DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Colonial Era
*****************************************************
#Post#: 10915--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Zea_mays Date: January 30, 2022, 5:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Information from Otto Strasser's memoir "Hitler and I",
published in 1940. In the book, he is bitterly anti-Hitler and
anti-NSDAP.
Previously, we discussed numerous times how Hitler respected the
Strassers, went out of his way to try to keep them in the party,
and never criticized them for being leftist. Here is further
evidence Strasser was indeed leftist/Socialist, and that he
believed Hitler was leftist enough to be "used" to further the
cause of Socialism.
[quote]Six months earlier the celebrated Kapp putsch had taken
place in Berlin, on which occasion I had fought valiantly for
the Weimar Republic. I had led three squads of Berlin workingmen
against Colonel Erhardt’s Brigade and General Luttwitz’s
Regiment.
[...]
I was a young student of law and economics, a Left-Wing student
leader, and a leader of ex-soldier students.[/quote]
Otto Strasser. (1940). Hitler and I. Translated by Gwenda David
and Eric Mosbacher (1940). Page 2-3.
HTML https://archive.org/details/HitlerAndIOttoStrasser
[quote]Gregor, as leader of the Nationalist ex-service men of
Bavaria, had incorporated his followers in the
National-Socialist movement that spring [1920]. He had founded
the first provincial branch of the party, and was thus Hitler’s
first Gauleiter.[/quote]
Otto Strasser. (1940). Hitler and I. Translated by Gwenda David
and Eric Mosbacher (1940). Page 6-7.
HTML https://archive.org/details/HitlerAndIOttoStrasser
[quote]‘There is no question of revenge and there is no question
of war,’ I replied. ‘Our Socialism must be “national” in order
to establish a new order in Germany and not to set out on a new
policy of conquests.’
‘Yes,’ said Gregor, who had been listening very seriously, ‘from
the Right we shall take nationalism, which has so disastrously
allied itself with capitalism, and from the Left we shall take
Socialism, which has made such an unhappy union with
internationalism. Thus we shall form the National-Socialism
which will be the motive force of a new Germany and a new
Europe.’
‘And,’ I continued, ‘the emphasis in this amalgamation must be
on the socialism. Don’t you call your movement Nationalsozialist
in a single word, Herr Hitler? German grammar tells us that in
compound words of this kind the first part serves to qualify the
second, which is the essential part.’[/quote]
Otto Strasser. (1940). Hitler and I. Translated by Gwenda David
and Eric Mosbacher (1940). Page 9.
HTML https://archive.org/details/HitlerAndIOttoStrasser
Again, there was an understanding in the 1920s that Marx did not
have a monopoly on the idea of Socialism:
[quote]The more persuasive Hitler tried to be, the more critical
did I become. He stopped for breath and saw me smile.
‘You do not know the Jews, Herr Hitler, and permit me to tell
you that you overestimate them,’ I replied. ‘The Jew, you see,
is above all adaptable. He exploits existing possibilities, but
creates nothing. He makes use of socialism, he utilizes
capitalism, he would even exploit National-Socialism if you gave
him the chance. He adapts himself to circumstances with a
suppleness of which, apart from him, only the Chinese is
capable. Marx invented nothing. Socialism has always had three
sides. Marx, in collaboration with the good German Engels,
studied its economic side, the Italian Mazzini examined its
national and religious implications, and Bakunin, a Russian,
developed its Nihilist side, from which Bolshevism was born.
Thus you see that socialism was not of Jewish origin at
all.’[/quote]
Otto Strasser. (1940). Hitler and I. Translated by Gwenda David
and Eric Mosbacher (1940). Page 11.
HTML https://archive.org/details/HitlerAndIOttoStrasser
(For reference, Bakunin was very anti-Jewish.)
Like Hitler, the Strassers wanted a synthesis of Nationalism and
Socialism:
[quote]As for Hitler, I thought him too servile towards the
General, too quick in argument and in the art of isolating his
opponent. He has no political convictions, he has the eloquence
of a loudspeaker.’
‘Perhaps,’ said Gregor, ‘his corporal’s stripes are pinned to
his body. All the same there’s something about him. He has a
magnetic quality which it is difficult to resist. What fine
things we could do if we could use him to express your ideas,
employing Ludendorff’s energy and my own organizing ability to
carry them out!’[/quote]
Otto Strasser. (1940). Hitler and I. Translated by Gwenda David
and Eric Mosbacher (1940). Page 13.
HTML https://archive.org/details/HitlerAndIOttoStrasser
Ironically, the Strassers expressed disappointment that Hitler
was making an actual synthesis of Nationalism and Socialism, as
well as setting his sights on a radical and revolutionary
transformation of politics. The Strassers were too bogged down
in Western traditions...
[quote]Gregor had more solid arguments to justify his obstinacy.
I reminded him of Hitler’s successive acts of treachery.
‘We no longer talk the same language,’ I said. ‘We are
socialists, and Hitler has already come to terms with the
capitalists. We are republicans, and Hitler allies himself with
the Wittelsbachs and even with the Hohenzollerns. We are
European and liberal; we demand our liberty, but we also respect
the liberty of others, while Hitler talks to his confidants of
the domination of Europe. We are Christians; without
Christianity Europe is lost. Hitler is an atheist.’
Gregor listened to me gravely, his brows contracted in a frown.
‘No!’ he exclaimed, ‘I won’t allow myself to be unhorsed. I
shall tame him.’
Did Gregor really believe he would tame Adolf? Was he not bound
to him by one of those obstinate fidelities that nothing could
shake?[/quote]
Otto Strasser. (1940). Hitler and I. Translated by Gwenda David
and Eric Mosbacher (1940). Page 93.
