Fascism and Socialism: Still Not Opposites

The Eurasian movement of Putin and his allies draws from both Nazism and Stalinism.

Dear Reader (Including the trenchcoat-wearing FCC minister with breath like he’s been sucking a urinal cake looking over my shoulder, tapping his BIC pen on his glass eye, and sighing every time I write something he doesn’t like),

I’ve got to bang out this “news”letter pretty quickly. I’m sitting in a too-small fake wicker chair at the coffee shop at the Broadmoor (one of my favorite hotels, btw). The time difference here puts me two hours behind at six in the morning. Plus, I don’t want the housekeeping staff to find the body in my room. If I didn’t need coffee so badly I would have taken care of that already. But one must prioritize. I think the high altitude here is making my brain itch.

Timothy Snyder has written the best piece I’ve seen on what’s going on in Kiev. It’s worth reading just as a primer. But it’s also interesting in other ways. I had not read a lot about the “Eurasian Union,” a proposed counterweight to the European Union, in much the same way the Legion of Doom is a counterweight to the Justice League. Putin and a band of avowed “National Bolshevik” intellectuals are in effect trying to put the band back together. Snyder writers:

The Eurasian Union is the enemy of the European Union, not just in strategy but in ideology. The European Union is based on a historical lesson: that the wars of the twentieth century were based on false and dangerous ideas, National Socialism and Stalinism, which must be rejected and indeed overcome in a system guaranteeing free markets, free movement of people, and the welfare state. Eurasianism, by contrast, is presented by its advocates as the opposite of liberal democracy.

The Eurasian ideology draws an entirely different lesson from the twentieth century. Founded around 2001 by the Russian political scientist Aleksandr Dugin, it proposes the realization of National Bolshevism. Rather than rejecting totalitarian ideologies, Eurasianism calls upon politicians of the twenty-first century to draw what is useful from both fascism and Stalinism. Dugin’s major work, The Foundations of Geopolitics, published in 1997, follows closely the ideas of Carl Schmitt, the leading Nazi political theorist. Eurasianism is not only the ideological source of the Eurasian Union, it is also the creed of a number of people in the Putin administration, and the moving force of a rather active far-right Russian youth movement. For years Dugin has openly supported the division and colonization of Ukraine.

The point man for Eurasian and Ukrainian policy in the Kremlin is Sergei Glazyev, an economist who like Dugin tends to combine radical nationalism with nostalgia for Bolshevism. He was a member of the Communist Party and a Communist deputy in the Russian parliament before cofounding a far-right party called Rodina, or Motherland. In 2005 some of its deputies signed a petition to the Russian prosecutor general asking that all Jewish organizations be banned from Russia.

Some of this was news to me. I was familiar with the National Bolshevism of the early Nazi years. Thinkers like the Ukrainian Bolshevik Karl Radek and the Nazi Otto Strasser dabbled with the idea of merging Bolshevik and Nazi ideology. After all, if you’re already a National Socialist it’s not that long a trip to being a National Bolshevik, now is it? Some left-wing members of the Nazi military described themselves as National Bolsheviks as well. But ultimately, National Bolshevism as an intellectual movement died in the crib. Or so I thought.

What I did not know is that National Bolshevism is making such a comeback. And while, it’s evil and a national-security threat and all that, I can’t help but smile.

National Bolshevism must strike some on the left as quite perplexing. After all, Bolshevism and Nazism — like fascism and socialism — are opposites, right?

If you read my book, you’d know I consider this the greatest myth and/or lie of the 20th century (coming in a distant second: the idea that there is a difference between good flan and bad flan).

Funny enough, the Eurasianists are counting on this myth for their propaganda campaign. They insist that the protesters in Kiev are trying to stage a “brown revolution” or fascist coup. In other words the de facto fascists are calling the anti-fascists “fascists.” And apparently lots of folks are falling for it. Snyder again:

Why exactly do people with such views think they can call other people fascists? And why does anyone on the Western left take them seriously? One line of reasoning seems to run like this: the Russians won World War II, and therefore can be trusted to spot Nazis. Much is wrong with this. . . .

