poisons and its
conception of life in general differs from Marxism only in
degree and in the character of the persons who hold it. The
bourgeois world is Marxist but believes in the possibility of a
certain group of people — that is to say, the bourgeoisie —
being able to dominate the world, while Marxism itself
systematically aims at delivering the world into the hands of
the Jews.[/quote]
Adolf Hitler (1925-1926). Mein Kampf. Translation by James
Murphy (1939). Page 321.
HTML https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.526617/page/n323/mode/2up
Commentary: Hitler acknowledging the National Socialist party
foremost had appeal to leftists!
[quote]The fact that millions of our people yearn at heart for a
radical change in our present conditions is proved by the
profound discontent which exists among them. This feeling is
manifested in a thousand ways. Some express it in a form of
discouragement and despair. Others show it in resentment and
anger and indignation. Among some the profound discontent calls
forth an attitude of indifference, while it urges others to
violent manifestations of wrath. Another indication of this
feeling may be seen on the one hand in the attitude of those who
abstain from voting at elections and, on the other, in the large
numbers of those who side with the fanatical extremists of the
left wing.
To these latter people our young movement had to appeal first of
all.
[...]
Looked at from the purely political point of view, the situation
in 1918 was as follows: A nation had been torn into two parts.
One part, which was by far the smaller of the two, contained the
intellectual classes of the nation, from which all those
employed in physical labour were excluded. On the surface these
intellectual classes appeared to be national-minded, but that
word meant nothing else to them except a very vague and feeble
concept of the duty to defend what they called the interests of
the State, which in turn seemed identical with those of the
dynastic regime.
[...]
Over against this class stood the broad masses of manual
labourers who were organized in movements with a more or less
radically Marxist tendency. These organized masses were firmly
determined to break any kind of intellectual resistance by the
use of brute force. They had no nationalist tendencies
whatsoever and deliberately repudiated the idea of advancing the
interests of the nation as such. On the contrary, they promoted
the interests of die foreign oppressor. Numerically this class
embraced the majority of the population and, what is more
important, included all those elements of the nation without
whose collaboration a national resurgence was not only a
practical impossibility but was even inconceivable.[/quote]
Adolf Hitler (1925-1926). Mein Kampf. Translation by James
Murphy (1939). Page 277-278.
HTML https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.526617/page/n279/mode/2up
Summary: Communist parties gave orders to their followers to
attend National Socialist meetings and disrupt them, but what
ended up happening is that the Communists ended up joining the
National Socialist party instead! In fact, the Communists were
losing so many members that they had to change their tactics and
forbid their members from attending further NS speeches!
[quote]Appeals were then made to the ‘class-conscious
proletariat’ to attend our meetings in masses and strike with
the clinched hand of the proletarian at the representatives of a
‘monarchist and reactionary agitation.’
Our meetings suddenly became packed with work-people fully
three-quarters of an hour before the proceedings were scheduled
to begin. These gatherings resembled a powder cask ready to
explode at any moment; and the fuse was conveniently at hand.
But matters always turned out differently. People came as
enemies and left, not perhaps prepared to join us, yet in a
reflective mood and disposed critically to examine the
correctness of their own doctrine. Gradually as time went on my
three-hour lectures resulted in supporters and opponents
becoming united in one single enthusiastic group of people.
Every signal for the breaking-up of the meeting failed.
[...]
Yet when, after two, three and even eight meetings, it was
realized that to break up these gatherings was easier said than
done and that every meeting resulted in a decisive weakening of
the red fighting forces, then suddenly the other pass-word was
introduced: ‘Proletarians, comrades and comradesses, avoid
meetings of the National Socialist agitators.’
The same eternally alternating tactics were also to be observed
in the Red Press. Soon they tried to silence us but discovered
the uselessness of such an attempt. After that they swung round
to the opposite tactics. Daily ‘reference’ was made to us solely
for the purpose of absolutely ridiculing us in the eyes of the
working-classes. After a time these gentlemen must have felt
that no harm was being done to us but that, on the contrary, we
were reaping an advantage in that people were asking themselves
why so much space was being devoted to a subject which was
supposed to be so ludicrous. People became curious.[/quote]
Adolf Hitler (1925-1926). Mein Kampf. Translation by James
Murphy (1939). Page 402.
HTML https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.526617/page/n403/mode/2up
See also the previous post about "Beefsteak Nazis"--i.e. a joke
about just many many National Socialists were former Communists:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/national-socialists-were-socialists/msg10637/#msg10637
[quote]The members of our Movement are not recruited from
circles which are habitually indifferent to public affairs, but
mostly from among men who hold more or less extreme views. Such
being the case, it is only natural that their understanding of
foreign politics should suffer from the prejudice and inadequate
knowledge of those circles to which they were formerly attached
by political and ideological ties. And this is true not merely
of the men who came to us from the Left.[/quote]
Adolf Hitler (1925-1926). Mein Kampf. Translation by James
Murphy (1939). Page 522.
HTML https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.526617/page/n523/mode/2up
Hitler admits social justice warriors are Aryans. Or, rather,
that desire for social justice is an innate "racial" quality of
Aryans. Communism and other forms of False Leftism claim to
fulfill social justice in order to herd people away from REAL
solutions.
