What people don’t remember is that Hiterism was about more than just militarism, nationalism, and consolidation of identity politics. It also involved a substantial shift in German domestic politics away from free enterprise, or what remained of it under Weimar, toward collectivist economic planning. Nazism was not only nationalism run amok. It was also socialism of a particular variety. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/10255/headed-to-national-socialism/
Headed to National Socialism
Previous post: Richard Epstein on Happiness
Next post: Mathematics Versus Economic Logic
{ 18 comments }
To my mind the injection if “nationalism” into the definition is a little arbitrary in that regardless of those trying to bring “order” to their system, they are making enemies and allies outside of the arbitrary borders. Just as with picking and identifying the scapegoat who was going to be punished on the wrong side of the razor wire (Jews, Gypsies, etc) Naziism simply was explicit while others left it as implicit. I guess it’s the case where I have to give Hitler some credit – he was brutally clear and honest. The “softer” fascists use more smoke and mirrors. The end results are exactly the same – War externally and labor/death camps internally.
Reimann’s book has a fascinating subject, but reading it subjects one to long strings of statistics and facts, the significance of which one must really concentrate at all times to appreciate. It was published in 1939.
A larger work by Adam Tooze (The Wages of Destruction, published in 2007) seems to take full advantage of the many opportunities afforded by historical perspective and is a livelier account of the same subject that is both broader and at the same time more penetrating than Reimann’s.
Tooze is perforce a scholar, of course, while Reimann’s report is “from the trenches,” and can’t be beat for immediacy.
Both accounts support Lew Rockwell’s points in this article chillingly.
Reading a bit about Reimann’s biography makes me wonder how he made it to this blog…
though it seems his critics against western capitalism are quite interesting and knowledgeable, those against Stalinism quite pertinent, and giving the fact he never gave up being a Marxist even after prophecying the fall of communism in 68.
http://www.trend.infopartisan.net/trd0401/t290401.html
Americans like Fascism, they just don’t like calling it Fascism.
I have said before that the genius of American totalitarianism is maintaining the appearance of two competing political parties. A one-party dictatorship is too obvious and will be opposed. But give the people a choice of two equally evil parties and the paralysis of pluralism will keep them in servitude.
Its the perfect ploy–divide everyone into two teams and let them fight each other. After that, controlling the nation is trivial.
“It was common on the Left to intimate that George W. Bush was like Hitler, a remark that would drive the National Review crowd through the roof but which I didn’t find entirely outrageous.”
“If you think that the parallels stopped after Bush left power..:”
Bush left power, and there was little, probably no, doubt he always would. He was never an aspiring dictator, misguided as you might think his war policies were. That’s why the “National Review crowd” found THAT comparison outrageous.
Obama, well, I’m not so sure he wants to leave power.
Rockwell writes: “The main myth they promoted was that Bush was the Christian philosopher-king heading a new crusade against Islamic extremism.”
We have tons of legitimate stuff to criticize Bush and Republicans for, but not once during the Bush presidency did I read anybody on the right suggest or insinuate that Bush was a Christian philosopher-king. Certain Bush and his staff never did.
I wonder who Mr. Rockwell means by “they”. I did read liberals make similar claims a lot, but from my experience, those claims are dishonest.
Cheney wanted [wants!] to be king.
Bush was hardly a philosoper. More like the student in the corner facing the back wall.
A Christian? by whose definition?
Obama, has not been in power long enough to want to leave . I think his heart is good. He was given a real mess,
If George Bush and his Neoconservative cadre based their governing style on the “utility of public myth” they were solidily in the Sorelian camp.
Jonah Goldberg in his book ‘Liberal Fascism’ writes that “Mussolini stood on Sorel’s shoulders.”
Did Bush and his Neoconservative cadre stand on Mussolin’s shoulders?
Are you equating National Socialism and Fascism?
Reading Nock on a Saturday morning and thinking about America today:
“Look at the prodigious cost of “social legislation” and all the other rapidly-mounting costs of maintaining nationalism. They must all come out of production, and there is no longer enough production to pay them and keep itself going. That
is the trouble in every country where jobholders can make their people believe that the sacred ark of nationalism is in danger. They are facing the homely facts of fundamental economics which cannot be dodged or bulldozed. National organization is a great principle, if you don’t weaken. It is all very fine and grand and puts up a wonderful show on dress-parade, but if you have nothing left to go on with after the bills come in, where are you?”
From Sunday in Brussels, “Snoring As A Fine Art”.
By “jobholders” Nock is referring here to office holders in government; also read “national leaders”.
I never understood this whole nationalism requirement for fascism. Were the Chinese not nationalistic? What about the Yugoslavians and North Koreans; where they not nationalistic? Completely arbitrary and ad hoc distinction made by the lunatic left. They refuse to face the abominations their ideologies create.
