Letters from the Lunar Outpost

A tree is known by its fruit; a man by his deeds. A good deed is never lost; he who sows courtesy reaps friendship, and he who plants kindness gathers love.
- Basil of Caesarea, Cappadocian Religious Leader (329-379 A.D.)

Hitler and Musolini Were Left-Wing Socialists

Hitler and Musolini Were Left-Wing Socialists

 

10. The Nazi party stood for the party of “National Socialists”. How many pro-socialist Tea Partiers have you ran into in your life?

 

9. Liberal professors and historians have long tried to draw similarities between the uber-nationalism of the Nazis and the right-wing patriotism in America. While it’s true that there is a whole lot of flag-waving among the right in America, and flag-burning here is almost exclusively a left-wing thing, it’s ridiculous to try to cast the Nazi’s as being “right-wing” simply because of their rampant patriotism when you consider the fact that nothing says crazy nationalism like the lefties and their state-organized Communist shindigs:

Nothing says nationalism like when the left-wing has a protest or parade.

8. Hitler forced nationalized health care upon his nation. So did Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress. Like a pod with its peas, they’re Lefties, all three.

Vegetarians are some of the most left-wing people you'll ever meet.7. Speaking of peas, do you have any doubt in your mind that the Vegan vote for Obama wasn’t somewhere in the 90%-range? Vegetarians are one of the most left-wing groups you’ll ever meet. (Hitler was a vegetarian too, you know.)

6. To quote Claude Sandroff: “Crony capitalism is the most putrid kind of partnership between industry and government and it was most famously and successfully championed by the regimes of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany long ago.” Just like those left-wing fascists before him, Obama has also used more taxpayer dollars than any president in history in trying to pick the winners and the losers. Unfortunately, Obama mainly has a knack for picking the losers.

Obama envies Hugo Chavez

You know Obama envies Hugo Chavez and all the other dictators in the world.

5. If Obama had the dictatorial powers he dreams of, our American government would be in control of every aspect of our economy, just like the left-wing fascists of Germany and Italy were.

To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.4. Many lefties in America believe that in the name of the common good, the best type of citizenry is an unarmed citizenry, just like their fascist gun grabbing brethren in Nazi Germany.

3. Having ABC-NBC-CBS-PBS-NPR-CNN-MSNBC running non-stop state propaganda still isn’t enough for Obama and many of his liberal supporters. On a daily basis you’ll hear their collective outrage that one questioning voice is still allowed to exist over at Fox News! The left-wing fascists of Italy and Germany were also hellbent on crushing all voices of opposition.

2. Just like the Nazis, every dictatorship that still exists today is left-wing and socialist. Just as surely as Woody Allen argued with a straight face that Obama should be granted dictatorial powers and Harry Belafonte argued Obama should “work like a third world dictator” and put all the Republicans in jail, most liberals, whether they admit it out loud or not, are little tyrants at heart who believe in a ruling class that knows what’s best for you better than you do for yourself. I’m convinced that most of the liberal professors teaching Plato’s Republic still believe in their heart of hearts that Plato’s Utopian dream could still actually exist in the real world, despite the fact that every single time, even on the occasions when dictatorships have tried to follow Plato’s example and place all the smartest and benevolent people in all the right positions, the all-powerful government has always ended in death and misery for everyone outside of the ruling elite.

1. Hitler loved dogs. Obama loves dogs too, although he says he found the meat a little tough.

Click here to subscribe and never miss out!

ewok-walk
               

31 Responses to Top Ten Reasons Liberal Professors & Historians Lied When They Told You Fascism Was “Right-Wing”

  • Gotta Love Woody Allen !!! But it’s not a linear line but more of a circle with Fascism at 12:01 and Communism at 11:59 with the middle at 6:00……

    • Well said, Bob. Well said. I’d say Obama has us at 11:30 right now, pushing hard for midnight. 😉

    • Actually Mike, it’s neither a linear line nor a circle, not in America. The terms “left” and “right” as political descriptors find their genesis in the French Revolution.

      America has never had a “left” and “right” because we never had a “right” here, yet another reason America is the most unique experiment in republican government in world history.