The other source of purported Eurasian moral legitimacy seems to be this: since the representatives of the Putin regime only very selectively distanced themselves from Stalinism, they are therefore reliable inheritors of Soviet history, and should be seen as the automatic opposite of Nazis, and therefore to be trusted to oppose the far right.

Snyder’s rebuttals are good (I’ve trimmed them mostly for space). But they don’t cut to the heart of it.

First, let’s clear some underbrush. The idea that Communism and Nazism are opposites is more of a utilitarian idea than a core conviction for the Left. It is a rationalization that allows the Left to cut around the historical tumor of Nazism and fascism and say, That has nothing to do with us.

But the simple fact is that the hard Left has always endorsed or at least sympathized with national-socialist countries. What do you think Cuba is? It’s nationalistic and it’s socialistic. Venezuela under Chávez and now Maduro is nationalist and socialist. Nicaragua in the 1980s, etc., etc. Read a speech by any socialist dictator and swap out the word “socialize” for “nationalize”: The meaning of the sentences doesn’t change one iota. Nationalized health care is socialized medicine. Even Obama’s weak-tea socialistic rhetoric is usually dolled up in the rhetoric of nationalism, even militaristic nationalism. Let’s all be like SEAL Team Six! Let’s make this a “Sputnik Moment.”

Most of the Left in the U.S. didn’t really hate the German national-socialists until Stalin told them to. That the useful idiots thought Stalin’s command to turn on his one-time Nazi ally was rooted in deep ideological conviction just proves the depths of their idiocy.

After all, it’s not like the Left suddenly turned on Stalin when he embraced nationalism wholeheartedly and talked of fighting the Nazis as part of the “Great Patriotic War for Mother Russia.” But, hey, maybe I’m missing the deep Marxist themes in the phrase “Great Patriotic War for Mother Russia.”

If you think this is all semantic faculty-lounge argy-bargy, consider the fact that North Korea is in many ways as “Nazi” as the Nazis were. It’s a nationalist country that subscribes to eugenic theories that it uses to justify the industrial torture and slaughter of its own citizens. In fact, North Korea’s eugenics is crazier than Nazi Germany’s was. I’m not trying to minimize the evil of the Holocaust, but “Jew” is a real category of human being and eugenics generally weren’t discredited in the 1930s. Eighty years later, North Korea believes that the political views of people are genetically heritable for generations. So you can get sent to a death camp if your great uncle said something nice about America or if your second cousin lives in South Korea.

But because of the emotional and political investment in the idea that Nazism has nothing to do with Communism, North Korea is put in a category of lesser evil. If the Kims just described themselves as Nazis — but kept all of the same policies — it would be vastly easier to rally public opinion against their decades of murder. But when you talk about the evil of Communist regimes, a lot of people idiotically roll their eyes. Everyone is a brave anti-Nazi now that they’re all gone, but many are afraid to devote a fraction of that passion when it comes to the heirs, imitators, and competitors of Nazism.

Richard Pipes had the best pithy summation of the difference between Nazism and Bolshevism. They aren’t opposites, he argued, they’re both “heresies of socialism.”

I agree with this entirely, but step back from that a bit. Socialism itself is a heresy — a heresy of tribalism. Socialism is simply an attempt to gussy up ancient tribal tendencies in modern garb. Nazism was tribalism of one race. Communism is tribalism of one class. Italian fascism was tribalism of one nation.

There are of course, better and worse forms of tribalism. And, I would argue that a little tribalism, like a little nationalism, is a healthy thing, insofar as communities aren’t held together by reason alone. They’re held together by a complex set of sentiments, and a politics that doesn’t take account of that will necessarily fail. As Edmund Burke writes, “politics ought to be adjusted not to human reasonings but to human nature, of which the reason is but a part, and by no means the greatest part.”

But here is the important point. Looking back on the long history of humanity, tribalism — simple or complex — was the norm for 99 percent of our time on Earth. It wasn’t until 200-300 years ago that a different path emerged. (Yes, Christianity was a big leap forward in advancing a universal conception of humanity, in principle. But in practice it was often coopted by tribalism in one form or another. We can talk about that more another time.) The different path emerged largely in England and spread from there. This different path recognized the sovereignty of the individual, the necessity of the rule of law, democratic legitimacy, and private property, and the inherent dignity of bourgeois labor.