I think it is a valid distinction.
Socialism is primarily an economic system based on “social” ownership.
Fascism is more of a belief system and usually is totalitarian. Fanatical belief in “race” and subsequently the “leader”.
Fascism is usually associated with “corporatism”, but this doesn’t have to be the case.
Bush was more fascist, relying on what is best to keep the “American Ideal” safe, warring against those outside of the ideal, while Obama relies more on the “collective good” [socialist] principle. Fascism conserves and defines a particular ideal [race] while Socialism attempts to bring a particular ideal to the masses.
It has to get back to who owns what. Individual ownership is necessary in a free system and we long ago gave a good portion of that up to corporate title.
The more state ownership the more social. Fascism tends to concentrate ownership in order to concentrate power, so collective ownership might work but “common” wouldn’t work at all. That is why corporatism works in a Fascist regime, but fundamental communism wouldn’t.
Gene, you should read this article.
I did, although I thought it was a very good article, I don’t really see the same parellels.
we are still the richest country in the world and we hold the world currency. fascism breeds in poverty and we are far from poverty or any pronounced form of fascism.
our system of “corporatism” has been deeply imbedded for perhaps one hundred years, it is nothing new. it is primarily the corporations that have bullied the state around, although they both have worked in collusion.
it is possible we are at the point Mussolini referred to as “super capitalism”, but our history is much different in that the corporate-state relationship has been solidified for many years already, unlike the radical measures Mussolini and Hitler instituted. Everything we are doing today has many years precedent.
We seem to have a unique and historically new form of corporatism. The state will save it at any cost. This doesn’t align with either fascism, in which everything exists for the sake of the nation, including business, or socialism, in which everything is done for the good of all. If anything, we have Corporate Socialism. I don’t think what we have has any definite historical references.
To be honest, I don’t see Naziism as Socialism. I think it deserves to be isolated even from Fascism or at least be considered seperately. It is really more of a bizarre religion.
At present, I don’t think the “national” is trumping economic concerns at all. We are sacrificing much of the “national” for corporate concerns. Obama is throwing in some “social” concerns to attempt to keep us serfs happy, but the main concern is preservation of the mega-national markets. Because of the severity of the situation, the State is instructing [and financing] the corporations instead of what historically has been the other way around.
There are similarities, but we haven’t been here before!
Hitler courted the labor union leaders with paens to socialists causes and worker rights and utlimately worker paradise. Once he got to power he brutally crushed unions and their leadership. He then played his cards to woo business leaders for crushing the unions. This was necessary for the command and control military economy that he built with every western nations knowledge. Next was complete fascism as he started to use the German military machine, the rest as they say is history. The ultimate irony is, as most LRC/Mises readers know, Germany had legitimate complaints from the Treaty of Versailles (aka the intermission).
The point here being that labor represents a tiny fraction of the populace, but its leadership are by and large ruthless dunces that will dance to the appropriate tune if sung by the appropriate chanteuse. Giving them power disproprtionate to their numbers is to co-op the voting public: 1% of the population may bring 70% of the delegates to the convention of 2012.
Nothing is new in the Obama Presidency it is just sad to see Americans, of all people, to fall for this recycled atavastic socialist swill.
Gene: “If anything, we have Corporate Socialism. I don’t think what we have has any definite historical references.”
From “Modern Liberalism at Wit’s End”:
Recall how he spoke of an ideology that “resembles that of communism.” Indeed: a crafted mythology as official history; government growth as a declared inevitability; administration of the masses economically (professedly to benefit the lower classes, really to establish a political elite); the use of the term socialization to denote usurpation by the State of the institutions of society; the invocation of “wrecker” saboteurs (“reactionaries” and “conservatives”) to prove that statism never fails, but is only failed; militarism in the service of “pacification.”Corporate socialism and Communist socialism are of course not twin totalitarianisms, but they are kindred Orwellianisms: Fantasy is Reality — reality, fantasy.
Gene: “If anything, we have Corporate Socialism. I don’t think what we have has any definite historical references.”
From “Modern Liberalism at Wit’s End”:
Recall how he spoke of an ideology that “resembles that of communism.” Indeed: a crafted mythology as official history; government growth as a declared inevitability; administration of the masses economically (professedly to benefit the lower classes, really to establish a political elite); the use of the term socialization to denote usurpation by the State of the institutions of society; the invocation of “wrecker” saboteurs (“reactionaries” and “conservatives”) to prove that statism never fails, but is only failed; militarism in the service of “pacification.”Corporate socialism and Communist socialism are of course not twin totalitarianisms, but they are kindred Orwellianisms: Fantasy is Reality — reality, fantasy.
Comments on this entry are closed.