      Rather, the political spectrum in America was described best by FA Hayek in his book “The Constitution of Liberty.” In it Hayek posits that our political spectrum is triangular, with socialism/communism/marxism and fascism at one point of the triangle, conservatism (in the European sense) at another point, and true liberalism (more akin to libertarianism today) at the final corner and all in competition with one another.

      The beauty of this arrangement is that allows for the extremes of expression for each point that is true to their respective ideologies.

      • That’s quite interesting. I’ve heard it in linear terms and in spherical terms, but not in triangular terms.

        It couldn’t be an equilateral triangle however, because in terms of freedom, libertarians are not equidistant from the conservatives and the authoritarians, they’re farther away from the fascists than the conservatives in the sense of desiring both economic freedom as well as social freedoms.

        • Don’t think of it in terms of distance between the points. Rather, consider each point and where it stands in relation to the most benign and most extreme manifestation it’s ideology and how much influence that is having in setting public attitudes and policy.

  • Wow, Mike, guts galore there…whoops, wait, I think I hear Gestapo boots at the door…
    Naw, false alarm…anyway, LMAO!! On a serious note, you are right, you know. Facism is not a disease of the right, but of the left. Always has been, always will be. They used to call Argentina left of left wing when Peron was in power, same with Peru years ago, even though it was called a socialist nation, but was truly well over-the-top, like a pig wearing a cow mask. Sooner or later someone is going to notice the oh-so-short legs…and say, “Nellie, you’ve shrunk!” just makes one look like a bigger fool than the pig. (Shades of liberal media waking up…)
    So, you’re right, they’re wrong, and worse, they’re stupid to think they’re right…and a few years from now, the libs are going to lie like hell and say, “Well, I never really liked the guy, you know.”

    • They can come knocking if they want, if they really did try to come and get me, word’s going to get out and it’s going to do wonders for my page view stats. (And they can try to take me down at losalamoslabs.com/mc, but I have friends and the site backed up daily to another server.)

      Damn, now you’re getting me paranoid. I might have to tone it down just a bit. Ah, to hell with that, I’d rather go down swinging. 😉

      When people called Peron “left of left wing”, is that a left-winger’s attempt to disown another fascist loving Socialist?

      It may be that things will get so bad under Obama’s second term that suddenly millions who voted to re-elect him will go around saying, “Hey, I didn’t vote him back in.” There were a lot of people like that after Carter’s first four years, but who knows, the media was far different back then. Now the ABC-NBC-CBS-PBS-NPR-CNN-MSNBC propaganda machine is so completely partisan in their coverage, they just might be able to continue to convince the average, low-information voter that 8% unemployment and $5 / gallon gas is something we should celebrate in these, the most glorious of times, the Obama years.

      • LOL, didn’t mean to make you paranoid, not that you are anyway, I write things worse than this so they’ll come for me first, I’m sure… anyway, you’re right, it was a leftist calling another leftist facist; Bella Abzug actually. I remember laughing at the time, never dreaming things would get so bad here. It never crossed my mind.

        Did you hear Rick Perry’s response to the fact that the left is spending big money to pollute TX with blue liberals? “Never happen” he said, smugly. CHALLENGE!! and they’re off to the races now just to prove him wrong. Bad move on top of many bad moves he’s made. But since TX is one of the last bastions of right wing expats, it would be a shame to lose it. Where could I run to then? Ack…keeps me up nights!

  • Tell me again why “loving dogs” has anything to do with one being left- or right-wing? My wife and I are avid dog lovers, but we’re also the most right-wing (conservative) couple you will ever see.

    I seriously don’t see the relevance in #1. Other than that, great article.

    @TXFairTaxer

  • I read ‘The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” many, many years ago, and decided to re-read it again since my grandson is reading it now and I wanted to be able to discuss it with him. This is a book all Americans should read. The similarities between Obama and Hitler are very striking and immediately noticeable. Hitler never had a real job in his life; didn’t want one and believed he was destined to be the savior of the German people. Hitler knew that he had to have the press/media in his pocket; he had no understanding of economics (nor was he even interested). He also learned that he needed to be a great speaker – truth didn’t matter – just charisma……on, and on and on. Let’s not forget how Hitler destroyed anyone who disagreed with him! There is no way that any intelligent human being can read this history and not be able to see the similarities.

