Posted on 06/18/2002 5:48:15 AM PDT by jalisco555
Is Nazism making a comeback? According to Martin Jacques, former editor of Marxism Today, 'Not since the 1930s has the threat of racism and fascism been so great in the West'.
With 'racist parties of the far right in government in Austria, Denmark and Italy', Jacques warns that 'Europe is sliding into an abyss…and it is all happening with frightening speed' (1).
According to Richard Overy, professor of modern history at King's College London and described by the London Evening Standard as 'Britain's leading expert on fascism': 'The assassination of Pim Fortuyn [on 6 May 2002] has ghastly echoes of the savage political violence of the interwar years, when politics moved from the ballot box to the street.' Overy concludes that 'fascism…is on the march again' (2).
Is he serious? That the murder of a cranky Dutch politician by a cranky Dutch vegan is reminiscent of the revolution, counter-revolution, general strikes and descent into world war that marked out 1930s Europe? Overy says we have to 'be alert', because 'history has the unhappy habit of springing surprises'. 'Who, in 1928, with a Europe returning to prosperity…could have predicted that only five years away Germany would be plunged into the most criminal dictatorship of the century?', he asks, ominously (3). But there were many signs in 1920s Europe of what was to come - by 1928, Benito Mussolini's fascist party had been in power in Italy for six years, and throughout the late 1920s Hitler's Nazis were gaining strength in Germany.
One US commentator reckons Europe is 'heading for a nasty fall', with its 'plague' of far right parties: 'Look at the parties making the headlines there. The National Front in France, the Swiss People's Party in Switzerland, the Popular Party in Portugal, the British National Party in Britain, the Hellenic Front in Greece, the German People's Union in Germany… All of them far right, all of them a threat to democratic politics.'
According to German Social Democrat chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, tackling 'the advance of the extreme right' should be 'top of Europe's agenda'. He declared on 27 May 2002 that he would not 'let Europe fall into the hands of people like Berlusconi, Haider or Le Pen' (seeming to have forgotten that Berlusconi already runs Italy) - while Britain's Labour Party prime minister Tony Blair urged Europeans to 'rally' against the far right, and called on 'democratic people of all persuasions to stand together in solidarity against extremist policies of whatever kind' (4).
Is Europe really heading for a new Dark Age, with its Nazi past coming back to haunt it? Are fascistic far-right parties really 'on the march again' everywhere from Greece to France, from Italy to Holland? In a word, no. The current obsession with the rise of the far right tells us far more about the European elites' crisis of confidence and legitimacy than it does about any Nazi reality.
Consider the list of far-right parties that are supposed to be 'plaguing' European democracy. Many of them are so small they are insignificant. The Hellenic Front in Greece is, according to one report, 'a tiny party that didn't even register on the electoral radar in the 2000 elections'. According to the UK Guardian, 'The Hellenic Front's insignificance illustrates the comparative weakness of extreme right politics in Greece' (5).
The German People's Union, one of three far-right parties said to be 'gaining ground' in Germany, won just 1.2 percent of the vote in the 1998 parliamentary elections - which, as one report points out, 'is way off the five percent hurdle over which votes can translate into seats under Germany's dual PR/first past the post electoral system'. In fact, 'None of Germany's three minor far right parties has made headway at national level…. The postwar far right in Germany has manifested itself largely as a neo-Nazi youth protest movement, with unpleasant rallies by disaffected and racist youths.' (6)
As for the British National Party, it might be the subject of numerous hand-wringing editorials and documentary exposes in the UK media, but it wins next-to-no support at the ballot box. The BNP's best-ever electoral showing was in this year's local elections in May, where it won three council seats (out of a national total of over 6000) in the deprived and racially tense north English town of Burnley.
These parties may have some fascists in them - but there is a vast difference between a handful of fascists and fascism as a social movement with real power. These parties may win many of their votes on the race issue, but they win very few votes. Yet such tiny, powerless parties get lumped together with Berlusconi's ruling party in Italy and Jorg Haider's Freedom Party in Austria (which won 27 percent of the vote in 1999 and holds six cabinet posts), as examples of far right parties upsetting mainstream politics.