[quote]The Jew artfully enkindled that innate yearning for
social justice which is a typical Aryan characteristic. Once
that yearning became alive it was transformed into hatred
against those in more fortunate circumstances of life. The next
stage was to give a precise philosophical aspect to the struggle
for the elimination of social wrongs. And thus the Marxist
doctrine was invented.
By presenting this doctrine as part and parcel of a just
revindication of social rights, the Jew propagated the doctrine
all the more effectively. But at the same time he provoked the
opposition of decent people who refused to admit these demands
which, because of the form and pseudo-philosophical trimmings in
which they arc presented, seemed fundamentally unjust and
impossible for realization.[/quote]
Adolf Hitler (1925-1926). Mein Kampf. Translation by James
Murphy (1939). Page 268.
HTML https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.526617/page/n269/mode/2up
----
In his youth Hitler was attracted to the Socialism of the
mainstream Social Democratic Party. However, he realized they
did not sincerely believe their Socialist principles, and Hitler
set out to make a movement that honestly did believe in
Socialism.
[quote]Accordingly I had no feeling of antipathy towards the
actual policy of the Social Democrats. That its avowed purpose
was to raise the level of the working classes--which in my
ignorance I then foolishly believed--was a further reason why I
should speak in favour of Social Democracy rather than against
it. But the features that contributed most to estrange me from
the Social Democratic movement was its conservation of Germanism
in Austria, its lamentable cocotting with the Slav 'comrades,'
who received these approaches favourably as long as any
practical advantages were forthcoming but otherwise maintained a
haughty reserve, thus giving the importunate mendicants the sort
of answer their behaviour deserved.
And so at the age of seventeen the word 'Marxism' was very
little known to me, while I looked on 'Social Democracy' and
'Socialism' as synonymous expressions. It was only as the result
of a sudden blow from the rough hand of Fate that my eyes were
opened to the nature of this unparalleled system for duping the
public.
[...]
On my way I noticed the Arbeiterszeitung (The Workman's Journal)
in a tobacco shop. This was the chief press-organ of the old
Austrian Social Democracy. ... I brought it home with me and
spent the whole evening reading it, despite the
steadily-mounting rage provoked by this ceaseless outpouring of
falsehoods.
I now found that in the social democratic daily papers I could
study the inner character of this politico-philosophic system
much better than in all their theoretical literature.
For there was a striking discrepancy between the two. In the
literary effusions which dealt with the theory of Social
Democracy there was a display of high-sounding phraseology about
liberty and human dignity and beauty, all promulgated with an
air of profound wisdom and prophetic assurance; a
meticulously-woven glitter of words, to dazzle and mislead the
reader. On the other hand the daily Press inculcated this new
doctrine of human redemption in the most brutal fashion. No
means were too base, provided they could be exploited in the
campaign of slander. These journalists were real virtuosos in
the art of twisting facts and presenting them in a deceptive
form.
[...]
If Social Democracy should be opposed by a more truthful
teaching, then, even though the struggle be of the bitterest
kind, this truthful teaching will finally prevail, provided it
be enforced with equal ruthlessness.
[...]
I am thankful now for the ordeal which I had to go through at
that time; for it was the means of bringing me to think kindly
again of my own people, inasmuch as the experience enabled me to
distinguish between the false leaders and the victims who have
been led astray.
We must took upon the latter simply as victims.[/quote]
Adolf Hitler (1925-1926). Mein Kampf. Translation by James
Murphy (1939). Page 44-50.
HTML https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.526617/page/n45/mode/2up
Hitler then studied further and realized why the Social
Democratic Party and Marxist Socialism had become derailed from
their ostensible Socialist goals:
[quote]I gradually discovered that the Social Democratic Press
was predominantly controlled by Jews. But I did not attach
special importance to this circumstance, for the same state of
affairs existed also in other newspapers. But there was one
striking fact in this connection. It was that there was not a
single newspaper with which Jews were connected that could be
spoken of as National, in the meaning that my education and
convictions attached to that word.
Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to
read articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but
in doing so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set
about learning something of the people who wrote and published
this mischievous stuff. From the publisher downwards, all of
them were Jews. I recalled to mind the names of the public
leaders of Marxism, and then I realized that most of them
belonged to the Chosen Race — the Social Democratic
representatives in the Imperial Cabinet as well as the
secretaries of the Trades Unions and the street agitators.
Everywhere the same sinister picture presented itself. I shall
never forget the row of names — Austerlitz, David, Adler,
Ellenbogen, and others. One fact became quite evident to me. It
was that this alien race held in its hands the leadership of
that Social Democratic Party with whose minor representatives I
had been disputing for months past. I was happy at last to know
for certain that the Jew is not a German.
Thus I finally discovered the evil spirits leading our people
astray. The sojourn in Vienna for one year had proved long
enough to convince me that no worker is so rooted in his
preconceived notions that he will not surrender them in face of
better and clearer arguments and explanations. Gradually I
became an expert in the doctrine of the Marxists and used this
knowledge as an instrument to drive home my own firm
convictions. I was successful in nearly every case. The great
masses can be rescued, but a lot of time and a large share of
human patience must be devoted to such work.
