Comments on: Fox in charge of chicken coop

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 30 Oct 2003 02:19:47 +0000

“Hitler was a socialist, of a kind . .” That is not an eccentric assessment. We have this from Peter Temin: Lessons from the Great Depression: The Lionel Robbins Lectures for 1989; MIT Press (1989), p 117: ” ‘In the long run, the Nazis aimed essentially at an economic system which would be an alternative to capitalism and communism, supporting neither a laissez-faire attitude nor total planning.’ [ Hardach: The Political Economy of Germany in the Twentieth Century; University of California Press (1980), p 66 ] They introduced administrative controls over investment through licensing and direct allocation of raw materials. But their brand of socialism emphasized central control over economic activity rather than public ownership of firms. Instead of dispossessing private owners, the Nazis severely circumscribed the scope within which the nominal owners could make choices by currency controls, taxes on profits and direct allocation measures of the state.” The ideological gloss of the Nazis was plainly “socialist” as in: “The tax-department chief of the Association of Industrialists emphasized that it was useless to attempt a precise comparison between old and new tax regulations because the important issue was ‘the new spirit of the reform, the spirit of National Socialism. The principle of the ‘the common good precedes the good of the individual’ stands above everything else.” [Avraham Barkai: Nazi Economics; Berg Publishing (1990), p. 185] Nor is this leftist slant unique to the ideologies of just German and Italian fascism. It was a feature, too, of the pathetic and utterly abortive attempt by Sir Oswald Mosley to start a fascist movement in Britain in 1932 after having been a cabinet minister in Ramsay Macdonald’s Labour government of 1929-31. We have this contemporary description in the diary of George Orwell while he was researching the background for the book that became: The Road to Wigan Pier (1937). The diary entry for 16 March 1936 reads: “Last night to hear [Sir Oswald] Mosley speak at the Public Hall [Barnsley, South Yorkshire], which is in structure a theatre. It was quite full – about 700 people I should say. About 100 Blackshirts on duty, with two or three exceptions weedy looking specimens, and girls selling Action etc. Mosley spoke for an hour and a half and to my dismay seemed to have the meeting mainly with him. He was booed at the start but loudly clapped at the end. Several men who tried to interject with questions were thrown out . . . one with quite unnecessary violence. . . . M. is a very good speaker. His speech was the usual clap-trap – Empire free trade, down with the Jew and the foreigner, higher wages and shorter hours all round etc. After the preliminary booing the (mainly) working class audience was easily bamboozled by M speaking as it were from a Socialist angle, condemning the treachery of successive governments towards the workers. The blame for everything was put upon mysterious international gangs of Jews who were said to be financing, among other things the British Labour Party and the Soviet. . . . M. kept extolling Italy and Germany but when questioned about concentration camps etc always replied ‘We have no foreign models; what happens in Germany need not happen here.’ . . .” [George Orwell: The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters, Vol. 1 An Age Like This 1920-1940; Penguin Books, p. 230] The significance of this report is that it was a contemporary account by an unusally acute observer of politics and not intended for publication – the diary was not published until after Orwell’s death in 1950. As Orwell writes: “. . M speaking as it were from a Socialist angle . .” What is also certain is that Mosley himself regarded his politics as leftist. As he wrote in a letter to The (London) Times [26 April 1968]: “I am not, and never have been, a man of the right. My position was on the left and is now in the centre of politics.” Reference to the fundamental programme of the Nazis, issued in 1920 and never subsequently amended, shows that besides the odious racist prescriptions it contain’s many items common to the platforms of west European socialist parties. And btw Stalin had no ideological objections to the Soviet Union contracting a Friendship Treaty with Nazi Germany in late September 1939 after Britain and France were already at war with Nazi Germany – as readers can confirm from Norman Davies: Europe (OUP, 1996) p. 1001.

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:21:52 +0000

Andrew wrote:

Just kidding! Just kidding. I know it’s not fair pool to pull half a sentence out of context. Fun though.