HTML https://archive.org/details/HitlerAndIOttoStrasser
See the previous post of Hitler's conversations with Otto
Strasser in 1930, where Hitler reaffirmed his Socialism and
criticized Strasser for being too Marxist-sympathetic and not
radical enough. (A different translation of that conversation is
also included in the book I'm quoting from.)
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/national-socialists-were-socialists/msg10620/#msg10620
Strasser speaks very negatively of Goebbels, but never does he
portray Goebbels as a rightist. This occurred in 1925 I believe:
[quote]When Feder protested in Hitler’s name, Goebbels leapt to
his feet and made a sensational speech in our support.
‘In these circumstances I demand that the petty bourgeois Adolf
Hitler be expelled from the National-Socialist Party,’ he
thundered. I may add that he was loudly applauded.[/quote]
Otto Strasser. (1940). Hitler and I. Translated by Gwenda David
and Eric Mosbacher (1940). Page 86.
HTML https://archive.org/details/HitlerAndIOttoStrasser
Otto Strasser claims Goebbels helped organize the coup attempt
led by Stennes (which Otto Strasser supported). (This also means
Stennes would have been a leftist Socialist. So many leftist
factions within the NSDAP!)
[quote]On Good Friday, 1931, the Berlin S.A., in full uniform,
with Stennes at their head, seized the building in which
Goebbels lived and the Angriff was printed.
[...]
Stennes informed me of what had happened. ‘Goebbels is in
flight, but the police are on the move against us,’ he said.
I immediately joined him at the Angriff building.
‘What are we to do?’ he asked me. ‘The revolt was planned in
agreement with Goebbels, but at the last moment he betrayed us,
warned the police, and fled to Munich to take refuge in Hitler’s
bosom.’
‘A revolt which does not develop into a revolution,’ I replied,
‘is doomed in advance. We must hold out.’
The S.A. occupied the Angriff works for three days, publishing
the paper on their own. Hitler and Goebbels were declared to
have been dethroned. The Gauleiters of North Germany decided to
support Stennes in the total revolution, and Goebbels’ second
betrayal was reported in large type in all their papers.[/quote]
Otto Strasser. (1940). Hitler and I. Translated by Gwenda David
and Eric Mosbacher (1940). Page 126-127.
HTML https://archive.org/details/HitlerAndIOttoStrasser
Strasser also claims Goebbels was assuring Roehm that the
right-wing elements of the party would soon be purged, in the
days leading up to the Night of the Long Knives! Strasser
insults Goebbels for seemingly favoring whichever faction is
more likely to emerge victorious, even if it means 'betraying'
his Socialist ideals, but Strasser never suggests that Goebbels
was insincere in his initial support of the leftist plotters of
the party. He does not suggest Goebbels was a rightist in
disguise who was trying to gain the confidence of the leftists!
Furthermore, the way Strasser describes things, Hitler was ready
to side with Roehm and the leftist radical/revolutionary faction
over the right-leaning faction of the party, but Hitler's hand
was forced by President Hindenburg's threats of using the
military against him if he couldn't control agitation within the
party, the danger of alienating the industrial powers, and
Goering siding with the military/industrialists.
(Note that when Strasser says "radical", he means leftist.)
[quote]The conversations between Roehm and Goebbels at the
Bratwurst-Glockle became much more animated. When the landlord
or the waiters entered their private room, they heard only
fragments.
‘Mussolini demanded the sacrifice of the radicals... The
reactionaries grow more and more insolent... The Marburg speech
was a provocation... Adolf will put these gentlemen of the
Herrenklub in their place... We’ll make a clean sweep.’
They didn't hear much, but it was too much.
When Hitler finally came down on the side of the reactionaries a
few days later, it was important that nobody should be left
alive who knew that a few days earlier Goebbels had been
discussing with Roehm the liquidation of the capitalist and
bourgeois clique.
[...]
Adolf need only have taken one further step to have created a
fait accompli, but Roehm, the soul of the revolutionary
movement, was absent, and Blomberg and even Goering kept
silence.
[...]
He made up his mind to deal once and for all with the
reactionary gentlemen, if not tomorrow, then next day or next
week.
What he needed now was the President’s consent to the formation
of a new Cabinet built on real Nazi lines.
[...]
Hitler was accompanied by Goebbels, by Hofmann the photographer,
and by Herr Schreck, the leader of the S.S. These three
represented the radical wing of the party in South Germany.
[...]
Did not Goering belong to the Party? Did he not owe everything
to Adolf? Yet he dared come out on the side of the Reichswehr
and the police against the Party and the S.A. Blomberg and
Goering against Hitler and Roehm...
Goebbels reflected. From the corner of his eye he watched Hitler
pass from violent anger to complete prostration. The little
cripple had betrayed Gregor Strasser at Bamberg, he had betrayed
Stennes in Berlin, and he would betray Adolf too if the latter
were obstinate, for he knew that power was on the side of the
Reichswehr ... But Hitler must realize that too ... Hitler would
reflect, he had already reflected, he would go back on his
original intentions. Goebbels was sure of it. Only one petty act
of treachery would be necessary, and the Minister of Propaganda
cheerfully reconciled himself to it. What, after all, had he
promised Roehm? Nothing at all. Roehm must be
sacrificed.[/quote]
Otto Strasser. (1940). Hitler and I. Translated by Gwenda David
and Eric Mosbacher (1940). Page 184-187.
HTML https://archive.org/details/HitlerAndIOttoStrasser
This is similar to how Rauschning said Hitler was considering
regaining control of the party by leading the revolutionary
leftist element of the SA himself, rather than purging them:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/national-socialists-were-socialists/msg10719/#msg10719
Weeks before the Night of the Long Knives, Hitler again offered
Gregor Strasser additional power in an attempt to retain his
loyalty. There is no way Hitler would have offered Strasser the
position of Minister of the National Economy had Hitler been a
far-rightist trying to stamp out left-wing elements of the
party! Furthermore, Otto Strasser's narrative that Hitler was
basically right-leaning and had "betrayed" the Socialist aspects
of National Socialism from the outset make little sense, given
how willing Hitler was to continuously empower Gregor Strasser
and Roehm (who Otto Strasser says was aligned with their overall
Socialist goals).