[...]
Urged by my own daily experiences, I now began to investigate
more thoroughly the sources of the Marxist teaching itself. Its
effects were well known to me in detail. As a result of careful
observation, its daily progress had become obvious to me. And
one needed only a little imagination in order to be able to
forecast the consequences which must result from it. The only
question now was: Did the founders foresee the effects of their
work in the form which those effects have shown themselves
today, or were the founders themselves the victims of an error?
To my mind both alternatives were possible.
If the second question must be answered in the affirmative, then
It was the duty of every thinking person to oppose this sinister
movement with a view to preventing it from producing its worst
results.
[...]
And so I began to gather information about the authors of this
teaching, with a view to studying the principles of the
movement. The fact that I attained my object sooner than I could
have anticipated was due to the deeper insight into the Jewish
question which I then gained, my knowledge of this question
being hitherto rather superficial. This newly acquired knowledge
alone enabled me to make a practical comparison between the real
content and the theoretical pretentiousness of the teaching laid
down by the apostolic founders of Social Democracy; because I
now understood the language of the Jew. I realized that the Jew
uses language for the purpose of dissimulating his thought or at
least veiling it, so that his real aim cannot be discovered by
what he says but rather by reading between the lines. This
knowledge was the occasion of the greatest inner revolution that
I had yet experienced. From being a soft-hearted cosmopolitan I
became an out-and-out anti-Semite.[/quote]
Adolf Hitler (1925-1926). Mein Kampf. Translation by James
Murphy (1939). Page 60-65.
HTML https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.526617/page/n63/mode/2up
Incredible isn't it? Even in a work of propaganda like Mein
Kampf, Hitler has no problem admitting his Socialist roots and
his desire to manifest a Socialist movement which is able to
actually accomplish the social justice goals which Marxist
Socialism claims to want, but never will be able to fulfill
(both due to flawed ideological foundations and control of its
political movements by the very same elites who will have to be
toppled to achieve actual Socialist social justice). If Hitler
was a far-rightist trying to build a far-rightist movement, why
would he so clearly outline his plan to manifest a more honest
form of Socialism???
Again, see the previous excerpt about how the Social Democratic
Party was indeed very Socialist and not just a mainstream
liberal party or something:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/national-socialists-were-socialists/msg10639/#msg10639
And see the quote from Heiden about how he argues Hitler didn't
want to join the Social Democratic Party ("Majority Socialist"
party) because he thought it was TOO RIGHTIST. Presumably Heiden
had read Mein Kampf, so he may have been summarizing Hitler's
attitude displayed in the quotes above.
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/national-socialists-were-socialists/msg10639/#msg10639
See also the April 12, 1922, speech in Munich, where Hitler
explains in further detail about how Communism doesn't actually
topple the financial elites.
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/national-socialists-were-socialists/msg10614/#msg10614
#Post#: 10876--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Blue Kumul Date: January 28, 2022, 7:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"I question whether the "Enlightenment" stuff should be included
at all. Elsewhere we have agreed to classify Romanticism within
leftism, and Romanticism was a movement against the
"Enlightenment", so....."
I always saw it the opposite way. Leftism is everything derived
from the Enlightenment, and Romanticism was a movement against
the Enlightenment, so Romanticism is not Leftist.
I'd divide Leftism into three waves:
1. Enlightenment and all later forms of liberalism
2. Socialism, including Marxism
3. Post-WW2 countercultural movements
And stop whitewashing Hitler, it is creepy!
#Post#: 10891--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: guest55 Date: January 29, 2022, 1:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]I always saw it the opposite way. Leftism is everything
derived from the Enlightenment[/quote]
Gnosticism was leftist long before any European "enlightenment".
Even in the New Testament we witness Jesus's leftism. Our
enemies will tell you this is the case also:
Leftism is a Gnostic perversion of Christianity
[quote]Being that we all live in “Christendom” — that is, a
culture shaped and animated (in the literal sense of “given
life”) by Judeo-[s]Christian[/s] principles — I guess it
shouldn’t be surprising that we share its underlying assumptions
about the “brokenness” of man and the world. But where the
progressive goes off the rails is in supposing there is some
secret political formula that can reverse the fall and restore
us to wholeness. Thus, the ubiquitous frenzied moral passion
that always animates the left. Leftists are always exaggeratedly
pessimistic about the present state of the world, but
“optimistic” in a crazed and manic way that steamrules over
anyone who would dare delay the immediate implementation of
paradise.[/quote]
Entire article:
HTML https://wolfpangloss.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/leftism-is-a-gnostic-perversion-of-christianity/
This is why the True Left is also known as the Pan-Gnostic Left
among True Leftists.
[quote]And stop whitewashing Hitler, it is creepy![/quote]
How are we "white-washing" Hitler exactly? You do realize a lot
of the previous quotes in this thread are directly from Mein
Kampf, as well as other reputable sources, right? Are we
"whitewashing" Hitler or have you actually never read anything
he said?
#Post#: 10893--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: January 29, 2022, 3:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"Leftism is everything derived from the Enlightenment, and
Romanticism was a movement against the Enlightenment, so
Romanticism is not Leftist."
