Safety of Pacific Principles (1828?) and Why Hitler was a Socialist

Between 1848 and 1851, four International Peace Congresses were held. The viewpoint of the American Peace Society, as published in their early 1800's pamphlet “Safety of Pacific Principles”, which was reprinted in the 1845 edition of “The Book of Peace” by George C. Beckwith (published in Boston, MA), asserted that the “peace principle” has been proven in examples of lions responding to kindness, or in examples of American Indians who respected lives and property of specific “Pacific Individuals” and groups such as the “Quakers under William Penn”. The precursors to the American Peace Society originated with the “Pacific” (as in peace) movement of William Ladd (1778-1841), the Maine Peace Society of the 1820’s, similar Peace Societies in New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts, Philadelphia Pennsylvania, which all merged these regional groups, which were almost cult-like in association, into the affiliated American Peace Society or APS. There were also associate groups, such as the New England Non-Resistance Society of the 1830’s, and the Universal Peace Union of the 1860’s. The slogan of the American Peace Society was “Everlasting International Peace through Justice”. They believed they could promote their cause using judicial methods, and indoctrinated lawyers and judges who would work themselves into places of power within the courts. William Ladd proposed a “Congress of Nations” and a “World Court” in the early 1800’s, and the American Peace Society (APS) was involved and instrumental in the establishment of a Peace Congress at The Hague in 1843, centered around the idea of a “World Court”.

A Dissertation on a Congress of Nations – (1832)
On the Duty of Females to Promote the Cause of Peace – (1836)
The War With Mexico Reviewed – (1850)
Peace Will Triumph – (1857)
Lessons From Our Late Rebellion – (1867)
The Paris Peace Congress – (1889)
Nationalism and Internationalism or Mankind One Body – (1899)
A French Plea for Limitation of Naval Expenses – (1899)
The Permanent International Court of Arbitration: The Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes – (1899)
Anglo-Franco-German Alliance - A Guarantee of Peace – (1905)
The Proposed High Court of Nations – (1910)
California Press on Anti-Alien Land Legislation – (1915)
Etc. . .

In their years of existence, neither the APS nor any of their affiliates ever achieved peace. However, they did influence others, including Albert and Vera Weisbord, and as documented, "leading Communist radicals of the 1930's, organizers of 1926 Passaic Textile Strike, the 1929 Gastonia Textile Strike, and leaders of the Communist League of Struggle 1931-37. Albert joined the Brooklyn Branch of the Socialist Party, by 1920 he became an active organizer. In 1921 he was elected National Secretary of the Young Peoples Socialist League and later a member of the National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party. In 1924 he was a delegate to the Convention of the Conference for Progressive Political Action. Soon he would resign from the Socialist Party to join the Workers (Communist) Party. He moved to Paterson N.J. where he formed the United Front Committee of Textile Workers, and involved himself in a strike of Silk Mill Workers in West New York, N.J. From there he was on to Passaic where he organized a strike of over 16,000 workers. In Passaic he met Vera Buch. Vera Buch was born August 19, 1895 in Forestville, Connecticut. In a tuberculosis sanatorium Vera first became interested in the class struggle, and in 1919 she joined the left wing of the Socialist Party, beginning a long period of work as a labor activist. She soon joined the Industrial Workers of the World, and then the Communist Party when it first formed in 1920. In 1922 she joined the Workers (Communist) Party. In 1926 she was sent to Passaic to help in the strike, there she met Albert Weisbord, who like Vera was a committed revolutionist. After Passaic Albert and Vera were involved with the miners in the coal fields of Penn. (United Mine Workers) and in 1929 the Gastonia Textile Strike, where Vera was arrested for murder. In 1930 Albert and Vera separated from the Communist party and were briefly associated with The Left Opposition that was led by James P. Cannon and Max Shachtman (Communist League of America). At one point Albert was a Trotskyist but by 1931 he had moved outside of The Left Opposition towards a policy and program of his own. In 1931 "The Communist League of Struggle" was formed with its official organ "Class Struggle". During the entire publication of Class Struggle (1931-1937) Albert was the main contributor. In 1932 Albert visited with Leon Trotsky for three weeks in Turkey. Latter he traveled to Germany and Spain, of these visits articles can be found in the collections of Class Struggle."