[quote]He was at the cross-roads. One way led towards a peaceful
German revolution and the regeneration of the country; this was
the way of Roehm, Gregor Strasser, and General von Schleicher.
The other was the Imperialist way of old Germany, which led
inevitably to war. At this time I wrote a pamphlet, Social
Revolution or Fascist War? of which thousands of copies were
sold throughout the country.
On June 13, before leaving for Venice to meet the Duce, Adolf
sent for Gregor; the two had not met since the stormy interview
provoked by the intrigues of Papen, Goering, and Goebbels.
‘I offer you the Ministry of National Economy, Strasser. Accept,
and between us we can still save the situation.’
‘I accept, Herr Hitler,' said Gregor, ‘on condition that Goering
and Goebbels are removed; an honest man cannot work with these
individuals.’[/quote]
Otto Strasser. (1940). Hitler and I. Translated by Gwenda David
and Eric Mosbacher (1940). Page 179.
HTML https://archive.org/details/HitlerAndIOttoStrasser
Even the former Marxist Mussolini was apparently worried about
just how leftist National Socialism was. (And he even
recommended purging Goebbels for his unrepentant leftism.)
[quote]Adolf had two meetings with Mussolini, on June 14 and 15.
The Duce, however, failed to succumb to the German Chancellor’s
charms. ... Mussolini, however, went still further. Would it not
be prudent, he suggested, purely of course as a friend, to
restrain somewhat the radical actions and speeches of the Left
Wing of the National-Socialist Party? Would it not be wise to
dissolve the S.A., which formed a state within the state, and
was led by that notorious freebooter Roehm, in association with
notorious characters such as Heines, Ernst, etc.? ...and of
Goebbels, who dared speak of the possibility of a second
revolution?[/quote]
Otto Strasser. (1940). Hitler and I. Translated by Gwenda David
and Eric Mosbacher (1940). Page 181.
HTML https://archive.org/details/HitlerAndIOttoStrasser
These quotes once again demonstrate that the Strassers genuinely
believed themselves to be Socialists, and Otto Strasser seems to
believe Hitler only ultimately sided with the
"reactionary"/non-Socialist-leaning faction of the party in 1934
when Hitler had to make political compromises to keep the NSDAP
in power. Recall also that when Strasser was writing this, he
was bitterly anti-Hitler and anti-NSDAP. So even if he was
exaggerating things to make them seem worse than they were, even
he cannot deny Hitler and the party's Socialism--even if he
thinks Hitlerism betrayed "real" Strasserist Socialism.
We must ask ourselves, would the democratic and
Marxist-sympathetic Strassers have been able to have more
success than Hitler in furthering radical Socialism? I think
this is unlikely. Socialist Otto Wagener also agreed that
Hitler's synthesis of Socialism was likely more successful than
a more conventional Marxist-leaning form of Socialism would have
been:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/national-socialists-were-socialists/msg10723/#msg10723
#Post#: 10965--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Blue Kumul Date: February 1, 2022, 9:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ah, a lot of stuff to refute here:
1. Romanticism can be both left-wing and right-wing phenomenon.
Romantics always exalt the heart above reason, irrational belief
above rational enquiry and the remote past above modernity. This
can lead to anarchism (Leftist) or to traditionalism (Rightist).
You are correct that Hitler was a romantic, but he was a
totalitarian, right-wing romantic. Dugin is another example.
Compare him with William Blake, who represented a freedom
oriented, proto-anarchist form of Romanticism.
2. Being against colonialism is not a good definition of
leftism. Some European right-wing identitarians are also against
colonialism. They see Europe as the natural habitat of White
people, and also the Middle East as the natural habitat of Arabs
and sub-Saharan Africa as the natural habitat of Blacks. This is
a stance known as "pan-nationalism", which could be also called
rightist internationalism.
My definition of Leftism is being opposed to hierarchy. In terms
of economics, this means socialism. In terms of culture, this
means support for social freedom (inclusivity). In terms of
foreign policy this means belief that all ethnicities and
cultures are equal. This cannot include Hitler, who believed
that Jews and Slavs are inferior to Germans because of their
innate characteristics.
3. It is possible to quote Mein Kampf selectively to show Hitler
as a forerunner of post-WW2 American counterculture, just as it
is possible to quote the Koran and Hadith selectively to show
that Mohammed was a peaceful preacher.
"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.)"
Whitewashing Lenin and Stalin is just as creepy as what you are
doing here.
#Post#: 10966--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Blue Kumul Date: February 1, 2022, 9:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can also read:
HTML http://factmyth.com/factoids/hitler-was-a-left-wing-socialist-liberal/
#Post#: 10969--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: guest55 Date: February 1, 2022, 1:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Blue Kumul link=topic=1086.msg10966#msg10966
date=1643729428]
You can also read:
HTML http://factmyth.com/factoids/hitler-was-a-left-wing-socialist-liberal/[/quote]
I can tell you right out the gate this author has no clue what
they are talking about:
[quote]First off, let’s start by saying the fascism of the
pre-WWII and WWII era was a left-right mix that drew from
socialism but stood against liberalism. Especially the NAZI
brand of fascism drew heavily from socialism and promised and
implemented socialism for its in-group. This form of socialism
was very different than communism in terms of theory (see
communism vs. fascism), but it did draw from it and it did have
left-wing elements. Despite this, fascism, including the NAZI
brand, has a ton of right-wing elements and an overarching
nativist and nationalist philosophy that tends to resonate with
the right.[/quote]
The author clearly doesn't understand the difference between
tribalism and nationalism, as most Westerners do not. Their is
NO in-group vs. out-group dichotomy(tribalism) in any form of
true nationalism because it would simply cease being nationalism
at all to begin with. It is an oxymoron.