Even the larger right-wing parties causing consternation among the European elite and press are far too different from each other to constitute what one commentator calls 'an increasingly homogenising far right threat'. Right-wing Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi is now talked about in the same breath as Jean Marie Le Pen of the French National Front. But Berlusconi is a mainstream European politician (however much Schroeder and others might dislike him), while Le Pen is Europe's number-one pariah whom not a single mainstream politician would dare to meet (as illustrated by Jacques Chirac's refusal to debate him in the first round of the French presidential elections of April 2002) (7).
The supposedly fascistic Berlusconi is in fact a close political ally of Tony Blair. In February 2002, Blair and Berlusconi formed a British/Italian alliance to 'champion economic liberalisation in Europe' - with Berlusconi declaring that he and Blair had 'an absolute convergence of views'.
The late Pim Fortuyn (whose List party won 26 parliamentary seats in Holland's general election on 15 May 2002, a week after Fortuyn was killed) is talked about in the same breath as Austria's Freedom Party leader Jorg Haider. But Fortuyn was openly gay and justified much of his anti-Muslim ranting by claiming that Muslims are homophobic and therefore 'enemies of diversity' - while Haider is accused by his opponents of being anti-gay, as well as being racist and anti-Semitic. (Though a German newspaper claims it is 'common knowledge' in Austria that Haider is in fact a homosexual, but no one discusses it because in Catholic Austria 'you only really discuss these things with your priest in a confessional…') (8)
Indeed, the ambivalent appraisal of Fortuyn's politics following his assassination illustrated that he couldn't so easily be labelled a fascist. In the immediate aftermath of his death, we were told the Fortuyn was a far-right racist in the same mould as Le Pen. But twenty-four hours later, many European politicians and commentators were praising Fortuyn's commitment to cultural diversity and gay equality. UK home secretary David Blunkett said: 'I too believe in diversity through integration….a point Pim Fortuyn [made] in his more rational moments' - while UK foreign secretary Jack Straw said Fortuyn was not 'another Le Pen or Haider', but was 'much more balanced'.
Many of the larger European parties that are said to make up the 'new Nazi threat' seem to be little more than right wing. According to one report, the Swiss People's Party, which won 23 percent of the vote in the 1999 general elections and is described by some as 'Switzerland's BNP', is 'best described as hard right', not 'extreme right' (9). The Popular Party in Portugal, which has nine percent of the vote and is accused by its critics of trying to 'resurrect Franco's politics', is 'not particularly extreme', but wants to 'introduce tight immigration limits and prevent the transfer of further national powers to the EU' (sounds like Britain's Tories) (10).
Jorg Haider's Freedom Party in Austria (27 percent of the vote) may be obnoxious and anti-Semitic - but this is hardly a novel stance in Austrian politics. There have been, and still are, many anti-Semitic parties in Austria - but there has only ever been one Nazi Party.
Other far right parties are trying to appear more mainstream, and are adopting mainstream arguments against immigration. The British National Party has a transport policy ('more investment in public transport') and an environmental policy ('clean parks for everyone'), and has an 'ethnic liaison officer' who communicates with blacks and Asians who want to find out more about the BNP. BNP members are certainly racists, yet they seem to recognise at some level that there isn't a broad audience for their racist politics, so they have toned things down. But what kind of hardcore fascist party tries to win support by pretending to be a community-friendly organisation that is concerned about 'ethnic issues'?
The BNP is miniscule compared to many European right-wing parties, but like Norway's Progress Party (14.7 percent of the vote), Belgium's Flemish Block (nine percent of the vote) and Denmark's Danish People's Party (12 percent of the vote), it increasingly justifies its anti-immigration and segregationist policies in the language of 'celebrating diversity' and 'protecting identities'. This hardly sounds like a return to fascism.