Louis Lochner was the 1914 “pacifistic” lecture for the University of Wisconsin extension service and the American Peace Society (APS), of which he was an APS Director. In 1915 he became secretary to Henry Ford as well as the secretary and press agent for the Henry Ford’s rather ridiculed “Peace Ship”. In 1924 he joined the Berlin staff of the Associated Press, and fluent in German, Lochner quickly established contacts within the Weimar and later the Nazi governments, and became the Associated Press’ Berlin bureau chief in 1928. During World War II, still in Germany, Lochner was arrested by the Nazi’s and held. However, what is interesting is his relationship with Adolf Hitler.

Louis Lochner had worked as a reporter in Berlin since the early days of the Weimar Republic. And, as documented by reporters and others, "When the Nazis came to power in 1933, Lochner became one of the foreign journalists they trusted most. Lochner made his way into the private quarters of Nazi headquarters as well as accompanied Hitler in a variety of settings. Because he was allowed to witness the Fuehrer in less contrived moments, not staged for public consumption, Lochner often saw sides of Adolf Hitler that revealed the German dictator’s truer nature, which the public usually did not see."

Lochner first met the leader of Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler, in person in February 1930.

I have a personal, rare copy, in German, of the 1933 Edition of SS Sturmfuhrer Otto Lurker’s “Hitler hinter Festungsmauern” (of Hitler in Prison) documenting Hitler’s time in prison, and stamped “Die Deutsche Arbeitsfront, which later fell into the hands of the “Ministry – Whitehall”. I believe not only did Lochner meet Hitler in 1930, but could have also have corresponded with Hitler while he was in prison.

Lochner later suffered under the Nazi’s. So why do I mention these early years?

I mention it, because I know what the National Socialist German Workers Party was, it’s roots, the many characters of those times from the late 1800’s to the early 1900’s into 1930. We see one character after another, all shades of Socialism, who were influenced by the philosophies of those Radicals, Socialists, Communists, and National Socialists, who came about as OFFSHOOTS OF THE “PACIFIC (Peace) MOVEMENT” and their many organizations. Not only did they NOT ever achieve “peace”, they, even if not purposely, managed to help form the “clock work” that became socialist roots of the most horrific, un-peaceful, movements and persons of the 20th Century. I include the Khmer Rouge on this list of “outgrowths” of the “Peace Movements” of the 1800’s.

Language is a very strange thing. It seems, all too often, words that become powerful words in fact result in, or directly conform, to exactly their opposite meaning.

I know, that Hitler, while a bum in Vienna just after World War One, he met with “socialists”. It was from them, he learned, he reinforced, his hatred of the “Capitalist Jew pig”.

It was the Capitalist Jews who manipulated the was (WWI). They bleed Germany of it’s wealth. This is what Hitler learned from the socialists. That the reason he was poor, was because the Jews were rich.

They taught him a slogan. It was Eat the Jews. It was the equivalent of Eat the Rich of today.

In the streets during the initial engagement in Iraq post-911, the World Workers Party (WWP, “socialist”, communist) were in the street, and they flew the flag of Iraq, the flag of Iraq while Saddam’s regime ruled Iraq. They flew the flag of Iraq, and marched with “the struggle of the Palestinians” arm in arm with Palestinian terrorist sympathizers, because they supported the terror, supported regimes, any group, Islamic terrorist or otherwise, that could “bring it down” on America. Their hatred of America is the purpose, the end, of their being. The WWP organized these “protests” - massive street mobilization of protesters in both Washington, D.C., and San Francisco, directly enabling and giving “know how” to Ramsey Clark's International A.N.S.W.E.R group, Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. They had banners of “PEACE” - "No War Against Iraq" and "Eliminate U.S. Weapons of Mass Destruction."