"Enlightenmenters" supported Western colonialism because they
saw colonialism as a way of spreading the "Enlightenment" to
non-Western countries. Romantics were opposed to Western
colonialism for the same reason. Thus Romantics are the True
Leftists.
You are talking about progressivism, which True Leftism is
hostile towards:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/leftists-against-progressivism/
As a simple example, progressives are Islamophobic precisely
because they judge Islam to be a regressive force. True Leftists
are anti-Islamophobic not because we disagree with the
progressive judgement about Islam being a regressive force, but
because we agree with it and hence see in Islamization at least
a chance to stop progress before it becomes truly unstoppable:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/if-western-civilization-does-not-die-soon/
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/progressive-yahwism/
The nonsensical conflation of leftism with progressivism is the
reason why most leftists today are so intellectually weak.
Thoroughly extirpating progressivism from leftist thinking is
what we are here to do.
"1. Enlightenment and all later forms of liberalism"
This is False Leftism. It still considers Western civilization
superior to non-Western civilizations, since the "Enlightenment"
was a uniquely Western development.
"2. Socialism, including Marxism"
Marx also supported Western colonialism (see earlier posts),
thus Marx was also a False Leftist. It is only
Romanticism-inspired versions of socialism, such as Hitlerism,
which are True Leftist, considering Western civilization
inferior to the civilizations it was colonizing, but merely more
powerful.
"3. Post-WW2 countercultural movements"
This is the True Leftist successor to Romanticism-Hitlerism,
continuing to argue for the inferiority of Western civilization
compared to non-Western civilizations.
The chronological waves of our camp are:
1) Aryan Neolithic revolution
2) Ancient pan-Gnostic movements
3) Romanticism-Hitlerism
4) Counterculture era
5)
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/index.php
and of course:
0) Original Nobility
#Post#: 10912--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Zea_mays Date: January 30, 2022, 4:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]And stop whitewashing Hitler, it is creepy![/quote]
Would you say analogous things to Communists and supporters of
"Enlightenment" liberalism/democracy whenever they speak
positively of their views? (Personally, I do find their constant
rehabilitation of their ideologists and dogmatic devotion to
their failed ideologies to be creepy.)
And, if anything, I'm redwashing Hitler by posting direct
primary source quotes from him and those who interacted with him
personally. ;D
Consider, for a moment, that professional historians typically
write books by quoting a sentence or two from the primary
sources and then writing pages upon pages of their own personal
opinions to flesh out a narrative. (Sometimes they may go an
entire chapter with only citations and no direct quotations, and
we have to trust that they are accurately portraying the
substance of what they are citing.) In fact, some history books
written for general audiences don't cite references at all, and
even school history textbooks may not even have any direct
quotations.
In contrast, I have provided minimal commentary on the quotes. I
have allowed Hitler and those who interacted with him personally
to speak almost entirely for themselves, with large chunks of
text to give adequate context and fullness to their thoughts.
There are quotes from enemies of Hitler (e.g. Rauschning on the
right and Strasser on the left), allies (e.g. Wagener and
Goebbels), and from Hitler himself. And all the quotes are
converging upon the same themes of genuine Socialism.
It is bizarre, I will concede, to read such things for the first
time. (I'll admit I was shocked while doing research for this
thread!) But it is no more bizarre than, say, a person reading
the Communist Manifesto and other works for the first time and
realizing what Communism claims to be in its own words is
entirely different from how rightist narratives and strawmen
portray it.
----
[quote]3) Romanticism-Hitlerism[/quote]
This was, in fact, an ideological stage acknowledged by
philosopher Bertrand Russell in his history of "Western
Philosophy". From what I can tell, Russell was left/false left,
so he is not merely trying to insult leftism by including Hitler
and Mussolini in it.
Russell considered that Hitler could be considered under the
umbrella of one of two types of post-Enlightenment "liberalism".
This is probably not identical to our divide between the
post-Enlightenment False Left and the True Left, but we are not
alone in seeing a split.
[quote]Since Rousseau and Kant, there have been two schools of
liberalism, which may be distinguished as the hard-headed and
the soft-hearted. The hard-headed developed, through Bentham,
Ricardo, and Marx, by logical stages into Stalin; the
soft-hearted, by other logical stages, through Fichte, Byron,
Carlyle, and Nietzsche, into Hitler.[/quote]
Bertrand Russell. (1946). History of Western Philosophy. George
Allen and Unwin LTD. Page 667.
HTML https://archive.org/details/westernphilosoph035502mbp/page/666/mode/2up
Russell also acknowledges Hitler is a Romanticist:
[quote]The intellectual life of the nineteenth century was more
complex than that of any previous age. This was due to several
causes. ... Fourth: a profound revolt, both philosophical and
political, against traditional systems in thought, in politics,
and in economics, gave rise to attacks upon many beliefs and
institutions that had hitherto been regarded as unassailable.
This revolt had two very different forms, one romantic, the
other rationalistic. (I am using these words in a liberal
sense.) The romantic revolt passes from Byron, Schopenhauer, and
Nietzche to Mussolini and Hitler; the rationalistic revolt
begins with the French philosophers of the Revolution, passes
on, somewhat softened, to the philosophical radicals in England,
then acquires a deeper form in Marx and issues in Soviet
Russia.[/quote]
Bertrand Russell. (1946). History of Western Philosophy. George
Allen and Unwin LTD. Page 746.