Sounds like you’re hoping to get a job writing the “Bushism of the Day” feature for Slate. ;) http://volokh.com/2003_10_26_volokh_archive.html#106744376480440821

By: Conrad Barwa

Conrad Barwa — Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:52:49 +0000

If Ralph Nader and his fellow Green shirts are leftists, I don’t see Greens as being Leftists; they might have elements of their political programme in common but then so do Fascists and Conservatives doesn’t make them the same. If Trotsky and Stalin were both communists, why did they fight a civil war? Umm, they didn’t. there was a struggle within the Bolsheviks but this WAS AN INTRA-PARTY struggle over ideology, personality clashes and power rather like the night of the long knives were for the Nazis. The fact that Roehm got whacked by SS elimination squads does not make him any less of a Nazi. If Hitler had tried to join the SPD or KPD and then turn them into fascist parties then you would have a point. Unsurprisingly since he didn’t, you don’t. Yes and Stalin had Trotsky and other communists murdered, your point being what? That if Stalin murders his rival communists, he is no longer an actual communist much as when The difference being that Stalin murdered them for ostensibly being the wrong sort of Communist or people pretending to be communists. I don’t know of a Nazi policy sending Aryan Germans to the concentration camp for being the “wrong sort of Nazis” Nazi fascism was in one sense much more benign than Stalinism; if you were racially acceptable and didn’t challenge the regime it was unlikely that you would be targted; under Stalinism you could be a hardcore supporter of the regim and this wouldn’t save you from being declaimed and shipped off to Siberia. Hitler murdered his rivals, he is by your logic not really a socialist? Hitler eliminated people not because they were political rivals but because they followed ideologies which he thought were suspect – ie some form of Communism and because they were racially dangerous ie Jewish in Nazi ideology. Since for the Nazis the two were the same ie JUDEO-BOLSHEVISM, I can’t see why they would claim to be socialists when for them socialism was an odious creed invented by Jews to take over the world. Pearl Harbor made this a rather moot point. Not really, FDR and his advisors were unsure of how to get around the fact that they had no good reason to declare war on Germany and were releived when Germany declared war on them to save them the trouble of it. And like I said, one wonders why it was the supposedly much less evil, non-Communist Japan that launched this attack rather than in your view the obviously much more dangerous Communists.In anycase they had already been propping up the Allied war effort much before Pearl harbour without which the Brits et al would have collapsed as Lend LEase indicates where the Us saw its interests as lying. I highly doubt that the war would have gone well, if the US would have allowed Germany and Russia would have been allowed to go at it alone – a course of events which in any case would have allowed Germany to complete its genocide of the Jews but then I suppose this is in your eyes an acceptable cost to pay. As much as I generally loath FDR and Truman for their statist domestic policies, Yeah, what do you think won them the war? I’m generally inclined to give someone the benefit of the doubt when they have to make a tough choice between the lesser evil in foreign policy in their here and now then condemning them with the benefit of 50 plus years of 20-20 hindsight. The only person condemning them here is you; I certainly have nothing against these leaders; but then I am not someone with crypto-fascist sympathies.

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:46:12 +0000

Conrad Barwa wrote:

I can’t believe anybody seriously would claim that Hitler was a socialist, if he was one I wonder why he didn’t join the main socialist party of his day the SPD or if he was a Communist why he didn’t join the the KPD.

If Ralph Nader and his fellow Green shirts are leftists, why don’t they join the Democratic Party? If Trotsky and Stalin were both communists, why did they fight a civil war? Answer: because they disagree over who is the “true” adherent of their respective ideologies and there are power plays amongst the various actors. Same is true with respect to your questions as far as why the National Socialists did not join the SPD or the Communists. Why they pretty much agreed on the important fundamentals of socialism (sacrificing the individual for the good of the State/public good/race/class/tribe/whatever) they disagreed on some of the particulars and there were no doubt more than a few individuals who were out for personal power (which seems to be the case of every movement purporting to act out of altruism).