Why should I even bother reading the rest of the article you
linked when the author of it makes such a striking error in the
very first couple paragraphs?
#Post#: 10981--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: February 1, 2022, 11:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Hitler was a romantic, but he was a totalitarian, right-wing
romantic."
Hitler despised Joshua and Alexander, wanted Charles Martel to
lose at Poitiers and hated Ferdinand and Isabella for the
Reconquista. He sided with the Ottoman Empire against Greece in
the Greek War of Independence. He sided with Lincoln against the
Confederacy in the American Civil War. He sided with China
against Germany in the Boxer Rebellion. He sided with Japan
against Russia in the Russo-Japanese War. During WWII he
supported India, Iraq and Egypt against Britain, Algeria against
France, Bosnia against Serbia, Chechens against Russia, Native
Americans against the "white" US government, and so on. And he
sided with non-humans against humans. All of this is left-wing
romanticism.
"Being against colonialism is not a good definition of leftism.
Some European right-wing identitarians are also against
colonialism. They see Europe as the natural habitat of White
people, and also the Middle East as the natural habitat of Arabs
and sub-Saharan Africa as the natural habitat of Blacks. This is
a stance known as "pan-nationalism", which could be also called
rightist internationalism."
I am aware of them. They are not really against colonialism.
Those who claim to be against colonialism but who do not demand
accountability for colonialists are not to be taken seriously.
That these identitarians think "whites" still deserve to keep
"Europe" for themselves after colonizing the whole world for 500
years instantly disqualifies them from seriousness.
Furthermore, they are unilaterally deciding where everyone
else's respective "natural habitats" are, which presumes the
entire planet belongs to "whites" in the first place to
apportion to others as "whites" see fit, which is a colonialist
attitude in itself. A better name for this would be global
apartheid. (Speaking of which, they also support Israel.)
In any case, I did not claim that simply being against
colonialism is the definition of leftism. Paleocons are against
colonialism in the sense that they consider it a strategic
mistake to share modern means with non-Westerners (which has
reduced the competitive advantage of Western civilization over
non-Western civilizations). They would have preferred Western
civilization to have quietly kept building its competitive
advantage for a few more centuries until the gap is so great
that it can never be closed by non-Westerners, so that Western
victory in any conflict is guaranteed. Paleocons are indeed not
leftists, as their objective is final Western victory. Leftists
are necessarily those who want final Western defeat.
"My definition of Leftism is being opposed to hierarchy."
This is egalitarianism, hence False Leftism.
"In terms of foreign policy this means belief that all
ethnicities and cultures are equal. This cannot include Hitler,
who believed that Jews and Slavs are inferior to Germans because
of their innate characteristics."
Throwing out egalitarianism from leftist thinking is what we are
here to do. True Leftism still believes in superiority and
inferiority; the difference is that we believe the superior can
be (and in reality are more often than not) defeated by the
inferior in worldly competition (the colonial era being one
example). In other words, True Leftism is divergence of the
moral hierarchy from the natural hierarchy.
Socialism is then the attempt, given awareness of the above, to
set things up in practice so as to help the superior (but less
competitive) defeat the inferior (but more competitive).
National Socialism furthermore believes that any such setup will
not last long, therefore the superior must use its brief
interval in power to destroy the inferior, or else the inferior
- being more competitive - will eventually find a way around the
setup to come back and win.
#Post#: 11107--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Zea_mays Date: February 7, 2022, 2:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]the remote past above modernity. This can lead to
anarchism (Leftist) or to traditionalism (Rightist). You are
correct that Hitler was a romantic, but he was a totalitarian,
right-wing romantic.[/quote]
In prior discussions, 90sRetroFan has summarized that leftist
Romanticists draw inspiration from the ancient past, whereas
rightists draw inspiration from the traditional past. (He may be
able to expand on this point more.)
The ancient past that we are inspired by has very often ceased
to have any real form of continuation into the present-day. The
things we (Romanticist leftists) try to salvage from the ancient
past are things which we deem to be noble and high quality, and
we have no problems discarding low-quality and ignoble
practices. We are not trying to perfectly recreate any
traditions exactly as they were in the past, but to manifest an
ideal new world entirely. As Romanticists, we open the doors
that history has closed so we can take the path that should have
been taken all along.
In contrast, rightists wish to preserve everything from the
traditional past on the arbitrary basis of the customs/practices
simply having existed in the past. There is no quality judgment
there, merely identity.
As evidenced from the quotes provided, Hitler clearly (1) drew
inspiration from a Romantic past whose customs no longer really
existed in the recent world (i.e. he says he wants to resurrect
the authentic Socialism of Jesus, which, in his words, has
basically vanished since the Renaissance) and (2) wanted to
completely dismantle post-Renaissance Western Civilization to
replace it with something radically new.
This is in contrast to people like Himmler, who wanted to
re-implement feudalist and mysticist traditions. Hitler
criticized him for latching on to the traditional past and not
being able to let go in order to manifest something entirely
new. Hitler also criticized the Strasser-style leftists who were
unable to dream big and merely wanted to push Western
Civilization into its next phase.
[quote]In terms of foreign policy this means belief that all
ethnicities and cultures are equal.[/quote]
This kind of moral relativism has never been a part of any
(ideologically-serious) type of anti-racist ideology. In
principle, what is commonly called "equality" does not mean
believing everyone is literally equal:
[quote]We now have to consider the bearing of these statements
on the problem of human equality. It must be asserted with the
utmost emphasis that equality as an ethical principle in no way
depends upon the assertion that human beings are in fact equal
in endowment. Obviously individuals in all ethnic groups vary
greatly among themselves in endowment.
