Posted on 09/04/2022 11:24:50 PM PDT by UnwashedPeasant
[snip] "Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
I’ve long thought that Hitler’s movement was anti-Communist. Communism was sweeping Europe and Hitler came to power by opposing it. It tended to scare people that they might wake to being hung by a mob.
In the end, you are largely defined by your opposition, especially when you lose. So Hitler is labeled a Fascist by the Communist. It doesn’t hurt that the world’s press and intellectuals are essentially Communist, and happy to apply the appellation.
“Marx promised an anarchistic paradise as the final form of communism. What he seemed oblivious to (or wanted to try to conceal) was the fact that dictatorships with absolute power tend to hold on to power indefinitely.”
You are an all too rare person who has studied Marxism and gets it right.
The concept of Socialism existed prior to Marx & Engels failed 19th century philosophy of Marxism, but they incorporated it as the in between step used to get a Capitalist free society to a Marxist Communist society.
No nation in the history of the world has ever hit that anarchist free society of Ubermen where no government was required. And they never will.
But the Progressives say “the right people haven’t been running it yet”.
Yeah…next time will work for sure……..
From the subhead: “This edited interview of Adolf Hitler by George Sylvester Viereck took place in 1923. It was republished in Liberty magazine in July 1932”
Should have read the entire article instead of the truncated version .
They are publishing it because Hitler has no room for the alien, no use for the wastrel.
That means we have to welcome the alien, all of them, and fund and honor the wastrel, or we are literally Hitler.
I call that the “HOA Karen rule of law.”
“The proletariat” becomes the ruling class.
They are now the bourgeoisie.
And it’s turtles all the way down.
The American Progressives have chosen "the right people" to be Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, who, in turn, have chosen "the right" sector planners to be the likes of Jennifer Granholm and Pete Buttigieg.
These are "the right people."
Whether there's any point to ownership of something without control of it is an exercise left to the reader ...
“That’s what people don’t understand, it’s not left vs. right, it’s totalitarianism vs. anarchy. Neither is workable, we all have to live with one another.”
I see it more as a fight between traditionalists vs radicals, ie, what has been shown to work over the centuries, even if imperfectly, vs some perfect utopian paradise that will never exist, but that will cause immense suffering in the process of getting “there”.
The French revolution is a perfect example of this. In fact, that’s where the terms “left” and “right” originated based on the seating arrangement in the assembly.
It’s a pathological yearning for an “equality” that will never exist.
Or as Tocqueville eloquently put it,
“There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality which excites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom.”
“
Most DEFINITELY not now. Were I forced to say ‘what’ they are or are becoming, I’d say Muslim - Turkish, Syrian and an increasing contingent of the sub-Saharan variety.
It was poorly edited.
Someone unfamiliar with the German political situation in the 1920s would not understand that two distinct time periods were being discussed in the same paragraph.
National Socialism was Socialism nonetheless.
It was an unholy amalgamation of abject race hatred combined with Socialism. What I think really seems to have set it loose was the disastrous environment in Germany cased by the WWI Treaties and the active Boshevik expansion into Germany.
At the end of the Day all of these political ideologies (Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism) end up in Authoritarian Totalitarian Dictatorships.
The Freedom of our American Republic is the only ideology that does not end up as they do and the one thing that they would see as their true enemy that they would all unite to destroy.
Our socialism is national
/\
So why did that paper hanging bastard invade poland, Belgium , France and all the others ?
Adolf was a lying p.o.s. in every respect ( much like our Rinos and commie dems)
Hayek was too kind to socialists when he called them “genuine and sincere”; more than enough bood was shed by them at that point to have demonstrated otherwise (more blood shed than at any other time in history even then).
Then that’s not ownership. The owner controls the property.
The Soviets claimed the same thing, FTR.
The real difference between Adolf and the commies was his rejection of their touted “internationalism”. Instead of a class struggle, his was a nation struggle with the Germans struggling against “inferior” peoples.
There’s even less difference between Mussolini’s version of fascism and communism.
I don’t dispute you, but I think one has to get the timeline correct. The Communist revolution in Russia was in 1917. This started Communist agitation throughout Europe. Hitler’s and other European governments were a reaction to that, I believe.
The Communist “intellectuals” in academia and the press don’t seem to want to get the order of events right.
Since national socialism ultimately developed from Bismarckian state socialism, I’d have to agree with the notion of reactionism at least. The original “battle for the soul of the nation” as it were.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.