For a party that was meant to be socialist, the Nazis sure did send off a lot of leftists to the concentration camps.

Yes and Stalin had Trotsky and other communists murdered, your point being what? That if Stalin murders his rival communists, he is no longer an actual communist much as when Hitler murdered his rivals, he is by your logic not really a socialist?

By the comments of some observers, what the US and UK should have really done was join up with Nazi Germany and Tojo Japan to eradicate the real source of evil ie Stalinist Russia and Maoist China.

Pearl Harbor made this a rather moot point. I also do not believe that there were too many people (certainly no one here unless you have some specific evidence to substantiate this charge) who would have argued that we ought to support Germany or Japan. The closest I can recall was Charles Lindberg saying that he believed as bad as the Germans were, the Russians were worse – which seems to me to be hardly a call for siding with Germany so much as not helping the Russians. Perhaps with the idea that if the two significantly weakened each other, both could ultimately be defeated (although I think the scenario somewhat implausible in that we might be facing a Germany or Russia who only is fighting on one front with the remaining resources of the loser). As much as I generally loath FDR and Truman for their statist domestic policies, I’m generally inclined to give someone the benefit of the doubt when they have to make a tough choice between the lesser evil in foreign policy in their here and now then condemning them with the benefit of 50 plus years of 20-20 hindsight.

By: Antoni Jaume

Antoni Jaume — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:22:20 +0000

My take on European fascism is that it is a consequence of the militarisation of the society that resulted from the 1914-1918 war. People who were demobilised and had no work, or bad works, remembered that while the war raged those were not their problems. The military took care of it all. In the first years after the war the political ebullience gave birth to a lot of small parties, whose political ideology was frequently inconsistent, and that attracted a lot of people that craved power. I reckon that the Great Depression was instrumental in the radicalisation of the parties, be they anarchists, communists or fascists. The Right thought that the most convenient to their interests were the fascists, who had a hierarchical view of society that could be co-opted by those who already had the power, while the dispossessed at to stay at the bottom, at least most of the time, the big proprietors, high ranking officers, etc. went to the high ranks. The fact that nazis were so racists was their undoing. DSW

By: Conrad Barwa

Conrad Barwa — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:03:03 +0000

I can’t believe anybody seriously would claim that Hitler was a socialist, if he was one I wonder why he didn’t join the main socialist party of his day the SPD or if he was a Communist why he didn’t join the the KPD. For a party that was meant to be socialist, the Nazis sure did send off a lot of leftists to the concentration camps. Of course Stalinism was a monstrous regime, which just goes to show that totalitarianisms of the Left and the Right are both pretty bad as well as having something in common – ie desire for total control by the State of all other spheres of life. In one key way Stalinism was even worse than Nazism but unlike Nazism it was not an expansionist power that more or less started WWII; and more importantly there was hardly any agreement amongst the non-Communist and non-Stalinist Left over how to proceed with reform and political rule: which is why the Stalinists had to kill them all before becoming ensconced in power; unlike the Nazis who could not have risen to power without the help of the Conservatives. The fact that all the major democratic capitalist powers joined hands with the Stalinist-Communist ones; indicates to me that Fascism was at least by the leaders of the ‘Free’ (and not so Free) World as the major single threat to international stability. By the comments of some observers, what the US and UK should have really done was join up with Nazi Germany and Tojo Japan to eradicate the real source of evil ie Stalinist Russia and Maoist China.