As I’ve written before, what makes America special is that we took England’s culture of liberty and broadened it out into a virtual tribe of liberty. I say virtual because we took the ethnic and racial components out of it (and, no, we didn’t do it overnight). You can be a progressive or a liberal or a social democrat and still believe in all of the things that define the tribe of liberty. You can also be a nationalist, a patriot, or a traditionalist and believe in all of these things. But go too far in either direction and you can fall off the path. Perhaps path is the wrong word. Bridge might make more sense. After all there’s a left side and a right side of the road. But if you fall off a bridge, all you do is fall down.

Seen from this perspective the differences between Bolshevism, Nazism, Maoism, Italian Fascism, North Korean Juche, et al may be interesting or meaningful (the differences between football and rugby are interesting and meaningful, but at the end of the day they’re both just games). But seen from the broadest perspective, they’re simply different ways to fall off the bridge and back into the wilderness below.

My apologies if this “news”letter was lacking in verve and panache this week. Maybe it’s the fact the Couch couldn’t make it out West this week.

Also, if you want to unsubscribe from this “news”letter, by all means do so. But in the spirit of William F. Buckley, let me ask you that you cancel your own damn subscription. I have asked the suits to put in or restore the unsubscribe button (I could’ve sworn there used to be one).

Quick Zoë update. As I’ve said before, we’re pretty sure that Zoë is a Carolina dog, and not a German Shepherd mix. She may be a mix of all sorts of stuff, of course. Though readers who think she’s a Shiba Inu are probably giving a bit too much credit to the stock of stray dogs in rural South Carolina. Anyway, healthwise she seems to be thriving. But behaviorally she is a major handful. Obsessed with tracking down “treats” in the dirt and the snow, she’s not much interested in listening to her humans. The other day, Zoë found a rabbit’s head under the snow and ran off with it. She wouldn’t drop it for anything, much to my wife’s dismay. She’s also turning into a dirt eater, which is bad enough outside. But inside is a real problem, which is why we’re going to put cayenne pepper in our potted plants. On the upside, she remains improbably cute and her commitment to squirrel chasing is total.

Nazism and Communism are the ultimate Marxist competitors.

Sorry, but I can't buy that one.

Nazism was anti-Marxist in the extreme.

Americans, for some obscure reason, have a tendency to think of Marxism and socialism as synonyms.

In actual fact, of course, Marxism is merely one branch of the socialist tree.

Marxism is international socialism, all the workers are to gang up on their oppressors.

Nazism, as its name says, is national socialism. All Germans, and by racist extension all Aryans, are to gang up on people of all other "races."

IOW, Marxism organizes the workers of the world horizontally, Nazism organizes the Aryans of the world vertically.

They cut across each other and are therefore deadly enemies. They are both socialists, but Nazism is not Marxist.

That is why, as others have noted, a young German of the 30s could switch so easily. Just begin thinking of himself as German Aryan first, rather than an internationalist socialist worker, and voila!

More like cousins. Fascism gives the pretense of private ownership. Yes you can own your factory but we(the state) control the production process.Yes you can own your own home but we're going to tell you how to live in it. What you can set your thermostat at. What kind of light bulbs you will use and what kind of(low flush) toilet you will have and what kind of health insurance you must buy. (sound familiar?) Socialism, which to me is out and out communism makes no pretense of private ownership at all. Everything belongs ''to the people''(the state). What all three, if you will, have in common, besides being totalitarian systems, is no private ownership of your thoughts, your speech or writings. I hate all three of them and anyone who believes in them. My kid brother is an Obama supporter, big time. He and I haven't spoken to each other since my mothers funeral eight years ago. I could give a rip where he is or what he's doing quite honestly.

National Socialism and International Socialism are just two different denominations in the same “church”.

The fight between them is of the same order as that which once existed between the Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church. Both obeyed the same deity, but were torn apart on doctrinal differences. Of course, the schism between the two branches never, ever, was as bloody as the confrontation between Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler. But it went on for a lot longer.

Likewise with the Nazis (Fascists) and the Soviets. Vladimir Putin is just the person who has formed an amalgamation, and a “ecumenical” reconciliation of the factions.