    • Wow, I’ve always wanted to read that book, but shied away at the long-term commitment. That one is a serious tome. Funny, there was one guy on twitter freaking out about me saying Nazis were left-wing, tweeting me three or four times asking me if I’d ever read Rise & Fall. I told him I’m sure it’s a great work, but regardless, the linguistics on that one term, “right-wing” are totally wrong when you consider how much the Commies & Nazis had in common.

  • Do not politicize the historiography. There is much more consensus among scholars than this article suggests; conservative historians and political scientists believe fascism and Nazism occupied a social and poltical space on the Right. Consult works by Michael Ledeen and Harvard historian Niall Ferguson – both steadfast conservatives. Ferguson even wrote a piece for Newsweek that was highly critical of Obama. In his “The War of the World” he argues fascism was a movement of the Right. “The Right,” as defined by scholars, does not denote free markets, individual liberty, and limited government; instead, it entails a maintainence of the Monarchy, a hierarchical society that opposes equality, Big Business, landowners, the Church, and the military.

    • I understand that common convention has created a dichotomy where Commies are “left”, Fascists are “right”, but reading your words . . .

      ~~~ “The Right,” as defined by scholars . . . entails a maintainence of the Monarchy, a hierarchical society that opposes equality, Big Business, landowners, the Church, and the military. ~~~

      All you have to do is consider the Church as being an all-powerful state, and you can use that exact same definition for both the Commies and the Fascists. There is no equality in Communism, there is always the proles and the all powerful Communist Party leaders driving around in their luxury cars and living in houses that are luxurious compared to the conditions for the rest of the people. Big Business? Yes, the Fascists allowed corporations to survive with the people running those businesses, but it was the government which picked which businesses would have the blessing of the state, just as the Commies control which businesses would be created from the ground up. There was just as much disparity between the riches the state-sanctioned business owners were allowed to amass as there was between the state-created businesses and their owners vs. the people working in those factories. Military? The Commies and the Fascists also were two sides of the same coin in having a state that was all about feeding the military machine.

      I know it’s conventional to reference Commies as Leftists and Fascists as Right-wingers, but my simple argument is that they are both states and economic systems where the government is at the center of all aspects of life. The widespread similarities between Communism and Fascism leads me to say that, no matter how widespread it has been ingrained, it is a linguistic lie to consider Commies and Fascists as anything other than the the polar opposite of a Capitalist system based on the free market.

      • Paul Gottfried is another conservative scholar who contends fascism is of the European right-wing.

        See link: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whos-a-fascist/

        You should revise your title to read “Top Ten Reasons Historians and Professors Lied…”

        • You are correct that it’s pretty much a general consensus and that would be a more accurate title. Just for the purpose of blogging I often go for the more sensationalist headline, though.

        • BTW, just got a chance to read Paul Gottfried article on “Who’s a Fascits?” Good read, thanks for the link.

      • An excellent article and reply.

        “Maintenance of the monarchy,” etc. is a valid point to make — traditionalists favored that but if they favored any kind of a pronounced role of the state that landed them toward the left on the totalitarian-anarchy spectrum.

        But DB’s point necessarily entails a careless or unintended switch of the nature of the spectrum. Over on the left of the actual (new) spectrum that DRB implicitly posits, therefore, are those in favor of popular sovereignty and something less authoritarian than monarchy. Perhaps the spectrum would look like “Popular sovereignty (L) — monarchy (R) — absolute monarchy/total state (far R)”. This contributes only theoretical confusion.

        The spectrum you and I like to focus on is “Totalitarian anything (far L) — democratic socialism (mod L) — free market/limited government (R) — social free for all with some regulation libertarians (more R) — contract only society (far R) — no contract/no state anarchy (ultra R).” I’m R on this one and to the left of the monarchists in the previous one.