Despite their differences in size, influence, politics and policy, media commentators point out that there is one thing that unites Europe's 'far right' parties - they are all vehemently anti-immigration. Even here, however, there are differences. Norway's Progress Party wants to cap immigration into Norway at 1000 people a year, while the British National Party is keen to 'stop immigration' into Britain completely. Holland's List party, whose leader-in-waiting is a black man, is concerned about immigration upsetting Holland's 'current cultural balance' of black, white and Asian people, while the German People's Union wants to repatriate all immigrants and 'make Germany white again'.
In the discussion of the far right, European commentators have attempted to squeeze very different parties into the same category. They have labelled a ragbag of right-wing organisations as a new Nazi threat to Europe, using a one-size-fits-all explanation for the supposed rise of the far right. In fact, the only thing that these extreme right parties do have in common is that their support, the votes they win, is more a reaction against mainstream politics than a declaration of support for anything resembling fascism.
Where extreme parties win electoral support, it is not that voters are 'voting for fascism' or endorsing everything the party stands for. Rather, it is a sign of isolation from mainstream politics. Across Europe, votes for small hard-right parties look like a two-finger 'fuck you' to traditional politicians, rather than an endorsement of Nazism.
Even the immigration question - which all of the far right parties flag up - is not the same today as it was in the past. People's fear of immigration in modern Europe seems to have less to do with old-fashioned racism and xenophobia, than with a broader sense of fear and insecurity. Contemporary debates about immigration, particularly in the wake of 11 September, express society's general fear of risk and the unknown, more than an old-time hatred of Johnny Foreigner.
Being anti-immigration is hardly a political stance exclusive to far right parties. Schroeder's Germany and Blair's Britain - the two leaders who have been most vocal about tackling the far right - both have restrictive immigration policies. In the same week that Blair stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Schroeder against the threat of the racist right, his home secretary David Blunkett announced the building of three huge 'accommodation centres' (otherwise known as prisons) in the UK, each of which will be able to hold 750 asylum seekers before booting them out of the country.
Schroeder has used his anti-far right stance to call for a further tightening of Germany's immigration policy. Following 'Le Pen's success in France and events in Holland', said Schroeder on 15 May 2002, it is clear that 'Europeans are concerned about immigration'. His solution? To address their concerns by making 'immigration and law and order priority issues for my government'. According to one newspaper, as Schroeder heads for a general election in September 2002, he has 'made a bid to turn the rise of the far right to his advantage' by 'signalling that he intends to lump his [German] opponents with the anti-immigrant populists of other countries' - while also taking a lead by clamping down on immigration (11).
Similarly, Spain's conservative prime minister Jose Maria Aznar is using the far right issue to put immigration back on the Spanish agenda. According to one report, Aznar recently 'blamed the rise of the radical right on the inability of left-wing parties to address popular concern about immigration, [and] claimed that the left was trying to run and hide from popular opinion on immigration and simply did not want to talk about it' (12). 'But we do want to talk about it', Aznar said - promising to give Spanish people 'less to worry about' on the immigration question.
As European commentators attack the far right's anti-immigration policies, mainstream politicians are exploiting the issue to limit immigration into and around Europe. Unlike much of the far right, however, mainstream politicians have the power to implement such policies, and to make immigrants' lives a misery.
In fact, it is mainstream parties that make immigration into such a big issue in the first place. Take Britain, where there is little public racism today, and where people are far more accepting of immigrants than at any time in recent history. Immigration only becomes an inflamed issue in British society when the New Labour government brings in a new policy, or issues a statement about the problem of Sangatte, or builds a new detention centre for immigrants.
Politicians increasingly justify anti-immigration policies as a way of 'calming people's fears' on the issue. In reality, anti-immigration policies put immigration centre stage and stir up people's fears. Mainstream politicians have only themselves to blame when extreme right parties then run with the immigration issue and play on society's fears in an attempt to win support.
