Hitler Writes From The Grave

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

w4rma

A big clue that the Nazis are/were not socialist are their first few targets for hate.

No. Lenin-Beria-Stalin's persecution of fellow party members, Stalin vs. Trotsky for example, shows that reasoning to be false.

Persecution in this context, and with the Nazis, was in fact competition for primacy amongst fellow socialists.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

All:

At this juncture, perhaps we could return the discussion to the question of why such extremes of violence against the people seems to be a pronounced characteristic of socialist regimes. Socialist regimes such as the Nazis, Soviets, Castro's Cuba, Saddam's Blood-Baath Iraq, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, PR China, etc.

What is it about this school of political/economic thought that almost invariably leads to genocide against the innocent.

 

[agricola]

coolhand,

i) its a funny argument whereby someones non-statements indicates their acceptance of a viewpoint. By that reasoning, anyone who hasnt said "the nazis are evil", is by implication, a Nazi. You made a statement that the socialists universally accepted the Nazis as socialists. I presented evidence that, in fact, the vast bulk of the Left rejected fascism and nazism, and in fact fought against it before the more respectable elements did.

You then suggest that all that is irrelevant because these "leading proponents of socialist theory", who you have been unable to name, have not been quoted here as being against the Nazis. When I find some quotes, will you continue to obfuscate or will you admit your errors?

ii) your historical "knowledge" is proven by the belief that Lenin persecuted Trotsky. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of Soviet history knows that it was Stalin who went after Lev Davidovitch - Lenin in fact respected Trotsky as the man who created the Red Army and thus safeguarded the Revolution.

Lenin did oppose other socialists - the Left SRs and the Mensheviks who had been associated with the Bolsheviks in the Workers' and Soldiers' Councils but opposed the Marxist-Leninist line, but the terror against them was in no way equal to that meeted out by Stalin during the purges of his reign.

 

[agricola]

leading proponents of socialist theory against the Nazis

Trotsky:

The last election revealed -- and this is its principal symptomatic
significances -- a shift in the opposite direction. Under the impact of
the crisis, the petty bourgeoisie swung, not in the direction of the
proletarian revolution, but in the direction of the most extreme
imperialist reaction, pulling behind it considerable sections of the
proletariat. The gigantic growth of National Socialism is an expression
of two factors: a deep social crisis, throwing the petty-bourgeois
masses off balance, and the lack of a revolutionary party that would
today be regarded by the popular masses as the acknowledged
revolutionary leader. If the Communist Party is the party of
revolutionary hope, then fascism, as a mass movement, is the party of
counter-revolutionary despair. When revolutionary hope embraces the
whole proletarian mass, it inevitably pulls behind it on the road of
revolution considerable and growing sections of the petty bourgeoisie.
Precisely in this sphere, the election revealed the opposite picture:
counterrevolutionary despair embraced the petty-bourgeois mass with
such force that it drew behind it many sections of the proletariat.

from: http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Other/Trotsky/Archive/1930-Ger/300926.txt

Germany is now passing through one of those great historic hours upon
which the fate of the German people, the fate of Europe, and in
significant measure the fate of all humanity, will depend for decades.
If you place a ball on top of a pyramid, the slightest impact can cause
it to roll down either to the left or to the right. That is the
situation approaching with every hour in Germany today. There are
forces which would like the bail to roll down towards the right and
break the back of the working class. There are forces which would like
the ball to remain at the top. That is a utopia. The ball cannot remain
at the top of the pyramid. The Communists want the ball to roll down
toward the left and break the back of capitalism. But it is not enough
to want; one must know how. Let us calmly reflect once more: is the
policy carried on at present by the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of Germany correct or incorrect?

from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-ger/311208.htm

Felix Morrow

Franco’s programme is identical in fundamentals with that of Mussolini and Hitler. Fascism is a special form of reaction, the product of the period of capitalist decline. To see this fully one has only to compare Franco’s regime with that of the monarchy. The last Alfonso’s record is a bloody account of massacres of peasants and workers, of terrorism and assassination of proletarian leaders. Yet side by side with the systematic measures of repression, the monarchy permitted a restricted existence to economic and political organizations of the working class and to municipal and national organs of parliamentary democracy.

from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch01.htm

Dimitrov

Comrades, as early as the Sixth Congress [1928], the Communist International warned the world proletariat that a new fascist offensive was under way and called for a struggle against it. The Congress pointed out that 'in a more or less developed form, fascist tendencies and the germs of a fascist movement are to be found almost everywhere.'

With the development of the very deep economic crisis, with the general crisis of capitalism becoming sharply accentuated and the mass of working people becoming revolutionized, fascism has embarked upon a wide offensive. The ruling bourgeoisie more and more seeks salvation in fascism, with the object of taking exceptional predatory measures against the working people, preparing for an imperialist war of plunder, attacking the Soviet Union, enslaving and partitioning China, and by all these means preventing revolution.

The imperialist circles are trying to shift the whole burden of the crisis onto the shoulders of the working people. That is why they need fascism.

from: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/dimitrov/works/1935/08_02.htm

To the rest:

Sorry for the lengthy cut and pastes.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Agricola:

i) its a funny argument whereby someones non-statements indicates their acceptance of a viewpoint.

Not at all. In political debate it's very common for lack of comment to indicate assent. And true believers are quick to condemn wayward elements.

You then suggest that all that is irrelevant because these "leading proponents of socialist theory", who you have been unable to name, have not been quoted here as being against the Nazis. When I find some quotes, will you continue to obfuscate or will you admit your errors?