        • Col Bunny: I’m not aware of any serious political scientist or scholar who posits such a ridiculous political spectrum. If anything, I was using a traditional spectrum, not a new (!) one. When discussing fascism, the political spectrum in interwar Germany, Italy, and Spain, is the only appropriate one. And on that spectrum, the Right consisted of hierarchy (Monarchy and aristocracy), the middle and upper classes, an established Church, big business, landowners, and an army loyal to the Conservatives. The Left opposed all of these things and threatened them with revolutionary violence or democratic reforms. The idea that right-wingers cannot support an authoritarian state is ludicrous. I guess all the people who want to ban abortions, curb prostitution, drugs, and pornography, pass Constitutional Amendments banning gay marriage, require drug testing to receive food stamps, criminalize the burning of the American flag, champion national security programs, FBI, CIA, the police, and military, and support the death penalty are a bunch of left-wingers! Better start defunding colleges and universities. I teach political science at a college, and I most definitely do not teach your spectrum.

          • Name me one totalitarian country on the face of the Earth that isn’t left wing, DRB. Reality is, every fascist in the world today is left-wing, socialist, collectivist and a big believer in a government-controlled economy.

            There’s no denying it, fascism is a left-wing thing.

          • Why didn’t you address anything in my post? But, okay, I’m happy to answer your question. As for authoritarian regimes today that are not left-wing, look at the conservative authoritarian governments of Morocco and Algeria. Right-wing dictators in the past, of course, include Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet (Chile), Branco (Brazil), and Armas (Guatemala), just to name a few. These were all right-wing authoritarian regimes that crushed the Left and murdered Leftist dissidents. Unfortunately, the U.S. government supported a lot of these anti-Communist military governments in South and Central America during the Cold War. Have you read any of the books on fascism I recommended a couple years back?

          • Since “serious political scientists and scholars” can’t stay away from the “fascist = right wing” idea, I have difficulty with the “serious” part.

            Be that as it may, you are correct that polities consisting of a monarchy and an aristocracy are to the right of the communist (international socialism) and fascists (national socialists) but it is only part of the picture. Missing from the pre-war “spectrum” you raise is a large chunk of political thinking further to the right, namely, limited government thinkers and generally more republican and less hierarchical. It does no good to speak of particular positions on the political spectrum without an understanding of what the antipodes of the spectrum are.

            What is the spectrum a spectrum of? Since it is a spectrum purporting to say something useful about government types, it is useful to locate polities involving total government power on the left and those involving no government power at all on the right.

            I may support a monarchy but where does that locate me on this spectrum vis-a-vis someone who wants to have no government at all and deal with others solely by means of contract and live and let live?

            In fact, democracy was a discredited form of government during the run up to WWII and the range of “possible” government forms was, arguably, what you say. Speaking of the totalitarian v. mildly authoritarian (with something less than a universal franchise) part of the spectrum is much like Dorothy Parker’s crack about Katherine Hepburn that she “ran the whole gamut of emotions—from A to B.” We know something is missing.

            The army in the monarchy wasn’t loyal to the “conservatives” it was loyal to the monarchy. The Red Army was loyal to communist party which wasn’t conservative in the sense of that lame, flabby term. The U.S. Army is, hopefully, loyal to the Constitution. Army allegiance is of no relevance. All armies are loyal to those who pay their salaries and make them important.

            However, reliance on secret police forces or rule by an executive unbounded by law or custom are different matters because they relate to how much government power controls national life. Police forces operate in all polities but it is actually possible to make useful distinctions between how they are routinely and customarily employed. It is no accident that the Soviets and the Nazis had the Cheka and the Gestapo and both governments ruled arbitrarily without reference to fixed law.

            Similarly, big business is common to all polities on the planet now and are alarming unaccountable to democratic control. That business is free of political control is generally a good thing now that we have plenty of evidence of what damage over-regulation of business at all levels causes. But as the U.S. and Europe, I presume, have become demonstrably crony capitalist regimes, big business can be seen to be a possible indicator of more rather than less government.