HTML https://archive.org/details/westernphilosoph035502mbp/page/746/mode/2up
(Surely "empiricist" is a better word to describe the
non-Romanticists than "rationalistic".)
I don't know much about Rousseau, but Russell sees him as one of
the earliest philosophers whose ideas signaled a split between
what would become the Romanticist revolution against
"Enlightenment" thought. Of course, Hitler himself says his
Socialism is entirely pre-Western and traces back to Jesus.
[quote][Rousseau] is the father of the romantic movement, the
initiator of systems of thought which infer non-human facts from
human emotions, and the inventor of the political philosophy of
pseudo-democratic dictatorships as opposed to traditional
absolute monarchies. Ever since his time, those who considered
themselves reformers have been divided into two groups, those
who followed him and those who followed Locke. Sometimes they
co-operated, and many individuals saw no incompatibility. But
gradually the incompatibility has become increasingly evident.
At the present time, Hitler is an outcome of Rousseau; Roosevelt
and Churchill, of Locke.[/quote]
Bertrand Russell. (1946). History of Western Philosophy. George
Allen and Unwin LTD. Page 711.
HTML https://archive.org/details/westernphilosoph035502mbp/page/710/mode/2up
[quote]The chronological waves of our camp are[/quote]
As an additional random thought regarding political camps, I
think there are at least two major techniques to classify them.
The first is in a chronological manner (which would be called a
phylogenetic tree if we take into account ideologies branching
out into different clusters--e.g. in the classification I
outlined earlier in the thread). This is perhaps the most
straight-forward technique, since it's basically retracing
history.
The second is grouping/distinguishing ideologies by specific
characteristics. (e.g. how you outline support vs colonialism vs
opposition; or the simple way the True Left and False Left were
distinguished on the main site). Ideally these characteristics
would cleanly overlap with the groups in a phylogenetic
tree--but this is not strictly essential, as even in biology
character traits and family classifications don't perfectly
correspond to evolutionary phylogenies.
#Post#: 10913--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Zea_mays Date: January 30, 2022, 4:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Additional quotes from Wagener that are relevant here.
Again, Hitler passionately advocates for a truly revolutionary
and anti-traditional form of Socialism that replaces the past
~1000 years of post-Renaissance Western Civilization with a
radically new foundation:
[quote]“What is at stake at the present great turning point? An
individualistic worldview is being replaced by a socialistic
one! A thousand-year-old attitude toward life is being thrust
aside by completely new concepts.
Such a change cannot be decreed by legislation! Nor can it be
brought about by a ministry, no matter how homogeneously it is
put together and how saturated and filled it is with the new
ideas.
Such a transformation requires an inner conversion! A mental, a
spiritual, an ethical, even a religious one!
[...]
What is crucial is the internal conversion of the people, of the
Volksgenossen, of the Volk! And that is a political task! As
yet, almost everyone is imprisoned in the liberalistic attitude.
Do you think that a confirmed industrial entrepreneur is
prepared suddenly to admit that his property is not a right but
a duty? That capital should no longer rule but be ruled? That it
is not the life of the individual that matters but the totality?
That the principle of the soldier’s sacrificial death should be
transformed into the readiness of every working person—whether
he be active in the economy or elsewhere—to sacrifice himself
for the community?
It is such a far-reaching and complete conversion that the adult
is no longer capable of it. Only youth can be converted, newly
aligned and adjusted to the socialist sense of obligation toward
the community. ...almost two thousand years the Gospel of Christ
has been preached, for two thousand years the sense of community
has been taught: love one another, care for one another, respect
and help one another! But today, at the end of these two
thousand years, economic liberalism flourishes as never before!
[...]
And in a couple of years we are supposed to make up for all this
and to restore order where millenia have sinned? We’re to
believe that we can restore the value of the word of God, the
teaching of Christ, the truth of a holy religion, where
generations upon generations, nations upon nations, the entire
lifespan of a human cultural epoch, all were unable even to
recognize the deep abyss in which they wandered or sojourned!
True, this misinterpretation of the Christian faith has become
clearly evident only recently, through the mechanization of
manual labor and the industrialization of the economy, which
allowed the condition of pre-Christian slavery to be revived in
new forms.
[...]
But when you see the masses streaming to join the SA, when you
observe the enthusiasm of youth, when the cheerful hands of an
innocent child reach for you, then you will sense the inner
conversion; then you will realize that a new faith is awakening
out of the lethargy of a corrupt epoch and taking to the
march—the faith in divine justice, in heavenly truth; the faith
in an unworldly, paradisiacal future, where the lust for power,
force, and enmity gives way to equality and fraternity, the
spirit of sacrifice, love and loyalty, and the will to stand
before the throne of the Almighty with the open heart of one
ready to believe in God. And they will have sufficient greatness
to stammer out the prayer for their brothers and fathers,
‘Forgive them. Lord, for they knew not what they did.’