The idea that fascism is returning to Europe is nonsense. There are some large right-wing parties either in power or in coalition, which might have loathsome politics and policies but they are hardly fascists. There are medium-sized right-wing parties, many of which promote their anti-immigration beliefs in modern PC-speak. And there are small hard-right parties, some of which talk like Nazis but in reality are small groups of sad men and women with very little support.
Yet this mix of right-wingers is being compared to the march of fascist parties in 1930s Europe - when the continent was gripped by class war, civil war, world war, revolution, general strikes, and raging street battles between the left and right. As spiked editor Mick Hume argues, the contrast of the past 'could hardly be greater with today's lifeless political scene, where there are no mass political movements of any colour and the likes of Le Pen can "stun" pollsters by winning 16 percent of the votes in an historically low turnout' (13).
Some commentators and politicians seem to have cottoned on to the fact that votes for the far right are an expression of disaffection with mainstream politics - and have started to fret about the electorate's 'disenchantment' and 'isolation' from traditional politics.
According to one newspaper, the French men and women who voted for Le Pen in May 2002 saw the presidential elections as 'an opportunity to send a message of disaffection to their leaders' (14). Another reporter says the votes for Le Pen 'unveiled the full and shocking extent of [French voters'] political disenchantment' (15). Other commentators write of the 'chronic political disaffection felt by many poor white people' in Europe (16), 'a general feeling of disaffection with the political mainstream' (17), 'deep voter apathy and insecurity' (18), and the 'electorate's drift away from its leaders'.
Not surprisingly, some on the far right are exploiting this disaffection to win votes. Jorg Haider points out that 'a gap has developed between the people and the political establishment…and now people are rebelling all over the place' (19). Jean Marie Le Pen accuses the French left and right of 'ignoring people's concerns', and driving ordinary people 'away from political life'.
In response, Gerhard Schroeder says we must avoid the 'Haiderisation' of Europe - and European leaders 'must re-engage their voters', to tackle our 'fear, insecurity' and 'disaffection'.
This is where we get to the crux of the debate about the 'rise of the far right'. When they see their electorates voting for nasty right-wing parties, European politicians see their own isolation. They see their dislocation from voters and voters' concerns. British, German and French politicians cannot believe that people would dare to vote for the BNP, the German People's Union or Le Pen (especially when they are told not to on a regular basis) - and they wonder what they have done wrong to push voters away, and how they can make amends. In the supposed rise of the extreme right, mainstream politicians imagine their own decline and fall, and their isolation from the people.
The obsession with the far right tells us far more about insecure and uncertain elites than it does about political reality on the ground. This was clear in the French elite's response to Le Pen's relative success in the first round of the French presidential elections at the end of April 2002. Le Pen won pretty much the same number of votes as he did in the last presidential election (about 17 percent) - but the response this time around was very different.
In the past, French politicians employed a tactic of ignoring Le Pen (he's been standing in presidential elections since 1974) or just denouncing him as a fringe politician who voters should avoid. But in April 2002, the turnout for Le Pen almost brought French political life to a standstill, with political leaders suffering a traditionally French existential crisis. Many on the left turned out in force to protest against the Le Pen vote. The strength of support for Le Pen didn't change dramatically, but the French elite's response to Le Pen did - capturing how the debate about the far right tells us more about our leaders than about fringe politicians.
French fears that Le Pen's relatively successful showing in the presidential elections would translate into increased support at the legislative elections were unfounded. In France's 9 June elections, Le Pen's vote actually fell. His National Front won 11.3 percent of the vote, a fall of five points from the presidential poll and down from the 15 percent it won in the 1997 legislative polls (20).
The European elite's insecurity means they exaggerate the threat of the far right - but they also underestimate the extent of their own isolation. Schroeder, Blair and co are wrong if they imagine that only the pockets of people who vote for hard-right parties are disengaged from political life. Across Europe, there have been historically low turnouts in recent presidential, parliamentary, European and local elections, as millions of people haven't bothered to vote at all. And even many of those who do vote are less engaged with their political parties than in the past - with membership of political parties and organisations declining on a European-wide scale.