I guess, one could almost say, Hitler was an example of what they mean by “peace”. Saddam Hussein certainly had his flag flown by the “pacifists”. Hitler’s flag was a RED flag, a field of RED, and in it’s center the white circle holding the hooked swastika. Hitler said, the red was for the pure German blood. But, you know, the real origin of that flag, of the NSDAP, was RED for Socialism.

And, it seemed, most of the “leaders” of the “Peace Movement”, they all were socialists, pretty much – yes?

"[T]hey, even if not purposely, managed to help form the “clock work” that became socialist roots of the most horrific, un-peaceful, movements and persons of the 20th Century. I include the Khmer Rouge on this list of “outgrowths” of the “Peace Movements” of the 1800’s."

I am no historian, but by my lights you are correct, Sir. A most interesting post.

I have never heard of these "pacifists" before, but it doesn't really surprise me to hear of them. The roots of communism/socialism go very deep, that it obviously why Europe continued, and continues, to succumb to these false paths even to this day.

It is really the most interesting thing how far back these inclinations go, and how far reaching they remain.

What is really scary though is how the radical left of today makes common cause with the Islamofacists. The Muslims will behead (literally) their commie allies in a moment, in a twinkling of an eye, the stupid commies/socialist/dems don't get this. (See my tagline for hope, faint as it may prove!)

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg	Freepers/Avg	Monthlies
3	United States	1,000.00	1	1,000.00

Good post. I think that people support socialism and "peace" for the same reasons. Mainly, they're misguided. Socialism can never work for the same reason that "peace" will never be a reality. That is, someone always wants to rise to the top and be in charge. The socialist and the peace promoters always forget that. They'd like to see the American military reduced to something that even the Canadians would laugh at.

I always ask them, "Who is better to lead than America? A South American dictator? Germany? France? South Africa? Who?" They never consider that. In their quest for utopia they mistakenly assume that that the bad guys will simply stop being bad. That all of those that would like to rule over the earth for one perverted reason or another, will suddenly be fine with "sharing" everything. That nobody would think of taking advantage of the situation by secretly building up weapons and unleashing hell on everyone else in order to gain control. They forget that people are naturally competitive. I don't know if they've forgotten, but the Berlin wall wasn't built to keep people out. It was built to keep people in - to keep people from running to freedom.

Ford was a anti-Semitic rightwinger, so if Lochner was associated with him he must have been one too. Other rightwing Americans who supported Hitler were Charles Lindberg and Father Coughlin. The somewhat lefty eugenicists who supported Hitler, such as Maragaret Sanger, were motivated by his racialist ideas much more than by his "socialism." Of course, many conservatives in Britain also supported him.

Basically you threw a lot of irrelevant data onto the page and tried to make it look like proof that the Nazis were leftwingers. Unfortunately, no leftwing parties supported the Nazis in the 20s or 30s (the Soviet Pact doesn't count), the Nazis were the sworn enemies of the communists, fighting them in the streets of Munich and murdering them promiscuously when Hitler gained power, a conservative element in German politics was responsible for Hitler consolidating his power in 1933-34, Hitler murdered the Nazi socialist theoritician Gregor Strasser and the Nazi working man thug Ernst Rohm on the Night of the Long Knives, private property was protected during the years of the Third Reich (except for Jews), including military armaments producers, a German flavor of Mussolini's "capitalism with an iron fist" was the economic policy, no wealth distribution programs typical of leftwing gov'ts were instituted by the Nazis, and independent trade unions -- and strikes -- were outlawed. One could easily show that Roosevelt in the 30s had a higher percentage of Americans on his payroll than Hitler had Germans on his.

Doesn't sound like much of a socialist regime to me.