Again, you are asking for the names of noted socialists who DIDN'T make pre-war statements opposing the Nazi's self description as socialist. A lsit of those who DIDN'T make a statement. Strange request.

Your citation only indicates one individuals opposition to some aspects (racism) of fascism, not universal condemnations of the Nazis as non-socialists made by socialists worldwide. Where is the socialist party platform that condems socialism as practiced by the Nazis as contrary to true socialism. You'll find many such condemnations of Maoist socialism in Pravda for example.

ii) your historical "knowledge" is proven by the belief that Lenin persecuted Trotsky. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of Soviet history knows that it was Stalin who went after Lev Davidovitch - Lenin in fact respected Trotsky as the man who created the Red Army and thus safeguarded the Revolution.

No, you've misread my post. I clearly indicated that Trotsky fell out of favor after Stalin's rise to power.

Lenin did oppose other socialists - the Left SRs and the Mensheviks who had been associated with the Bolsheviks in the Workers' and Soldiers' Councils but opposed the Marxist-Leninist line, but the terror against them was in no way equal to that meeted out by Stalin during the purges of his reign.

And by that you have again proven my point that the Nazi's similar purges against some socialist elements did not indicate a refutation of socialist theory or that the Nazis weren't themselves socialist.

 

[agricola]

viva the sly edit!

You have the evidence - you can wallow in your own ignorance all you want from now on, especially as you saw fit to change your post to make it appear you were more intelligent than you are.

Also, for you to say its ludicrous that I should ask you for names of people who assented to the Nazis as socialist simply proves that you have no idea of who they were or what they said - the links I have just posted prove that from between 1928 and 1935 fronts against Fascism started to be created amongst first Trotskyist groups, then finally in 1935 at the VIIth COMINTERN when it was adopted as globally as possible. This meets your previous goal of a pre-1938 stand against fascism / nazism.

Of course, you'll respond with "this proves my point because it clearly doesnt specifically say that we reject nazism as being nothing like socialism, which is a point we should really make because sixty years from now the poorly educated will get confused".

 

[agricola]

bumped to increase chances of a reply.

 

[agricola]

bumped as a reply doesnt seem to be forthcoming

 

[MeekandMild]

Aggie, you seem to be forgetting the truism that the greatest competition comes from within the species. Giraffes don't often compete with gerbils for their ecological niche.

So of course there was a good deal of jealousy and competition between the various forms of socialism. They were competing for the loyalty of the same groups of thugs and competing for the same slaves.

 

[bfason]

Cool Hand Luke wrote:

The absence of any statements from leading proponents of socialist theory of the time opposing the Nazi's self-description of themselves as socialists is evidence that they accepted it as true.

Go read *anything* written by Leon Trotsky regarding the rise of fascism in Germany during this period.

 

[Orthonym]

Let's not forget

... that Mussolini was an important Socialist before he quit and/or was fired from the Party. I believe he actually knew and spoke cordially with Lenin. I could be wrong, of course.

 

[agricola]

orthonym,

Youre wrong about Mussolini meeting with Lenin - before the war Il Duce had been a schoolteacher (amongst other professions) as well as a politicized journalist of sorts, and its highly unlikely that he met Lenin (had he done so, he would have reported it).

One must also remember that there is a big difference between the comparatively benign fascism and the Nazis, both in terms of politics as well as the actual experience of the governed.

 

[dischord]

comparatively benign fascism

Is that like the Khmer Rouge's comparatively benign genocide?

But seriously:

I think I lean towards agricola in this debate, though I'm still open to persuasion. Perhaps I've missed the pertinent points, but the "Nazis were socialists" argument seems to boil down to two ideas:

1) They had the word socialist in their name. So what? A lot of gun control groups have the phrase gun safety in their names or at least their descriptions, but they aren't gun safety advocates.

2) A lot of people considered the Nazis to be socialists. Leaving aside agricola's disputing that fact, again, so what? A lot of journalist think the Brady Campaign is a "gun safety" organization. It isn't. (With all due respect to CHL, the "non-statement as proof" argument also support the absurdity that the Nazis actually were shape-shifting reptilian aliens from the lower 4th dimension. Some have said that; few have bothered to dispute it.)

In any event, I think you all need to define what makes a socialist and compare the Nazis to that. You may be arguing past each other based on differing definitions. IMO, the primary criterion would be some sort of income redistribution scheme, and I'm not aware that the Nazis had that.

In the end, however, it's all a "no they're lamia not imps" argument The socialist are wrong (evil even) without linking them to the Nazis. Lamia and imps are both demons, though not the same type of demons. Nazis and socialists are both evil collectivists, even if they are not the same type of evil collectivists.

Yes, agricola, in places like Sweden, the collectivists practice a comparatively benign evil.

 

[Don Gwinn]

It's a what now?

In the end, however, it's all a "no they're lamia not imps" argument

Thought I was tracking pretty well until that one.

 

[dischord]

Yeah, Don, I admit that was rather forced and awkward.

 

[MeekandMild]

Nazis and socialists are both evil collectivists, even if they are not the same type of evil collectivists.

Not entirely accurate. Nazis are members of a subset of socialists.

 

[dischord]

Not entirely accurate. Nazis are members of a subset of socialists.

As I noted above, those advocating that position in this thread have offered only two specious arguments for why that is so. Perhaps they are correct (I'm open to being convinced), but they've done a poor job of arguing it. Does anyone have anything more than "well socialist is in their name" and assertions about a bunch of unnamed people believing it to be so?