Listening to European politicians discuss the 'threat of the far right', you soon realise that they are talking about themselves and their own sense of insecurity. Tony Blair claims that the best way to tackle the far right is to 'make society more secure' and to increase people's feelings of 'safety' - reflecting his own sense that society is spinning out of control. Likewise, Schroeder responded to the Le Pen vote in France and the assassination of Fortuyn in Holland by promising to put 'law and order' centre stage in European politics, and to 'ensure European security'.
The European elites' fear of the far right also captures their fear of strongly held political views - whether far right, far left, or far anything. Blair's response to the Le Pen vote was to call on voters 'to stand together in solidarity against extremist policies of whatever kind'. For Blair, Schroeder and co, 'extremism' is the enemy - by which they mean hardcore belief in anything. In a political age where consensus has replaced conflict, and where the clash of opinions that was once the lifeblood of democracy is frowned upon as outdated, Third Way politicians don't like the look of anything that smacks of conviction.
Instead of launching a political fightback against the far right and giving voters a decent political alternative to the likes of Le Pen and the BNP, European politicians can only propose a law'n'order clampdown to make us all more secure, and a promise that mainstream politics will be anodyne enough to offend nobody.
The far right may not be a threat to Europe, but the elites' response to the far right could well be. In response to a ragbag of right-wing parties, European leaders have called on voters to 'defend democracy' against the 'fascists' - but in the process they have destroyed real democracy by sidelining political debate about important issues in the name of displaying a united front against the far right. Democracy is reduced to a straightforward battle of Good v Evil, where the electorate's only role is to 'do the right thing' and vote for the good guys against the Le Pens of the world.
European leaders have also turned politics into an even more boring affair. More than ever strong political beliefs are looked upon with suspicion, and the elites' only solution to a political challenge (which is more imagined than real) seems to be, not politics, but more law and order, to stop society spinning out of control. Add to that the elites' promise to tighten up immigration controls to stem 'our fears', and you can see that European politicians' reaction to the far right is more significant than the far right itself.
In the obsession with the far right, the European elites are reflecting their own crisis of confidence and self-belief on to society more broadly. And society will suffer for it.
Click the source link to see the references footnoted in the article
Not really. One's greatest enemies can be closely related, politically. Nazis and Socialists were competing for the same supporters. They (rightly) viewed each other as their most powerful and dangerous rival, each one offering a version of "socialism" which was slightly different than (and therefore a threat to) the other. And since neither was above using violence and oppression to destroy political enemies... that's what happened. It doesn't mean they were on opposite sides of "the political spectrum", just that they were rivals. Why does this confuse you?
Not to mention abolish trade unions, allying with monarchists and Nationalists, receiving most of their funding from large corporations, building a huge military, etc.
As if USSR didn't build a huge military. Anyway, we can agree of course that fascists attempt to build their socialist state by slightly different means (in cooperation with business, etc), if that helps.
Just because the Nazi's called themselves a 'socialist workers' party, doesn't mean they were one.
Heck, just because Socialists call themselves a "workers' party" doesn't mean they are one, either. I'd rather go by the definition of socialism (collective use of property) anyway, and ignore what they call themselves for PR purposes. In any event, just because Nazis and Communists were bitter enemies doesn't mean their political programs were all that different. Why do you think it does? Are Coke and Pepsi hugely different beverages?
Left-wing parties were abolished.
For that matter probably all parties were abolished (except of course the Nazi party). What else is new?
The right to strike was abolished.
How much of a right did slave laborers in Kolyma have to strike?
Why is it that Mein Kampf is so studded with hatred for the USSR and communists?
Because Hitler hated them for offering a kind of socialism he despised (as opposed to the kind of socialism he preferred, national socialism).
Don't you think Hitler would have been allied with leftists if he was a leftist?