            Big business was also evident in the Soviet Union only it was controlled by the Party and was demonstrably less efficient than its “capitalist” cousins. The Red Princes in China are all filthy rich because of their control of major Chinese industry and commerce. But, but big business is what you see over on the right wing, I hear you say.

            You are a classic case of someone who is beguiled by what Garet Garret would call the “revolution within the form.” You focus on semantics but miss the underlying reality, especially the existence of that limited government chunk of the spectrum off to the right of monarchy, loosely speaking. By what strained logic do you locate Mussolini on the “right” side of the spectrum, he who propounded the principle of “All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” How exactly is that different from totalitarian communism over on the left? Your spectrum is a meaningless one where you would place x-rays on one end of the electromagnetic spectrum and x-rays at the opposite end.

            If Italian fascism was “right” and totalitarian Soviet communism was “left” what is the nature of the underlying spectrum upon which they are opposites? Mussolini liked more military parades than Stalin? Mussolini used castor oil as a means of torture, the Soviets cold and privation?

            Don’t you realize what the “fascist as right-wing” distortion is all about? It is to misdirect, to confuse the public about the essential nature of fascism. Hitler is the most evil man who ever lived according to the view propounded and he was on the right. RIGHT THERE NEXT TO THE CONSERVATIVES WHO ADVOCATE LIMITED GOVERNMENT!!! All that evil is dumped on the “right” and totalitarian communism and socialism (with its ever increasing state controls) get to retain their ludicrous “high moral ground.”

            This is a deliberate strategy of lies, distortion, and obfuscation by the left. (No insult to you intended.) If National Socialism (giant clue alert) is over there with the totalitarian leftists (a redundancy like “hot Miss America contestants”) it means that the evils of the Nazis are just another manifestation of all the evils that result from total power in the hands of fallible humans. This — and your failure — to focus on the central problem of human existence — to keep from being slaves to tyrants and psychopaths — is what has anesthetized Americans, the freest people on all the earth, to meekly submit to the massive betrayal of our Constitution by Court and Congress that has now sluiced power from the states and the people into the hands of federal officials who now hold forth over an illegitimate, distorted federalism that is just light years away from anything contemplated by the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution.

            By your own admission you are stuck in a way of looking at the political world that is an artifact of the 1920s and ’30s, an era which produced that astonishing treatise on political lies, Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language.” I don’t say you are a liar in any way, just that failing to understand the political necessity for leftists to obscure the true nature of leftist love of total power enables a tragic, deliberate distortion of our political life.

          • One last thing: I’m posting conservative Michael Ledeen’s review of Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism.”
            Again, the idea that fascism was historically right-wing is not some nonsense drummed up by Marist historians–scholars of all political persuasions believe, and argue, that this is true. As Ledeen points out, fascism was anti-conservative in the sense that it was revolutionary; fascism is of the European revolutionary Right.

            http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2008/01/14/fascism_liberal_and_otherwise/

        • Hi Col Bunny: I couldn’t find a reply button to your latest post, so I am again replying to your first one.
          I intended no hostility and perhaps I shouldn’t have used words like “ridiculous” and “ludicrous.”

          On to the substance. Who are these limited government republican types on the Right you speak of in the 1920s and 30s in Europe? Conservatives were skeptical of democracy and representative government. Mussolini was invited to power by the King and his advisors and Hitler was invited to power by Hindenburg and his advisors–not a Leftist among them. As scholar of fascism Robert O. Paxton writes, “The two heads of state wanted to harness the fascists’ numbers and energy to their own project of blocking the Marxists, if possible with broad popular support. This does not mean that fascism and conservatism are identical (they are not), but they have historically found essential interests in common.”

          Remember, for this purposes of this discussion, we are talking about a European political spectrum. The anarchists you speak of were on the Left in Europe, intending to destroy government–they believed it was an instrument of capitalism and the wealthy–in order to usher in an egalitarian social order where the workers owned everything in common.

          Armies are hardly irrelevant to this topic. The armies (again, in interwar Germany and Italy), were loyal to the Right, harboring an immense dislike of pacifism, socialism, and democracy. Democratic socialists and Communists certainly could not depend on their support.