-UNESCO. (1950). "Statement on race".
We wish to emphasize that equality of opportunity and equality
in law in no way depend, as ethical principles, upon the
assertion that human beings are in fact equal in endowment.
-UNESCO. (1951). "Statement on the nature of race and race
differences".
HTML https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000122962[/quote]
In practice it means judging individuals and cultures by the
same set of FAIR criteria, rather than applying double standards
(e.g. arbitrary negative prejudice against an out-group, or
arbitrary favoritism/ethno-nepotism for the in-group (which is
just arbitrary positive prejudice)). Properly applied, "cultural
relativism" isn't the complete abandonment of value standards,
but was a (not-so-great) historic attempt to find _less
arbitrary_ ways of judging cultures compared to the Eurocentric
outlook which had been regarded as the only possible view.
Moral relativism (e.g. egalitarianism)--which has often been
conflated with cultural relativism for the past 100 or so
years--isn't even a serious belief, since moral relativists
judge moral relativism as superior to non-moral-relativism. ;D
The ostensibly-positive aspects of "equality" do not mean the
egalitarian belief that we have to believe everyone is literally
the exact same, or treat everyone exactly the same, even when
they are clearly different in ethical quality, ability, and
motives. The positive aspects of "equality" mean judging
everyone by the same set of standards and the elimination of
double standards (i.e. FAIRNESS).
We could word this more strongly and say that the notion of
egalitarianism/"equality" is a scam to mislead people from
arriving at the conclusion that FAIRNESS IN JUDGMENTS is the
real principle we yearn for, not literal equality and inability
to make judgments even if individuals really do not deserve to
be judged equally.
As one example of how this would apply to leftist foreign
policy, this means that nations, cultures, ethnic
groups/"races", or individuals who support apartheid are judged
to be utterly inferior. (e.g. Western Culture is inferior). Any
nation, culture, or individual who supports destroying apartheid
is judged to be high quality and to be supported.
In terms of politics...well, even False Left supporters of
democracy complain how the vote of "low information voters" and
empathy-devoid far-rightists is worth the same value as a "high
information voter" and someone who has empathy... In other
words, even supposed supporters of egalitarianism aren't
actually egalitarian, and desire a political system that fairly
judges people based on their quality rather than unfairly
assumes everyone's opinions are "equal".
[quote]It is possible to quote Mein Kampf selectively to show
Hitler as a forerunner of post-WW2 American counterculture, just
as it is possible to quote the Koran and Hadith selectively to
show that Mohammed was a peaceful preacher.[/quote]
Yes, because we are Romanticist leftists drawing inspiration
from the positive aspects of the ancient past.
Because we are idealists who want to manifest a better world,
unlike False Leftists who quote only the negative aspects of the
past and completely ignore the potential in the positive
aspects. We are also unlike rightists who are content with
preserving both the bad and the "good" from the past. (I put
"good" in quotations, since rightists often downplay the noble
elements of the past in order to present a narrative which
amplifies all the ignoble aspects of the past instead!)
#Post#: 11108--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Zea_mays Date: February 7, 2022, 2:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Historians seem to consider Albert Speer's memoirs to be
contradictory and opportunistically anti-Hitler in order to
rehabilitate his own reputation. But there is some information
which may be useful to catalog here.
Speer mentions that Hitler regretted supporting Franco in the
Spanish Civil War and declared that in the future he would side
with the Communists to overthrow him. If Hitler was a
far-rightist, why would he ever think of such a thing? And why
would those Communists invite Speer to spend Christmas with them
if he was an enemy far-rightist? (And why would Hitler tell the
Vichy French government/German work agency to treat these
imprisoned Communists well if he was a far-rightist?)
[quote]Gloomily, I brood about the last three Christmases of the
war. At the time I thought it my duty to spend the day with the
Todt Organization crews; in 1942 on the Biscay coast, where
bunkers were being built, in 1943 by the Arctic Ocean in
northern Lapland; and the last time on the German-Belgian
border.
[...]
When we celebrated Christmas of 1942 in the vicinity of
Bordeaux, I heard from the head of the construction unit during
the dinner that a group of former so-called Spanish Reds who
were interned in a nearby camp had invited me to their Christmas
party. Without an SS escort squad—right up to the end of the war
this distinction was accorded only to Donitz, Bormann, Keitel,
Ribbentrop, Funk, and Goebbels, in addition to Hitler and
Himmler—I drove over to the camp with a small following, The
party had already begun. A Spaniard made a short speech to
introduce me; the throng responded with faint applause. Folk
dances and other popular offerings followed, each time to stormy
applause. The rather stiff attitude toward me relaxed only after
I had a sizable supply of cigarettes and wine distributed. These
Spaniards, who had fought on the side of the Republic, had fled
across the Pyrenees to France at the end of the civil war. By
now they had been held behind barbed wire for almost three
years. They were people with likable, courageous faces; we sat
together until late at night, and there was a note of cordiality
in our goodbyes.
Two weeks later I told Hitler about the incident and asked him
to authorize preferential treatment for these Spaniards. They
hated Franco, who had defeated them, I said, and likewise the
French brand of democracy that was keeping them imprisoned.