Not necessarily, because of the rivalary I've explained (competing for the same supporters - people to whom one flavor of socialism or another has appeal). But as a matter of fact he was allied with even Communists, for a time (that's how he came to power - the Communists of Germany helped to vote him in, rather than side with a less extreme socialist party).
It depends. In a generic historical sense, "left" meant radical or revolutionary (people who wanted "change") whereas "right" meant "conservative" (let's keep things the way they are). But this definition is not all that helpful because then "right" and "left" vary from state to state and cannot be meaningfully compared (a "rightist" in 1985 USSR would be a hard-line Communist).
There is also a moral dimension; sometimes "right" means those who want strict moral guidelines, while "the left" are more libertarian. But that's not very helpful in this context either. In fact, in a sense, by this definition socialists often would have to be considered "right-wing"; after all, they have a complete moral program for how everyone ought to live their life and share their property, and are willing and eager to use the state to enforce it.
Another, more meaningful, usage is to simply define them in terms of their relation to socialist ideas. Denote by "leftists" those who tend to socialism (collective use of property) in their economic and social outlook, and "rightists" those who don't (individual property rights).
For the average person living in a fascist regime there are no individual "property rights" as such, because the state ultimately decides for all what is the best use of property/resources. In that sense it's a socialist system.
Are you saying that dictatorships are confined exclusively to the left?
Getting warmer. Since dictatorships or near-dictatorships are required to enforce collectivization of property or property usage, then this has the ring of truth to it. A truly "rightist" state (by this definition) would protect individual property rights as much as possible, robbing any would-be "dictator" of most of his power.
The only true distinction between the right and left is economic.
But hey, what about "nationalism"? Sometimes people try to characterize anyone who is "nationalistic" (cf. Haider, Buchanan) as "right-wing". (Of course, this is yet another problematic definition - wasn't Stalin nationalistic?)
Societies that practice capitalism (private capital) are to the right, those that practice socialism (state capital) are to the left.
You're closer to the truth again, I suppose. The key is to recognize that the "private capital" which is nominally allowed under fascist regimes is nothing of the sort. For bigwigs, sure, (like Party members of "Communist" regimes) they are allowed to have/control lots of capital. For the average Joe, however, the result is the same (few to no property rights).
Hitler and Mussolini were proponents of private ownership
For bigwigs. And only the ones who would do the government's bidding, at that. (And of course not for undesirables, like Jews.)
"Proponents of private ownership", indeed. An illusion.
Stalin and Mao were for public ownership.
Yes, and they called themselves and their Party-member buddies "the public" or "the people" or "the proletariat", then proceeded to take everyone's property away in the name of "the public" and do as they pleased with it (just like the so-called "capitalists" who are in bed with fascist regimes). Same result for the average person.
However, the very definition of a right-wing versus a left-wing government in the 20th century is whether that govt was pro-socialist or anti- socialist
Right! And national socialist governments are pro-socialist. (They might be against this or that particular party calling itself a Socialist Party, but that's just natural for them to eliminate rivals; don't confuse that with being anti-socialist in general. Surely you'd agree that the Bolsheviks in Russia were socialists (in the generic sense); the fact that they fought against the so-called "Mensheviks" (also socialists!) doesn't change this, does it?
Communist dictators jail capitalists, capitalist dictators jail communists,
Uh, sorry, no. Dictators jail whoever they want, they don't have an economic-theory litmus-test; if you cross a leftist dictatorship then reciting some Marx isn't necessarily going to be a get out of jail free! card for you.
The dictatorship is the same, only the economy is different.
Actually not even the economy is different (much). Forced full employment, jail and/or slave labor for dissidents, state control of industry to fund military conquest and state power. What exactly is the big difference, from the perspective of the average man?
'Who, in 1928, with a Europe returning to prosperity…could have predicted that only five years away Germany would be plunged into the most criminal dictatorship of the century?