It is on this basis alone that the new world can be built! To
lay this groundwork is our task. Our own hopes can aim no
further. We must leave some things to be done by those who come
after us. Your work will be a signpost for the future, a witness
to our great intention, but in our time it will not be crowned
with realization.”
He fell silent. His inner enthusiasm had driven the blood into
his cheeks. His eyes glowed like bright lights. I thought of
Strasser, of our plans. And I felt: Our thinking is so
puny.[/quote]
Otto Wagener. (written in 1946, first published in German in
1978). Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant. Edited by Henry Ashby
Turner, Jr., translated by Ruth Hein (1985). Page 55-57.
HTML https://archive.org/details/wagenerhitlermemoirsofaconfidant/page/n85/mode/2up
Here is Wagener and Hitler having the same conversation about
ideal Socialism's approach to business talent and the practical
reality of what must happen at the beginning of a
1000-year-Reich in order for the state to be successful:
[quote]It is generally believed that competitors must be totally
hostile to each other and constantly at each other’s throats. I
hold the reverse to be true. We are accustomed to believe that
struggle is necessary for that which is healthier and
stronger—in this case, better—to prevail. That is said to be the
case in the animal kingdom and the vegetable kingdom. And it
cannot be otherwise, the belief holds, among men and in men’s
work.
I often talked with Hitler about this question. He was radically
committed to that view. Even applied to economics, he saw in the
struggle for assertion of self and for preeminence the surest
guarantee for progress and the general weal.
Clearly he had conflicting feelings. He was a socialist and
determined to remain one. But his inner attachment to nature led
him time and again to observe and acknowledge as a law of nature
the struggle for existence, the struggle to defeat the other.
“But that is liberalism, pure and simple,” I told him on the
occasion of one such discussion. “Man has been thinking and
acting this way for two thousand years. With this watchword he
overcame absolutism and created the system that today we call
democracy, which put an end to the struggle of the individual
for economic and spiritual freedom. But it is exactly this
economic freedom that created new autocracies, in the factories
and the large concerns, where the workers and clerical personnel
were turned even more directly into slaves than they ever had
been under the scepter of a feudal lord.”
“I know myself,” he answered, “that here is an intersecting
point in the lines of my natural feelings and my logical and
historical perception. In our program, we have even given
expression to this hurdle by coining the maxim, ‘public need
before private greed.’ Individual striving—yes, individual
acquisitiveness—is the driving force that animates the world and
the economy and that has engendered all major inventions and
discoveries. If we eliminate it, the drive slackens and progress
stagnates. But to stand still is to regress.
That is why we must preserve this driving force, we must nurture
it, even reward it! We must take this striving, which is in
itself selfish, and place it in the service of all, in the
service of the whole nation — yes, perhaps in time in the
service of all mankind.”
“If you believe [Wagener replied] that mankind can be trained to
this end without very far-reaching interventions by the state,
then, I believe, you have too high an opinion of mankind. Man’s
aspirations are evil—we should say, selfish—from childhood; the
Bible tells us something of the sort. Perhaps Christ was one of
the first to contrast man’s liberalistic attitude with the
socialist stance. But his teachings, which can still be found in
pure and noble form in St. Paul and others, soon became
falsified, even turned upside down, and little of Christianity
remains in the churches that use its name today.”
“I know that, Wagener. I’m quite clear on that point. But
perhaps it is easier to preach and find prophets for a socialism
that corresponds to Marxist ideas or present-day communism than
for the synthesis of reason that has the goal of putting the
given traits of humanity in the service of the people. For if we
permitted our Gauleiter and speakers to preach pure socialism of
the customary order, we would be doing nothing different from
the Bolsheviks. In that case, we would not have to do battle
with them. But what we want is precisely to keep this
destructive Bolshevism, which annihilates culture and economy,
from taking further root, so that it destroys our life as well!
Communism results in a welfare state where the standards are
averaged downward. We want a state that allows for free
development of the personality, but in the last analysis, this
must also be for the needs of the people — that is, in the
service of the community, where the standard is to be raised as
high as possible, and then higher yet.
This state, however, can come into being only in the fight for
existence, in a competitive struggle that is as free as
possible, connected purely and simply to the promotion of the
commonweal—that is, gain for all: for the Volk community, for
humanity.
You see, that’s what doesn’t quite make sense to me in your
plans for economic organization, for a system of economic
self-administration. It is too likely that these economic
councils, this multiplicity of opinion, this chaos of interests,
might inhibit, or even stifle, the development of individuality
and personal initiative. This structure is necessary for the
present, as long as the economy is in a slump, as long as
millions of people cannot find work, as long as systematic state
control of the economy must occur just to bring it back to full
production. But the closer we come to normal times, the more the
shackles and restraints that hinder the free play of the natural
struggle must be loosened. The state must be, not a nursemaid,
but the incarnation of the ethical conscience of a people and of
each individual.”[/quote]
Otto Wagener. (written in 1946, first published in German in
1978). Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant. Edited by Henry Ashby
Turner, Jr., translated by Ruth Hein (1985). Page 114-116.
HTML https://archive.org/details/wagenerhitlermemoirsofaconfidant/page/n143/mode/2up
I think with state control over reproduction and central
direction of the economy, a balance could be found to prevent
hyper-competitiveness from going unchecked, while not stifling
the productivity that will unfortunately be necessary for the
battles to come.