“That’s highly interesting,” Hitler interrupted eagerly, “Did
you hear that, Keitel? You know my opinion of Franco. Two years
ago, when we were about to meet, I still thought he was a true
leader, but I met a fat little sergeant who couldn’t at all
grasp my far-reaching plans. We ought to keep these Red
Spaniards on the back burner—there are many thousands of them,
after all. They’re lost to democracy, and to that reactionary
crew around Franco too—we have real chances there. I believe you
to the letter, Speer, that they were impressive people. I must
say, in general, that during the civil war the idealism was not
on Franco’s side; it was to be found among the Reds. Certainly
they pillaged and desecrated, but so did Franco’s men, without
having any good reason for it—the Reds were working off
centuries of hatred for the Catholic Church, which always
oppressed the Spanish people. When I think of that I understand
a good many things. Franco knows perfectly well why he objected
only half a year ago to our employing these Spanish Reds. But
one of these days”—Hitler stabbed the air with his finger—“one
of these days we’ll he able to make use of them, When we call it
quits with Franco. Then we’ll let them go home, And you’ll see
what happens then! The whole thing will start all over again.
But with us on the opposite side. I don’t give a damn about
that. Let him find out what I can be like!”
Hitler had never been able to bear opposition, and he could not
forgive the Spanish dictator for having refused to go along with
his plans, in particular for the occupation of Gibraltar.
Personal rancor of this sort invariably counted for much more
with Hitler than ideological agreement. That same day he issued
orders to treat the “Spanish Reds” well.[/quote]
Albert Speer. Diary entry from December 26, 1950. Spandau, The
Secret Diaries. (1975). Translated by Richard Winston and Clara
Winston. (1976). Pocket Books New York. Page 183-184.
HTML https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.236711/page/n97/mode/2up
Hitler didn't mind if artists working for the party were
sympathetic to Communism, which surprised Speer and others:
[quote]I wonder whether Hitler ever observed that in all the
years before I became a cabinet minister I never uttered so much
as one political phrase? I rather think he didn’t even notice.
Just as it was only after we had been acquainted for years that
he learned with surprise, but with no particular interest, that
I had been a party member since 1931. It was a matter of supreme
indifference to him whether the artists he esteemed, from Breker
and Thorak to Hilz and Peiner or Furtwangler and Eugen Jochum,
belonged to the National Socialist Party. He regarded them one
and all as politically feeble-minded. In a certain sense he must
have applied the same standard to me. In 1938, a few days before
the opening of the annual exhibition in the Haus der Deutschen
Kunst, a small group of us sat in Hitler’s favorite Italian
restaurant, the Osteria Bavaria in Munich. Out of a clear sky
Adolf Wagner, the Gauleiter of Bavaria, began to relate that he
had recently discovered a Communist proclamation that had been
signed by a large number of artists. The manifesto in question
had been published a little while before the seizure of power,
and among others had borne the signature of Josef Thorak.
I stiffened, for Thorak was more or less “my” sculptor, who
frequently designed statues and reliefs for my buildings and in
the past year had just created the group of figures for the
German pavilion at the Paris World’s Fair. Wagner went on to say
that such a man could not be allowed to decorate the great
buildings for the Nuremberg Party Rally, which for centuries to
come would be an object of admiration and veneration. I was
convinced that now Thorak would be lost to me. Had he occupied a
Party office, Hitler would in fact have immediately ordered his
dismissal. But in this case Hitler replied disdainfully, “Oh,
you know I don’t take any of that seriously. We should never
judge artists by their political views. The imagination they
need for their work deprives them of the ability to think in
realistic terms. Let’s keep Thorak on. Artists are
simple-hearted souls. Today they sign this, tomorrow that; they
don’t even look to see what it is, so. long as it seems to them
well-meaning.”[/quote]
Albert Speer. Diary entry from November 26, 1954. Spandau, The
Secret Diaries. (1975). Translated by Richard Winston and Clara
Winston. (1976). Pocket Books New York. Page 288-289.
HTML https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.236711/page/n167/mode/2up
We already saw many quotes about how Hitler respected the
Socialist core of what Communism claimed to be. I suppose his
"admiration" of Jews is due to their deep understanding of
racial matters that the non-Jewish public did not understand.
[quote]It is generally admitted that Hitler admired what he
hated; it is really more accurate to say that he hated what he
admired. His hatred was admiration that he refused to
acknowledge. That is true of the Jews, of Stalin, of communism
in general.[/quote]
Albert Speer. Diary entry from December 21, 1946. Spandau, The
Secret Diaries. (1975). Translated by Richard Winston and Clara
Winston. (1976). Pocket Books New York. Page 31.
HTML https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.236711/page/n21/mode/2up
Speer's rightist upper-class father thought the National
Socialists were Socialists:
[quote]When he joined the Party in 1931, Speer had never given
much thought to politics. He came from an upper-middle-class
family, one of the most prominent in Mannheim, supported in high
style by the father’s flourishing architectural practice and
involved mainly in the cultural and social life of the city.
Speer’s father did read the liberal Frankfurter Zeitung, an
unusual paper for a conservative architect to have in his home,
but he utterly rejected the Nazis because he believed them to be
more socialist than nationalist.[/quote]
Albert Speer. (1969). Inside the Third Reich. Translated by
Richard Winston and Clara Winston. (1970). Introduction by
Eugene Davidson. Page xi-xii.
HTML https://archive.org/details/inside-the-third-reich-memoirs-by-albert-speer-by-albert-speer-richard-winston-a/page/n7/mode/2up
[quote]The NSDAP (National Socialist Party) had won 107 seats
and was suddenly the chief topic of political discussion.
My father had the darkest forebodings, chiefly in view of the
NSDAP’s socialist tendencies. He was already disturbed enough by
the strength of the Social Democrats and the Communists.[/quote]
Albert Speer. (1969). Inside the Third Reich. Translated by
Richard Winston and Clara Winston. (1970). Page 14.