The proper way to understand the term National Socialist is to always emphasize the first word -- NATIONAL. The Nazis were extreme Aryan chauvinists and racialists of the first rank, an aspect of their ideology that was not only directly contrary to the internationalist and multiracialist leftwing ideology of the period, but also had its roots in right of center ideology going directly back to the Estates General in 1789 in France, where the terms "right" and "left" were born as political designators.

It does American conservatives no good whatsoever to try and distort history to serve present day political fashion.

The left wing groups that did not support Hitler, were communists/marxists. Hitler had the support of the unions/workers and the lower-middle class who had lost their money after WWI. His capitalism with an iron fist, meant essentially that corporations and production would be directed in the interest of the state. The state in that sense did control the means of large production. Companies either fell in line with support for the National socialists or were targeted as enemies of the regime. The right wing conservatives were run out of power after the initial power sharing agreements were reached.
His brand of socialism, and yes it was akin to a modern european sociaist state won approval through the campaign of nationalism.
Interesting is how the propaganda filtered over to the Soviets and East Germany after the war. The nationalistic songs the youth groups sang were translated into russian and used for years.
Your argument is that the Nazi's weren't really socialists. I suppose it depends on the definition of "what" a socialist state is, or what defines right wing. It's also interesting to note that the modern Green Party's roots come from the Nazi regime. Origins of Ecofascism, links the movement to what is considered a socialist environmental movement.
http://www.spunk.org/library/places/germany/sp001630/ecofasc.html
That said, I believe the left has continually branded nationalism and it's ideologies as being a right wing concept, as opposed to right wing ideology as being a political ideology that moves away from a centralized system of power, whether economic or socially derived. Using that criteria, the Soviets who were extremely nationalistic could also be classified as such.

Hitler had the support of the unions/workers and the lower-middle class who had lost their money after WWI.

And he promptly betrayed them when he came to power by murdering their leader, the working class thug and Brownshirt, Ernst Rohm. The socialist theoretician Gregor Strasser was also murdered on the Night of the Long Knives, June 30, 1934.

His capitalism with an iron fist, meant essentially that corporations and production would be directed in the interest of the state.

The point is market competition and the retention of property in private hands was Nazi policy. Yes, the Nazis were statists who interfered in the economy at will in the furtherance of nationalistic goals, mainly the production of arms, but they were socialistic only in the sense that the booming economy they created provided the working man with a job. Only the construction of the autobahn and the creation of Volkswagen were direct Nazi enterprises, and near the end of the 30s the rail lines were nationalized to accomodate the transport of troops. Everything else was privately owned.

The German economy was not "free," because, as you say, the players either bent to the Nazi program or had their property confiscated and turned over to individuals in favor with the Reich. But that's the nature of a totalitarian dictatorship, and dictatorships can be either left or right depending on the underlying ideology. My argument is that despite the pesky little word "socialist" in the party name, the Nazis never implemented recognizable socialist policies, e.g., taxing the wealthy and re-distributing the income to the working class.

That said, I believe the left has continually branded nationalism and it's ideologies as being a right wing concept, as opposed to right wing ideology as being a political ideology that moves away from a centralized system of power, whether economic or socially derived.

Excellent point. And the reason why, in my view, American conservatives have nothing to fear from the taint of Nazism. The statist solutions represented by the Nazis and the Stalinists were European phenomena, growing out of an entirely (or for the most part) different (and yes, marxist) set of premises than those that inform American conservatism/libertarianism. There have been blockheaded exceptions of course, but mainly American conservatives value small gov't, free markets, the rule of law and equality before the law, and maximum autonomy and freedom of action, all of which spring from the American founding documents and most of which have never been all that successfully transplanted to the European continent.

My point being that the centralized autocratic running of a country, utilizing Four Year Plans, the forcible conscription of workers into compulsory labour services, the control of the production, distribution, and pricing of foodstuffs, and the control of the inheritance of farms speaks more to the "controls" a centralized socialist government. Initially small retailers for example were promised that they would enjoy more prosperity through the supression of large retailers. Hitler, like Roosevelt funded his full employment program through public works. The economy was also being run on an rearmament ie. war economy, in that sense his "harmonious factory community" program and other similar ones, were not prioritized for the sake of the expansion of Lebensraum dreams.
Redistribution of wealth can be addressed in many ways...ie. taxing the working and using state programs to rehire the unemployed.