#Post#: 10914--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Zea_mays Date: January 30, 2022, 4:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Summary and commentary:
In this chapter, Hitler and Wagener discuss the foreign policy
goal of a Socialist federation of nations, with the hope that
National Socialist Germany will serve as a shining example that
could convince even democratic nations to eventually adopt
Socialism.
Hitler also criticizes Oswald Spengler (he says he will strive
against the "decline" predicted by Spengler, but Hitler
advocates for regressing towards an ancient pre-Renaissance
ideal of Socialism, whereas Spengler's "West" seems clearly
post-Renaissance. Further, from reading a brief summary of
Spengler's work, it seems like his view of history is
"progressive" in the development of cultures, but Hitler is
clearly "regressive" and also says he wants to dismantle the
post-Renaissance order and radically replace it. In other words,
Hitler is anti-Spengler, but from a leftist perspective, not a
rightist Western-preservationist perspective.)
Hitler also mentions that industrialization is present almost
exclusively in nations with "Nordic" elements. However, Hitler
strongly criticizes industrialization and the slavery it
entails. So, Hitler's desire to harness the "Nordic" character
is a practical matter to redirect their talent away from their
"natural" selfish-individualism and inventiveness towards
strengthening the power of a National Socialist state.
This "Nordic" character is in contrast to the "Slavic"
character, who have allowed themselves to become slaves to
Judeo-Bolshevism. However, all the worst aspects of Communism
were not developed by Russians or Slavs themselves, but by Jews,
and then accepted by the Slavic peoples where Communism has
prevailed.
Hitler also predicts an interesting three-front future Cold War
between a future National Socialist EU, the US, and Communist
nations. Hitler (correctly) predicts the heavily-industrialized
US will eventually take over the UK's throne as a global
military power, and Hitler thinks he needs an alliance with
England and other future-EU nations to have the power for
National Socialism to be triumphant over the
internationalist-industrialist US bloc and the internationalist
(false) Socialist USSR bloc.
[quote]In the next section Wagener summarizes six postulates on
foreign policy at which he had arrived by the early 1930s: [...]
(2) collaboration with Italy would be a mistake, since it would
nourish the belief in the Soviet Union that the Nazis were mere
fascists, [...] (3) in order to make possible an ideological
rapprochement with the Soviet Union, Nazi plans for a "social
economy" should be emphasized; [...] (5) by means of economic
agreements and collaboration, Germany's neighbors in Central
Europe should be won over to a federation that could serve as a
bridge between East and West by means of which socialist
conciliation could take place.
[...]
When he had finished, Wagener recounts, Hitler calmly responded
as follows.
“I did not take the road of politics to smooth the way for
international socialism, much less to preach a new, socialist
religion. I am not made to be the founder of a religion, I am
not one and have no desire to be one. Rather, I am a politician.
I bring to the German Volk national socialism, the political
doctrine of the Volk community, the solidarity of all who are
part of the German Volk and who are ready and willing to feel
themselves an inextricable but co-responsible particle of the
totality of the Volk, having responsibility for it.
A Volk in the current political sense has ceased to be a racial
unit, a racially pure community. The great migrations of world
history, the military expeditions, the times of enemy
occupation, and also, of course, the admixture that became ever
more frequent as the result of international trade relations,
have seen to it that all sorts of races and racial mixtures live
side by side within the borders of any state.
Nevertheless, most nations—the United States of America forming
the most notable exception—are the structures within certain
areas where either the old tribal system has survived or a
community has come into being over time that was consolidated
into a Volk, possessing its own style, its own language, its own
attitudes on ethics and morality, and its own culture. Such
groups of people who feel that they belong together continue to
unite under economic, political, and even purely geographic
influences, and these groups rightly designate themselves a
Volk. In this same way, America will in time turn into one Volk.
[...]
Our movement has adopted the mission of enabling the German Volk
to change the Weimar constitution, so that it will correspond to
the essence and will of the Volk. And this essence of the German
Volk is socialist in the most profound sense. Any Volk community
is, in the last analysis, always socialist.
Earlier, you mentioned the situation of the Jews in Soviet
Russia. You call the Jew’s participation in the Bolshevik
Revolution ‘midwifery’. Let us make no mistake! Thanks to the
Jews, socialist movements all over the world have turned into
mechanisms of battle against the organic development of the
peoples! Their influence on nations is not constructive but
destructive. They love the socialist idea, not for the sake of
the idea, but for the possibility of using the concept to win
over the disconnected masses to the struggle against the
indigenous Volk leadership. Since, on the basis of the Biblical
promise made to him, the Jew strives for power within all
peoples, the indigenous leadership in every nation is his enemy!
But when it has successfully been removed by a revolution, then
the Jews do not actually introduce genuine socialism as they
have promised—because it would wrest power from their hands
again. Rather, they established the rule of the proletariat—or,
as happened in Weimar, the rule of the revolutionaries—and they
themselves take over the safeguarding of the attainments of the
revolution and the representation of the proletariat.