HTML https://archive.org/details/inside-the-third-reich-memoirs-by-albert-speer-by-albert-speer-richard-winston-a/page/14/mode/2up
Business leaders assumed the economic system in Germany would
continue to become more Socialist as the party gained
efficiency:
[quote]On June 26 [1944] about a hundred representatives of the
armaments industry gathered in the coffee room of the
Platterhof. During our sessions in Linz, I had noticed that
their disgruntlement was also partly concerned with the
increasing interference of the party apparatus in economic
affairs. Actually, a kind of state socialism seemed to be
gaining more and more ground, furthered by many of the party
functionaries. They had already managed to have all plants owned
by the state distributed among the various party districts and
subordinated to their own district enterprises. In particular
the numerous underground plants, which had been equipped and
financed by the state, but whose directors, skilled workers, and
machinery had been provided by private industry, seemed destined
to fall under state control after the war. Our very system of
industrial direction in the interests of war production could
easily become the framework for a state-socialist economic
order. The result was that our organization, the more efficient
it became, was itself providing the party leaders with the
instruments for the doom of private enterprise.[/quote]
Albert Speer. (1969). Inside the Third Reich. Translated by
Richard Winston and Clara Winston. (1970). Page 359.
HTML https://archive.org/details/inside-the-third-reich-memoirs-by-albert-speer-by-albert-speer-richard-winston-a/page/358/mode/2up
Commentary: Speer says Goebbels and Robert Ley were among those
who kept pushing Hitler to be more ideological, after Hitler had
become more practical-minded after taking power. As we saw in
many prior posts, Goebbels was originally a Communist and firmly
leftist throughout this time in the NSDAP. Himmler formed a
separate (rightist) ideological camp and was mocked by Hitler,
Goebbels, and others.
[quote]When ideology receded into the background after the
seizure of power, efforts were made to tame down the party and
make it more respectable. Goebbels and Bormann were the chief
opponents of that tendency. They were always trying to
radicalize Hitler ideologically. To judge by his speeches, Ley
must also have belonged to the group of tough ideologists, but
lacked the stature to gain any significant influence. Himmler,
on the other hand, obviously was going his own absurd way, which
was compounded of beliefs about an original Germanic race, a
brand of elitism, and an assortment of health-food notions. The
whole thing was beginning to assume far-fetched pseudoreligious
forms. Goebbels, with Hitler, took the lead in ridiculing these
dreams of Himmler’s, with Himmler himself adding to the comedy
by his vanity and obsessiveness. When, for example, the Japanese
presented him with a samurai sword, he at once discovered
kinships between Japanese and Teutonic cults and called upon
scientists to help him trace these similarities to a racial
common denominator.
Hitler was particularly concerned with the question of how he
could assure his Reich a new generation of followers committed
to his ideas. The general outlines of a plan were drafted by
Ley, to whom Hitler had also entrusted the organization of the
educational system.[/quote]
Albert Speer. (1969). Inside the Third Reich. Translated by
Richard Winston and Clara Winston. (1970). Page 122.
HTML https://archive.org/details/inside-the-third-reich-memoirs-by-albert-speer-by-albert-speer-richard-winston-a/page/122/mode/2up
Robert Ley was part of the leftist wing of the party as well.
...Another Socialist who could have easily been purged for his
alleged drunkenness and lack of administrative talent, had
Hitler been interested in purging leftists?
[quote]Ley proved unswervingly loyal to Hitler, which led Hitler
to ignore complaints about his arrogance, incompetence and
drunkenness.[4] Ley's impoverished upbringing and his experience
as head of the largely working-class Rhineland party region
meant that he was sympathetic to those elements in the party who
were open to socialism, but he always sided with Hitler in inner
party disputes.
[...]
On 10 June 1932, following a further organizational
restructuring by Strasser, Ley was named one of two
Reichsinspecteurs with oversight of approximately half the Gaue.
Furthermore, he was made the Acting Landesinspekteur for Bavaria
with direct responsibility for the six Bavarian Gaue.[6] This
was a short-lived initiative by Gregor Strasser to centralize
control over the Gaue. However, it was unpopular with the
Gauleiters and was repealed on Strasser's fall from power.
Strasser resigned on 8 December 1932 in a break with Hitler over
the future direction of the Party. Hitler himself took over as
Reichsorganisationsleiter and installed Ley as his Stabschef
(Chief of Staff).
[...]
By April, 1933 Hitler decided to have the state take over the
trade union movement. On 10 May 1933, Hitler appointed Ley head
of the newly founded German Labour Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront,
DAF). The DAF took over the existing Nazi trade union formation,
the National Socialist Factory Cell Organisation
(Nationalsozialistische Betriebszellenorganisation, NSBO) as
well as the main trade union federation. But Ley's lack of
administrative ability meant that the NSBO leader, Reinhold
Muchow, a member of the socialist wing of the Nazi Party, soon
became the dominant figure in the DAF, overshadowing Ley. Muchow
began a purge of the DAF administration, rooting out ex-Social
Democrats and ex-Communists and placing his own militants in
their place.
[...]
The DAF and KdF's most ambitious program was the "people's car,"
the Volkswagen, originally a project undertaken at Hitler's
request by the car-maker Ferdinand Porsche. When the German car
industry was unable to meet Hitler's demand that the Volkswagen
be sold at 1,000 Reichsmarks or less, the project was taken over
by the DAF. This brought Ley's old socialist tendencies back
into prominence. The party, he said, had taken over where
private industry had failed, because of the "short-sightedness,
malevolence, profiteering and stupidity" of the business
class.[/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Ley
Another leftist in charge of the Labor Front? Why would a
far-right party put a leftist in charge of important
labor/economic tasks, considering all that Communists talk about
is labor and economics?
[quote]Reinhold Muchow (21 December 1905 in Berlin – 12
September 1933 in Bacharach) was a Nazi Party politician.