          Rich princes in contemporary China is irrelevant to this topic. China arguably hasn’t had a socialist economy since Deng was leader. Russia did not have giant private corporations making windfall profits in the 1930s.

          Differences between Communism and Fascism? I have to get back to writing lectures–so, real quick: Fascism is anti-Marxist, anti-Communist, anti-socialist, anti-liberal, anti-conservative, anti-feminist, anti-pacifist, anti-foreigner. It is hypernationalistic, militaristic, imperialistic, and often racist. Fascists worried about national and community decline and maintained patriarchy in the home and workplace. They hated class warfare and pined for unity. Fascists insisted on private property and maintaining social hierarchies. Homosexuals and abortionists were national enemies. Socialism and Communism, in theory anyway, are committed to egalitarianism and the abrogation of private property.

          Who said that Communists have the moral high ground? My God, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, were brutal monsters.
          When liberals call conservatives and libertarians fascists, they’re just being moronic.

          The idea that fascism lies on the Right is not some sort of conspiracy by a bunch of Leftists. As I’ve indicated elsewhere in this thread, there is a general consensus among scholars–regardless of their political leanings– that fascism is Right-wing. Consult works by conservative scholars Michael Ledeen, Niall Ferguson, and Paul Gottfried. Gottfried writes in THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE, “Although the fascists were not “conservative” in any traditional sense, they were probably more so than my libertarian critics. In interwar Europe being “conservative” did not mean “being for markets,” legalizing addictive drugs, or distributing anarcho-capitalist leaflets. It meant favoring a traditional state that accepted a traditional social order and which was usually tied to an established church.”

          Finally, yes, I am stuck in the political world of the 1920s and 1930s. Analyzing fascism through the lens of a contemporary American political spectrum would be both ahistorical and stupid.

          Nice talking to you. Have a nice evening.

          • Thanks, DRB. I didn’t take offense. People so often say my arguments are ridiculous that I don’t even notice any more. 🙂

            I think I’ve answered your point about there being no limited government types in the 1930s in my reply today to your 2:12 pm comment, q.v.

            The anarchists of the early 20th century are indeed on the left, given their commitment to force rather than agreement of the electorate. Leftists are always in a hurry to skirt the maddening slowness of others to see the logic of their ideas. That said, they are nothing like the anarchists of which I speak. I understand them to be adamant about dealing with all matters by contract, resorting to force only when others try to use force on them or others. I hope I didn’t mangle their doctrine too much. But definitely rightists in that they don’t want police or laws to determine how anyone should live. I don’t know where libertarians should be placed relative to those ladies and gents. Nearby, I suspect.

            I also dealt with the army loyalty point in my reply today above. Armies are not so much “conservative” as “status quo.”

            It is not important when China allowed private (?) business to operate. My point is that large corporations can and do operate in all kinds of polities and are hence not properly manifestations of only a right wing polity. China’s got them now and they function very well under the supervision and, obviously, control of the communist party. China may not have a socialist economy now but it is state capitalism for sure, which may actually be closer to fascism, properly understood (in economic matters) as “socialism with a corporate face.” Free markets they are not, not even by the much debased “free markets” that we tolerate now. (Meaning that we tolerate bastardized capitalism now, certainly in view of the huge distortions of the fed and what Charles Hugh Smith, inter alia, refers to as “financialization” of our economy.)

            The Brown Shirts and the red street fighters used to drink beer together and, though they fought each other, were delighted to link arms to fight common enemies. (Here my memory fails me as to who those enemies were precisely but, have no fear, I read something like that somewhere (IRSLTS)!) Bill Flax indicates that “Hitler despised biblical morality and bourgeois (middle class) values.” Can it not be inferred that he therefore despised the bourgeoisie? That and the word “socialist” that so many wish to extirpate from NSDAP name hardly give me confidence that the National Socialists hated class warfare.

            Whatever communism and fascism were committed to it wasn’t egalitarianism. As Flax writes, “…Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc., all skipped the capitalist phase Marx thought pivotal. Instead, they slid straight from pre-industrial feudal conditions into communism; which essentially entailed reversion back to feudalism supplanting the traditional aristocracy with party cronyism – before dissolving into corrupted variants of state capitalism economically similar to fascism.”