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:56:58 +0000

Dave Heasman wrote:

It’s all just as relevant as the US neo-cons’ roots in Trotskyism, creating a revolutionary situation by destroying the economic foundations of capitalism… oops, hang on a mo…

LOL, I appreciate the joke about “destroying the economic foundations of capitalism.” It’s always cute when the True Believer makes wishful predictions about the “inevitable decline” or “overthrow” of capitalism or the United States. Even more so when those predictions go the way of Ehrlich’s predictions of global famine in the 1970s. ;) BTW: I understand that the term “neo-con” is used pretty broadly and inconsistently almost like its opposite epitaph of “isolationist.” While the definition seems to have gone from “former socialists, now conservatives” its current usage seems to be as “anyone who advocates an activist American foreign policy.” The only thing in common seems to be that (a) both are called “Neo-conservatives” and (b) both are willing to support the United States engaging its adversaries. Seeing as how there are very few Trotskyites (ex or otherwise) and no thinking person seriously considers any form of socialism to have merit, I doubt anyone can seriously attribute the current group being labeled “neo-cons” as having “roots in Trotskyism.”

By: dave heasman

dave heasman — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:28:07 +0000

It’s all just as relevant as the US neo-cons’ roots in Trotskyism,creating a revolutionary situation by destroying the economic foundations of capitalism..oops, hang on a mo…

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:17:44 +0000

Daniel Davies wrote:

No such support was intended or can legitimately be drawn.

Of course not since one person saying things like “Hitler was a socialist of a kind,” “there were founders among the Nazi party who were very definitely socialists,” or describing the Nazi State’s regulation of private property as “an idea with recognisably socialist roots” cannot be legitimately be drawn as supporting another’s description of same as rising to power “under some form of Socialist orthodoxy, implements a number of socialist-style programs while expanding the State is a socialist direction.” Nope, no connection between them at all.

By: andrew

andrew — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:50:25 +0000

Someone said: “That is not to say that all leftists are Nazis or Nazi-sympathizers” Of course not. One would also not want to say that all Republicans are pig f*$k#@s… ;) Just kidding! Just kidding. I know it’s not fair pool to pull half a sentence out of context. Fun though.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:25:53 +0000

Thank you for providing support for my larger point. No such support was intended or can legitimately be drawn. I’ll leave it at that and ignore your final smear. In that case I’ll put it in bold: You’re an idiot

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:12:27 +0000

Daniel Davies wrote:

Thorley is of course an idiot (and if anyone could point me to a single contribution of value he’s made to this comments board, I’d be very interested to see it),

Well for one thing I seem capable of articulating my views in an adversarial environment without lowering myself to the level of those who resort to “if you disagree with me, you’re an idiot.” Pity you cannot seem to do the same.

The 1930s were a very crazy time indeed in politics, and it doesn’t help all that much to try to map today’s political parties onto Europe of that period (particularly if your idea of political analysis is the asinine assertion that there is something Socialist or Capitalist about gun control).

Actually if you go back and read my post instead of setting up a strawman, you’ll see that I listed “gun control” along with a number of other social issue positions attributed to the “modern Left” which pretty much overlaps today’s socialism. I disagree though with your conjecture that gun control is not a position more attributable to socialist ideology then capitalism (with the exception of Trotsky or so I’m told). But I agree with your point that the 1930’s are different than today’s situation – the Nazis for example might be considered “right wing” in Germany in that they were socialists but not Marxists which might put them as part of the 1930s German right but still that would put them well on the left today (hence my reference to the “modern Democratic party).

Hitler was a socialist, of a kind, and there were founders among the Nazi party who were very definitely socialists. The Nazi State was one in which private ownership of capital was highly regulated and was meant to be exercised in the interests of the Volk (which is not the same as exercised in the interests of the workers, but is an idea with recognisably socialist roots).

Thank you for providing support for my larger point. I’ll leave it at that and ignore your final smear.

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:10:04 +0000

Brian Weatherson wrote:

Apart from being just about the most offensive thing written on these comments boards (no mean feat, I tell you), that has to be just about the biggest set-aside in history.