Especially prized in the early years of the movement for his
organisational skills, he was associated with the economically
left wing of the party.
A native of the gritty Neukölln district of Berlin, Muchow was
one of the Alter Kämpfer of the Nazi Party.[1] He was associated
with the Strasser brothers[2] and set up a Central Union of the
Unemployed in an attempt to attract new members to the party
before this initiative was closed down by the central
leadership.[3] He became leader of the Greater Berlin Gau 1 in
1925 and here he established the Muchow Plan, a cell-based
structure for Nazi Party organisation on a local level which
proved important in the growth of the party.[1] Muchow's
organisational talents impressed Joseph Goebbels and in 1928 he
was given charge of organisation for the entire city where his
plan became the standard for party structure across Germany.[1]
In fact Muchow's structure was strongly influenced by the cell
structure of the Communist Party.[4]
[...]
He died in an accident in the Rhineland in September 1933 and
was widely mourned by the Nazi hierarchy.[1][/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Muchow
#Post#: 11112--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: February 7, 2022, 3:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"90sRetroFan has summarized that leftist Romanticists draw
inspiration from the ancient past, whereas rightists draw
inspiration from the traditional past. (He may be able to expand
on this point more.)"
I guess you are thinking of this quote:
[quote]Rightists have sneakily duped into their camp many people
disillusioned with the drudgery of the present-day world and who
seek answers in myth and ancient history by crudely associating
leftism with modernity and deceptively presenting rightism as
the only camp that offers connection with the past. To counter
this, the True Left must distinguish itself from the False Left
by heavily emphasizing that we too offer a connection with the
past – merely not (unlike the rightists) with the traditional
past which we justly abhor. The past which inspires us is the
romantic past of chances missed, of paths untaken, of the long
intellectual legacy of anti-tradition that dates back to ancient
times.[/quote]
You explained the same point very well in your post. The only
thing I might put differently is:
"rightists wish to preserve everything from the traditional past
on the arbitrary basis of the customs/practices simply having
existed in the past. There is no quality judgment there, merely
identity."
I would say rightists wish to preserve traditions on account of
traditions having proven survivable for so long. The
survivability of the traditions are the assurance to rightists
that the traditions are compatible with natural selection. So
rightists do make a quality judgement, just according to
Demiurgic standards.
In contrast, that certain superior practices from the past (e.g.
Catharism) failed to survive only ascertains their value in our
eyes. It proves to us their ultimate incompatibility with
natural selection, which we take as a compliment. Which is not
to say that everything that failed to survive is superior (of
course not, duh!). But something which is superior - which we
deduce separately - is almost certain to not last long, because
natural selection will not allow it to.
"we open the doors that history has closed so we can take the
path that should have been taken all along."
I would say we reopen the doors that natural selection has
closed.
"FAIRNESS IN JUDGMENTS is the real principle we yearn for"
This is true, but I also want to emphasize that another possible
scenario we are trying to avoid is fairness in judgements but
under BAD CRITERIA. For example, if it were decided that the
only criterion for judging a civilization is its ability to
innovate machines, then to conclude the superiority of Western
civilization over all others would be a perfectly fair
judgement. It would also be a terrible conclusion. Thus fair
judgement alone is insufficient.
So, to clarify, we are not the only ones yearning for fairness
in judgements. All absolutists yearn for fairness in judgements.
We are distinguished from other absolutists by which criteria we
want to be used for fair judgements.
#Post#: 11127--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Blue Kumul Date: February 8, 2022, 6:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"The author clearly doesn't understand the difference between
tribalism and nationalism, as most Westerners do not. Their is
NO in-group vs. out-group dichotomy(tribalism) in any form of
true nationalism because it would simply cease being nationalism
at all to begin with. It is an oxymoron."
I certainly don't understand it. If you abandon the in-group vs.
out-group dichotomy, this is cosmopolitanism. As I understand
it, nationalism defines the in-group as the citizens of a
particular state, while tribalism defines the in-group as
members of a certain ethnic group.
Hitler clearly believed that having German "blood" is more
important than having German citizenship. So he was a tribalist,
of course.
"Hitler despised Joshua and Alexander, wanted Charles Martel to
lose at Poitiers and hated Ferdinand and Isabella for the
Reconquista. He sided with the Ottoman Empire against Greece in
the Greek War of Independence. He sided with Lincoln against the
Confederacy in the American Civil War. He sided with China
against Germany in the Boxer Rebellion. He sided with Japan
against Russia in WWI. During WWII he supported India, Iraq and
Egypt against Britain, Algeria against France, Bosnia against
Serbia, Chechens against Russia, Native Americans against the
"white" US government, and so on. And he sided with non-humans
against humans. All of this is left-wing romanticism."
He wanted Britain and Russia to lose because they were rivals
for domination in Europe. His practices in Central and Eastern
Europe were nothing short of colonialism. If Hitler had
established German domination in Africa, he would treat Blacks
at least as bad as he treated Poles or Russians.
"It is generally admitted that Hitler admired what he hated; it
is really more accurate to say that he hated what he admired."
It is also true with respect to you, 90s Retro Fan. You clearly
admire Duginism. Take Dugin's points and replace "Russia" with
"America" and vice versa - wow, we have 90s RF's points!
"we are Romanticist leftists drawing inspiration from the
positive aspects of the ancient past."
I understand that. I like some points of your ideology, like
original nobility or criticism of the technological society. But
at least be honest and open against the flaws of those who
inspired you, whether the Nazis, Islamists, or post-WW2
countercultural movements.
#Post#: 11139--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: February 8, 2022, 9:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Take Dugin's points and replace "Russia" with "America" and
vice versa - wow, we have 90s RF's points!"
Thank you for confirming your illiteracy. Henceforth, all
further posts by you will be moved here:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists/
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page