            The term “rightists” was a tool developed by Stalin that referred to any enemies of his choosing, not even those necessarily to the “right” of him. It is a term that was steeped in political opportunism and, as it turned out, was a justification for party purges and murder. The most useful distinction between Soviet and German socialism is that the former was international in scope whereas Hitler was for national socialism. There is simply very little distinction between the two manifestations of lunacy.

            Oh, and Hitler had no innate distaste for homosexuals. He was happy to have the help of Ernst Roehm to gain power but got rid of him because he was a potential rival not because he was a homosexual.

            Enough on that as I too have other vital tasks to accomplish. 🙂

            I (emphasis) didn’t say that communists have the high moral ground. It’s ultra-leftists and useful idiots who do, the latter mewling that, contrary to over 70 years of Soviet experience, it just hasn’t been tried properly. Nothing about its being an odious, inhuman concept to begin with.

            I admire Gottfried and would have to examine what he said before I’d agree to anything in the relevant paragraph, which seems disjointed at first blush.

            The task for us in this twilight of Western civilization is understand how we in Europe and the U.S. have so resolutely lit the fuse on the bundle of dynamite with reckless disregard for the lessons of the last century on the murderous, duplicitous savagery of the left. Say all you want about 1930s political theory — and nothing I’ve said is intended to say it was otherwise than what you accurately represent for the most part — but if you are saying that the present debate and that of the 1930s are identical then you are mistaken.

            Best wishes to you and I appreciate your courtesy.

        • There’s a link to Gottfried’s entire article within this comments section.

          There were no anarcho-capitalists operating in Europe in the 20s and 30s. It is largely a literary phenomenon that arose in the 1970s in America with the writings of individuals such as Murray Rothbard.

          Leftists did not advocate for free enterprise, private businesses, and private property for the most part during the period under consideration. Modern China doesn’t really have anything to do with this conversation.

          Communists and fascists fought in the streets for control of Berlin. There may have been one instance of them working together against a common foe, but that is not enough evidence to prove ideological similarity.
          Hitler may have disliked middle class conventions, but the middle classes and lower middle classes helped get him to the Reichstag–certainly more than the working class did, which could not be pulled away from the Leftist parties. Hitlers voters tended to be religious, small business owners, and farmers. Hitler himself may not have been religious, but many religionists supported him. Moreover, the Nazis formed a concordant with the Pope, something the Church would have never done with atheistic Communists and Socialists.

          You cannot deny that Socialists and Communists were more committed to an socioeconomic leveling than the fascists. There is always massive wealth distribution and land reform in socialist countries in an effort to break the power of the rich. Who were those large landowners who lost their lives during Mao’s reforms? Just look at the programs that Goulart or Allende advocated in South America: massive redistribution of land expropriated from the rich that bettered the lives of the poor and advanced equality. I’m not a socialist, but I wouldn’t deny that there was economic leveling in socialist countries because that would be factually incorrect. The socioeconomic order and hierarchy was maintained in fascist countries. There is no evidence of significant class warfare in states where fascism existed. Why would there be? The socialists were all jailed, killed, or repressed. Mussolini argues in “Doctrine of Fascism” that economics and class warfare are not the drivers of history and great nations.

          Nazism is most definitely anti-homosexual. 5,000 to 15,000 gays ended up in the death camps. Do you want to know why else Rohm was murdered? Because he advocated a “second revolution” in which the government would target capitalists and private property!

          Of course I don’t believe that the 1930s are relevant to today’s political discourse. I’m a professional historian that cares deeply about intellectual and historical accuracy.

          Best, DRB

  • You fail to deal with my central claim: conservative academics know and argue that fascism occupies a political and social space on the Right. Of course there are similarities and congruences between Communists and fascists – noted scholars have demonstrated this – however, Communists were Left-wing authoritarians, while fascists were Right authoritarians.