The reason I specifically said “excluding murder and genocide” was because those are things which pretty much everyone (aside from a few eco-nutters of the zero-population growth variety and the “peace at any price” crowd) agree are evil. That leaves us free to make a comparison of the actual policies, platform, and the ideology driving them to answer Laertes’ earlier charge that somehow people on the Right were more prone to identify with that National Socialists then people on the Left. My point is simply that when one actually compares the policies, platform, and the overall ideology of National Socialism – it has far more in common with today’s modern Nanny State Leftists then modern conservatives and libertarians. That of course (and I made this point in my previous post which you seem to have missed in your deeming this the “about the most offensive thing written on these comments boards”) is not the same as saying that NSL’s are the same as National Socialists or even admirers of such (no doubt because of the latter’s murderous and genocidal record) but rather to point out that in terms of issues and overall ideology, they do have more in common with each other then the National Socialists do with conservatives and libertarians for the reasons I listed in my previous post.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:11:44 +0000

Thorley is of course an idiot (and if anyone could point me to a single contribution of value he’s made to this comments board, I’d be very interested to see it), but the relationship between National Socialism, Socialism and Fascism is a bit more complicated than that. The 1930s were a very crazy time indeed in politics, and it doesn’t help all that much to try to map today’s political parties onto Europe of that period (particularly if your idea of political analysis is the asinine assertion that there is something Socialist or Capitalist about gun control). Hitler was a socialist, of a kind, and there were founders among the Nazi party who were very definitely socialists. The Nazi State was one in which private ownership of capital was highly regulated and was meant to be exercised in the interests of the Volk (which is not the same as exercised in the interests of the workers, but is an idea with recognisably socialist roots). I’ve been trying for at least a year to succinctly summarise the relationship between Nazism and Socialism and so far failed, but there are decent works on the subject. The best I can do so far is to suggest that Nazism is what Socialism might look like if it was invented by people like Thorley Winston. In related news, somebody ought to tell the commenters of Samizdata that racist police are still part of the government, so it’s okay to be against them …

By: Laertes

Laertes — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 05:17:24 +0000

From Shirer: ...on May 2 the trade-union headquarters throughout the country were occupied, union funds confiscated, the unions dissolved and teh leaders arrested... At first, though, both Hitler and Ley tried to assure the workers that their rights would be protected. Said Ley in his first proclamation: "Workers! Your institutions are sacred to us National Socialists...we will build up the protection and the rights of the workers still further!" ...Within three weeks...Hitler decreed a law bringing an end to collective bargaining and providing that henceforth "labor trustees," appointed by him, would "regulate labor contracts" and maintain "labor peace." Since the decisions of the trustees were to be legally binding, the law, in effect, outlawed strikes. Ley promised "to restore absolute leadership to the natural leader of a factory--that is, the employer...Only the employer can decide. Many employers have for years had to call for the 'master in the house.' Now they are once again to be the 'master in the house.'" Workers paradise indeed. The label that so befuddles people today didn't fool anyone at the time. Wealth and privilege knew a friend when they saw one: Shirer: For the time being, business management was pleased. The generous contributions which so many employers had made to the National Socialist German Workers' Party were paying off. Orwell: "After years of aggression and massacres, they had grasped only one fact, that Hitler and Mussolini were hostile to Communism. Therefore, it was argued, they must be friendly to the British dividend-drawer. Hence the truly frightening spectacle of Conservative MPs wildly cheering the news that British ships, bringing food to the Spanish Republican government, nad been bombed by Italian aeroplanes...The British ruling class were not altogether wrong in thinking that Fascism was on their side. It is a fact that any rich man, unless he is a Jew, has less to fear from Fascism than from either Communism or democratic Socialism. One ought never to forget this, for nearly the whole of German and Italian propaganda is designed to cover it up." It's still doing a bang-up job, apparently. And the left of the day wasn't fooled either. Orwell: Hitler is the leader of a tremendous counter-attack of the capitalist class, which is forming itself into a vast cforporation, losing its privileges to some extent in doing so but still retaining its power over the working class. Hitler was no socialist. The assertion doesn't pass the horse-laugh test today, and as Orwell and Shirer show, it didn't in his day either.