That does not make the existential threat of socialism any less deadly.

I respect your opinion, but you’re off base.

The tenets of both communism and Nazism are dipped from the same Marxist river.

I’m not about to go through the whole sphere of Marxist thought to convince you that communism and Nazism are integral branches of the Marxism tree.

On the surface, I think that you’re embracing the incorrect European communist definition of Nazism, a conscious effort by the Euro-commies to separate themselves from their philosophical Marxist Nazi brothers.

Best wishes, FRiend

That the useful idiots thought Stalin’s command to turn on his one-time Nazi ally was rooted in deep ideological conviction just proves the depths of their idiocy.

Stalin only turned against Hitler when his non-aggression buddy broke his word and invaded him. Really unusual for Jonah to forget this.

Nationalism, like socialism, is collectivistic. National identity and patriotism are, after all, collective identities. The European right are far more focused on the traditional "organic" national collective than the American right is. As I have often pointed out on this forum, it was not a Communist but a French right winger who said "the individual is nothing; society is everything."

Nationalism was also originally a left-wing ideology aimed at the traditional complex and interlocking European aristocratic system. After the French Revolution various nationalities began to agitate for a state of their own rather than be ruled as subject peoples of emperors and kings of various kinds. One of the earliest of these romantic left wing nationalist movements was in Greece, where Lord Byron romantically died of some disease while hoping to romantically restore ancient Athens. Then you had the Irish, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Serbs, Finns, Lithuanians, Albanians, Armenians, and just about every other group you can think of. The nationalism of the Irish (and of the other Celtic peoples) is still this Jacobin-influenced French Revolutionary variety.

It was only in the later nineteenth century that nationalism migrated to the right side of the spectrum with the celebration of localism and traditionalism as opposed to the universalism and rationalism of the early leftist nationalists.

Marxism has always been a form of left wing nationalism simply because it has always advocated (or claimed to advocate) "self-determination," which is essentially the same thing as the "planet of peoples" the European right wants so badly to create. And then after World War II the anti-colonialism movement began and nationalism rather than Communism began the selling point for the USSR and the International Left. Even "indigenous" religions are celebrated by the formerly atheist left in such organizations as the American Indian Movement.

Individualism is also an exceedingly complex ideology, and is present in both the left and the right. Some on the American right overestimate the importance of individualism in their own ideology IMHO.

There is one major component of Fascism--especially the Catholic, Mediterranean, non-nordic Fascism practiced in greater or lesser degree by Fascist Italy, Franco Spain, Salazar Portugal, Vargas Brazil, Dollfuss Austria, and perhaps Peronist Argentina (though I'm not sure about this last one) that most Americans completely miss noticing because it is so radically different from anything they are used to. And that is the abolition of an ideological/partisan parliament in favor of a legislative body made up of various occupational groups (in Italy this was called the Chamber of Fasces and Corporations). The goal was to replace representation by ideology with representation by the various functions of society (Fascist "corporatism"). In Spain and Portugal, political parties as such did not exist at all, because they were considered unnecessary and undesirable. The whole point was a population wholly "organically" united by societal function like a living body, which was the original meaning of "totalitarianism" as advocated by Mussolini.

Of course, Nazism's racial obsessions have become the prime definition of "fascism," especially on the left. Because of America's unique racial situation (a situation older than the country itself), Americans naturally are drawn to this issue. The original Fascist corporatist concept, so essential to capital-F Fascism, is scarcely noticed by any American politician or philosopher of politics.

I note that at least two of the regimes enumerated above (Franco's Spain and Salazar's Portugal) are held in high regard by even conventional American conservatives. How familiar those admirers are of the corporatist ideology I do not know.

The corporatism of Mediterranean fascism was based on its predecessor movement that competed with Communism: anarchosyndicalism.

Mussolini was a syndicalist, and most of these movements looked up to socialist theorist Georges Sorel as an alternative to orthodox Marxism.

Sorel's Reflections sur la Violence

was a textbook.

The Nazism-skeptical German right wing jurist, Carl Schmitt, wrote an excellent book about the anarchosyndicalist emphasis on myth and culture versus the orthodox Marxist emphasis on "science" and "historicism."

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.