The Jew is not a socialist! Once before he nailed to the cross
the great Creator of the concept of socialist redemption! He
will do so again whenever he can! For he is an individualist, an
economic liberalist, an egotist—yes, he is a parasitic creature.
In Russia, the Jews succeeded in directing the will to freedom
of oppressed Slavic peoples against allegedly alien rulers. But
then, themselves alien, they set themselves in the former
rulers’ place. They still occupy it, and I have no reason to
believe that the Slavs are making any attempts to oust them
again. But as long as that is not the case, a National-Socialist
Germany cannot enter into alliances with Russia. Rather, I see
Jewry’s determination to use Russia as a springboard from which
to direct the removal of the existing order in other nations as
well! For the organization of the Comintern is purely Jewish!
That is why it becomes necessary to strengthen the peoples of
Europe and all the world against this germ of destruction ...
[...]
... I have no doubt that gradually, but with absolute certainty,
a socialist reorganization will take place in all democratic
countries. Except in Russia! There the herd will be increasingly
governed with the whip.
[...]
The international element of the communist movement that
emanates from Russia is not really Russian, or Slavic; it is
Jewish. And we must not make the mistake of believing that it is
supported by a Russian-Slavic idea, which might even have some
creative content. The current activities of the Comintern
members are purely destructive.
There also exists a constructive international socialist idea.
But it is altogether different. For, look here, once nations
have begun to carry out a socialist and socio-economic
reorganization within their own borders, the time is ripe for
the totality of nations—that is, all the peoples and states—to
give up fighting each other for power and supremacy, enslavement
and exploitation, according to liberal principles—that is,
acting according to imperialist principles. Then, even among
them the time has come for giving consideration to pride of
place, communal spirit, even ‘socialism.’ What first occurred on
a small scale within the individual nations will then take place
among the worldwide community of nations. Even the smallest of
them will enjoy equal rights, even the have-nots will be able to
share in the goods and the surplus of the elite’s international
property. That is socialism of the nations! But it is quite
different from the international socialism of a Marx or a Lenin!
[...]
But first, there will have to be national socialism. Otherwise
the peoples and their governments are not ready for the
socialism of nations. It is not possible to be liberal in one’s
own country and demand socialism among nations. Education about
and firm belief in national socialism must precede that change.
But if we do not succeed in taking this road, we will either be
given a world empire headed by a single state—the strongest, the
most powerful, which will, in the end, have to resort to
military methods to secure and maintain its power—or end up with
international Bolshevism, which can equally be nothing but
despotism. The first goal is obviously being striven for at
present by North America, while Russia aims at the latter.
Perhaps neither of them yet realizes what is happening. But, as
I said: If we do not succeed in paving the way for the socialism
of nations, then one or another of these two must set in!
[...]
The international powers that are at work to penetrate the
unanimity of the national bodies, the states, the nations, to
dissolve and undermine them, are therefore contrary to nature
and hostile to the divine order. ... Such organizations can, at
times, be stronger than the states! And herein lies their
danger! Not only for the individual state, but especially for
the possibility of creating the great socialist community of
nations.
So, if we pursue the goal of such a community of nations—and it
must, as I said, be pursued, and it will be the final goal of
human politics on this earth—then we must first reconstruct the
independence and autonomy of the nations, even the smallest, and
drive the large international organizations back to their purely
technical sphere of operations, eliminating every last
possibility of their influence on governments and governmental
organizations. This is a further basic perception.
[...]
I cannot believe that the civilized nations of the world are so
blind that they will lacerate each other to smooth the way for
Bolshevism. The contrary is essential: coalition, by groups,
into confederacies of states, into families of nations, perhaps
even here and there into federal states.
[...]
It is all the more important that we work at a coalition. And on
that point I will tell you over and over again: without England
it is not possible! England has the necessary power. We bring
along only the idea and the will. I cannot imagine that England
will not decide to climb down from its pedestal of arrogance and
imperialism, which has been made outmoded by history, and to
extend its hand to a community of nations. ...”
[...]
Hitler raised his voice for the final words. It was a last, and
without a doubt a final, rejection of the policies I had
proposed. But this rejection was at once so impressive and so
convincing that, after long internal struggle, I decided to bow
to it. Only two goals remained absolute for me: to smooth the
way to the East, using economic negotiations and treaties that
would avoid and make unnecessary armed confrontation; and the
realization at the earliest possible moment of a socio-economic
reorganization that might prompt even Russia to imitation and
abandonment of its Bolshevik ideology.[/quote]
Otto Wagener. (written in 1946, first published in German in
1978). Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant. Edited by Henry Ashby
Turner, Jr., translated by Ruth Hein (1985). Page 165-174.
HTML https://archive.org/details/wagenerhitlermemoirsofaconfidant/page/n207/mode/2up
Note that last sentence. Rauschning (a rightist anti-Hitlerist)
said Hitler expressed the same sentiment that Bolshevism will be
forced to imitate and transform into a sort of National
Socialism!!! Once again, this would make no sense if National
Socialism was not a genuinely leftist Socialist ideology. I
would recommend reading the passages from Rauschning again, as
these are the strongest quotes I have seen about Hitler
unambiguously stressing the leftism of his Socialism:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/national-socialists-were-socialists/msg10718/#msg10718
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page