Dissemination of information, through the Nazi owned news service which fed the news to the papers, as well as the co-opting of radio and encouragement of owning a Volksempfaenger(radio) began the cultural movement of what was expected of the citizen for the good of the state.
To reach full employment the government under the first Reinhardt Programme(law to reduce unemployment)decided to build public arenas, ie. government buildings, gyms, swimming pools, the autobahn, statues, youth camps,schools,stadiums etc.
Hitler already in Feb of 1933 stated to his cabinet" The next five years in Germany had to be devoted to rendering the German people again capable of bearing arms. Every publicly sponsored measure to create employment had to be considered from the point of view of whether it was necessary with respect to rendering the German people again capable of bearing arms for military service. This had to be the dominant thought, always and everywhere" Thus his works program, the issuance of the Mefo-bills designed to hide spending on rearmament under the name of a Metallurgy REsearch organization all further induced the flow of work in the name of the state and funded by the state, whether in production or through direct financing.
My mothers family owned a small electric company in Berlin. During the Nazi period, they were price controlled and allowed to produce "what was necessary". Infrastructural monies had to be approved for spending, in keeping with the national programs. So although as you point out, the rails were officially nationalized for the war, to this point everything had in fact been preparation for the war. It doesn't negate the states interests in any way.
Further more, I would look at the structure, membership (compulsory after 1939) and official status of organizations such as the Hitler Youth, the DFW and NSDAP both womens organizations as furthering the state sponsored public works.
My question to you would be: Can a true right wing state also be a totalitarian state? If we all agree that the purpose of the right wing state is to relinquish the ties to government, and not overt nationalism. As a side, russian communists when asked, have always maintained that they are "international socialists" while the fascists were only "national socialists"....smaller world view.

Katya forgive me for not getting back to you sooner. I got caught up in other topics and missed your post.

The programs you've listed don't contradict my position at all. I fully agree that the Nazis were authoritarian statists who interfered in German society anywhere they chose. I think under closer scrutiny the programs you've listed would not so much turn out to be "socialistic" as about either Aryan chauvinism and the tribal sentimentalism that stirred Hitler, or, as you point out, rearmament.

The question is were the Nazis socialists. I suppose it's possible to argue that the Nazi Party would have noticed the word "socialist" in the party name after it had satisfied the ever expanding needs of Lebensraum. We'll never know. What we do know is that in the 12 short years of the Third Reich Hitler concentrated on amassing the capital he needed to re-arm and then prosecute a war, and for that he went to the capitalists, not the working class.

My question to you would be: Can a true right wing state also be a totalitarian state?

Hitler established a dictatorship that heavily interfered in the economy, mainly for the purposes of re-armament, and a dictatorship is always antithetical to the ideas that inform American conservativism, of course. American conservatism springs from the American founding documents, documents of the Enlightenment, which are totally incompatible with the basically hegelian/marxist statist solutions which spawned both communism and nazism/fascism on the European continent. Some of the ideas that informed Hitler's dictatorship a) have been found in other authoritarian regimes of the right (Pinochet, Franco), and b) cannot under any honest scrutiny be called leftwing.

Yes, rightwing totalitarianism is possible. But there's an important caveat. It's interesting to note that at the meeting of the steering committee the day before the Fascist Party was founded in Italy Mussolini sat down with six other men. Five of them, including Mussolini, were former socialists, syndicalists or communists. They were there to reject lefist ideology in some important respects, (e.g., antiwar to prowar, internationalist to nationalist) but they never really shook off the cloak of the Hegelian totalist view of history. So the answer is rightwing totalitarianism is possible, but only if blended with disastrous Hegelian ideas.

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.