    The Church was abolished by athestic Communists in Russia after the revolution in 1917, its land redistributed to the people. This did not happen in Germany. (See Richard J. Evans’ The Third Reich in Power for the Nazis relationship to the church and religion).

    The ruling class always maintains their wealth and prestige in Communist and Socialist countries; however, there was/is significant wealth redistribution among the rank and file. Major resources, land, and businesses were nationalized, and spread out among the people, especially in Latin American countries. Land that was expropriated from private businesses was given to peasants. In Sweden during the 1960s, the working class paid a 60% marginal income tax rate. Did these countries wipe out class inequality and achieve a classless society? Of course not, but there was significant wealth redistribution. That’s a fact. No wealth redistibution occurred in fascist Italy or Nazi Germany.

    Although the owners were wary of the fascists, Big Business funded all the parties of the Right as a bullwark against the revolutionary Left. The fascist chieftains, once in power, were showered with capital by Big Business. Business then profited handsomely when Italy and Germany mobilized for war. Fascists economics are corporatist, not socialist. Big business and Government collude, running the economy through government agencies – “corporations.” In Italy at least, private business owners actually ran the economy through these agencies. Centrally controlled, command economies of private businesses are not socialist countries – however you cut. Socialism demands the abrogation of private property or at least some abrogation of private property and nationalization of industry.

    Yes, both Communist and fascist countries maintain huge armies. Agreed.

    Why the fixation on economics, anyway? Fascist revolutions were cultural, social, and poltical, not economic. Fascists cared little about – or had little understanding of – economic sytems.

    Fascism is anti-Marxist, anti-Communist, anti-socialist, anti-liberal, anti-conservative, anti-feminist, anti-pacifist, anti-foreigner. It is hypernationalistic, militaristic, imperialistic, and often racist. Fascists worried about national and community decline and maintained patriarchy in the home and workplace. They fought class warfare and pined for unity. Homosexuals and abortionists were national enemies. Ever heard of The Reich Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion?

    Are you arguing that dictatorships are inherently Left-wing? That right-wingers cannot be statists or authoritartian? No scholar believes this. Conservatism is not innately libertarian. Of course fascists were not free market capitalists, but that does not make them Leftists, as free-market capitalism is not integral to the European Right.

    • That’s a pretty spot on reply regarding the fact that the Fascists were not into nationalizing all business and resources, although any given business’ existence was completely at the mercy of the state and I think there were a lot of similarities between the Nazis picking the winners and losers for massive national projects in the corporate world and Obama’s Crony Capitalism in using unprecedented amounts of tax payer money to pick the winners and losers in the corporate world here.

      >> Homosexuals and abortionists were national enemies. Ever heard of The Reich Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion? <<

      No, but I do know that they were all for Eugenics and abortions and sterilization when it came to the so-called undesirables.

      You raise some really good points, but all in all, I see far more similarities between the Commies and the Fascists and few them much more as two sides of the same coin.

      • Hi Mike:

        No, I’m not on Twitter.

        I don’t think picking winners and losers in the economy is central to fascism. There are always winners in a military-industrial complex and both conservatives and liberals in power – in Europe and America – have long supported such government-business relationships – although the radical rank-and-file Left in the 1960s was incredibly hostile to such arrangements.

        The Nazis combated abortion. The Reich reduced the number of officially sanctioned abortions from 35,000 a year in the early-30s to less than 2,000 per year by the end of the decade. Birth control clinics were shut down because the Nazis associated them with the libertarian Left.

        I agree that fascism and communism have much in common; however, that does not mean that fascism is a Left-wing phenomenon.

        I found the following works informative and insightful. If you’re interested in fascism and Nazi Germany, I would recommend:

        Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism (2004)
        Stanley Payne, A History of Fascism, 1914-1945 (1995)
        Richard J. Evans’ trilogy on Nazi Germany – The Coming of the Third Reich, the Third Reich in Power, and the Third Reich at War.

        Nice talking to you and have a great day!

    • BTW, if you’re on Twitter, use the contact form, I’d love to follow you there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Currently Listening To:

Team of Rivals
by
Doris Kearns Goodwin