First, it was easily predictable. Germany was in a state of economic and political chaos well into the 20s following WW1, which is precisely why Hitler was able to gain power. Second, Stalin's USSR was almost certainly the most criminal dictatorship of the century, overriding even Hitler's slaughter.
The problem in this debate seems to come down to the fact that neither side of the political spectrum is willing to admit that their own brand of extremeism can be turned into a dictatorship.
I see both sides using this tactic on a fairly regular basis. Both sides clinging to their own "wing" and denouncing the other "wing" as being the root of all evil. Let's face facts, a Religious Theocracy would be just as repressive as a Socialist Haven. Unrestrained both wings are capable, and in many cases more than willing, to become tyrannical regimes, all the while denouncing the other "wing" as the object of fear and loathing, and proclaiming themselves to be only of the purest intent.
It seem to boil down to a system of demonization. Using Hitler as an example is easy, because he was fairly forthcoming about those he hated, and what he thought should be done with them. He provided the rational to using Government to destroy those he demonized. So, he and his fellow Nazis appear to be identifying the "disease" and through deception of the weak minded, he identified themselves as the only true provider of the "cure" to those "diseases".
What's scarey today is the idea that BOTH "wings" are attempting to do that same sort of demonization now. I've seen it here, I've seen it on the Liberal boards. You can see it in statements like "All Liberals believe _____" or "All Conservatives believe ______". It boils down to a mass generalization of people based solely on political viewpoints, and demonization based on disagreements. Neither side of this political spectrum, try as they will, is capable of attaining the "high ground" because they've both sunk to this level of discourse. Liberals use the same tactics as Conservatives, and boths sides whine and snivel when the other side uses the same tactics against them. Example? Look at the Clinton Defenders versus the Bush Defenders. Both sides refuse to give quarter to the other, no matter how much evidence is put on the table. The spinning just keeps on going.
Sadly, this is how people like Hitler gained power. He fostered that sort of hatred, distrust, and discontent, and merely capitalized on it for his own benefit.
Let's face facts, does it really matter, in the big picture, when a Tyrant steps forward, if he is a Left Winger, or a Right Winger?
And I know Russians whose grandparents somehow still retained the dachas their families owned, despite the "socialist" USSR. Of course neither socialism achieved perfectly the ideal of making all property subject to state whim, but one can't say that it was for lack of trying ;)
If you say it was socialist just because the govt had a say in the ultimate use of the resources, well, then every govt in world history has been socialist
In a sense, this is true. Every government in world history has been socialist to some extent, yes (because there's never yet been a perfectly libertarian utopia :).
But some governments are more socialist than others. USSR and Nazi Germany were both more socialist than is, say, the USA (though the gap is lessening). Make sense?
It wasn't until Speer took over as Minister of Armaments that anything approaching a 'planned economy' came into being,
OK.
so I don't think taxation or appropriation of assets for military spending is necessarily indicative of socialism.
No argument there.
I would tend to label Stalin as non-nationalist (you know, world socialism and all),
Lip service.
he certainly became nationalistic when the Nazis rolled in and it came time to defend 'Mother Russia'.
This is what I was talking about.
Mussolini himself said "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." It is not state control of industry, but private industrial power merged with state authority.
Six of one.....
If the dictator leaves private property intact, he's right wing
If he truly does this (i.e. not merely for "corporations"), then what exactly is left for him to "dictate"? And how will he enforce it (since the people, owning property, surely will own some guns...)? Best,
That's because currently the USA is socialized to such an extent that something like 40-50 percent of GDP is taken and then controlled by the government. In other words private property is not left "intact", as was required by the hypothetical we were discussing. Sure, we're not as socialist as the USSR or even current Scandinavian countries, but our socialism is still nothing to sneeze at.
So again, it's difficult to be dictator without a significant amount of socialism.
I would think most any dictator would be quite happy with that. $1 trillion or more a year, and an army to keep him in power.
Indeed. Most dictators would be quite happy with that amount of socialism, yes.
What more could a dictator want?
He could always want more. ;)
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.