Love Notes to Fascism

Because Hitler is considered a fascist, and because the Holocaust has been indelibly seared in the cultural consciousness of Western Civilization, the term “fascism” is roughly equivalent to a secular version of “satanism.” It’s the worst of the worst. It’s the epitome of evil.

Unfortunately, this means that if you’re interested in a serious discussion of historical fascism you’re out of luck. Most people can only view it as either a stand-in for “ultimate evil,” or a joke.


Among the few people who do take a serious interest in historical fascism the definition itself is hotly contested. Depending on who you ask, the French Revolution was fascist (or not) the Bolshevik Revolution was fascist (or not), and the Nazis in Germany were not fascist (or they were). There are two central aspects that are common to all of these definitions, and they are the two I want to consider:

  1. Totalitarianism
  2. Utopian Progressivism

In case you haven’t read it yet, I’ll just add that a lot of the quotes in the following sections were gleaned from Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, and that it is well worth reading.

Totalitarianism

The Italian fascists invented the word “totalitarian” around the same time they invented fascism, and for them it was a positive word. A leading Italian philosopher of fascism, Giovani Gentile, used totalitario to refer to a government which included the “total representation of the nation and total guidance of national goals.” Mussolini summarized it as, simply:

Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

If you want to trace the origins of totalitarianism, however, you need to travel across the Atlantic to the United States. William James was an American philosopher who in 1906 wrote an influential essay entitled The Moral Equivalent of War. James–a pragmatist–argued that military organization was the most efficient method of coordinating and deploying a nation’s resources to achieve social ends. Obama’s call for national service echo the words from James’ essay:

If now — and this is my idea — there were, instead of military conscription, a conscription of the whole youthful population to form for a certain number of years a part of the army enlisted against Nature, the injustice would tend to be evened out, and numerous other goods to the commonwealth would remain blind as the luxurious classes now are blind, to man’s relations to the globe he lives on, and to the permanently sour and hard foundations of his higher life. To coal and iron mines, to freight trains, to fishing fleets in December, to dishwashing, clotheswashing, and windowwashing, to road-building and tunnel-making, to foundries and stoke-holes, and to the frames of skyscrapers, would our gilded youths be drafted off, according to their choice, to get the childishness knocked out of them, and to come back into society with healthier sympathies and soberer ideas. They would have paid their blood-tax, done their own part in the immemorial human warfare against nature; they would tread the earth more proudly, the women would value them more highly, they would be better fathers and teachers of the following generation.

Sounds great, doesn’t it? Make the youth do a bunch of work and “get the childishness knocked out of them.” Mussolini sure thought so. He admired and often invoked James, and used his philosophy for fascist programs like the Battle for Grain.

James didn’t just inspire Mussolini and the fascists, however. It was the basis of the Civilian Conservation Corps — a New Deal project that had young men living in barracks, wearing uniforms, and partially under the supervision of the War Department while engaged on building public infrastructure. The same concept lives on in today’s Peace Corps and AmeriCorps programs. The idea of organizing society in some effort that has moral equivalency to war is the obvious principle behind the “War on Poverty” and to a lesser extent (since it actually involves shooting and so is less symbolic) the “War on Drugs.”

Although many fear that Obama has some kind of paramilitary organization in mind, I believe this is what he was thinking of when he made his infamous remarks about a civilian defense force:

Utopian Progressivism

The history of Utopian experiments has failed to live up to glorious expectations. The results of efforts to bring Eden–secular or sectarian–back to Earth have ranged from farcical (such as the Oneida Community or Fruitlands) to horrific (Jonestown and the Manson Family). Between that and books like Animal Farm, 1984, and especially Brave New World, the term “Utopian” has been completely discredited.

But the ideology lives on.

All totalitarian movements have, at one point or another, had to make the case that whatever they had to offer society was worth the exchange for individual liberty. Sometimes the rhetoric takes the narrative of sacrifice for the greater good. Sometimes a great crisis–real or imagined–is the impetus for the trade-off. But in every case there is a kind of philosophical calculus at work: for a government to take more power they must offer something. And the more power they take, the more they must offer.

This is why the governments that have ended up taking the most power have almost always started out by offering the most in exchange. The French Revolution promised to remake a nation according to the ideals of “Liberté, égalité, fraternité.” Marx wanted to end the exploitation and alienation of workers and usher in a world without class distinctions. That basic message–stand up for the little guy and level the playing field–has been the impetus behind every bloodthirsty repressive red revolution since: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and Che. If you ask for ultimate authority, you have to promise the ultimate salvation in exchange.

Thus the means–totalitarian control–are justified by the end: Utopia.

Love Notes to Fascism (Then)

The trick to understanding the rise of fascist governments in the past and in the future is to understand the appeal of progressive idealism in contrast to the sneaking encroachment of totalitarianism. No one loves oppression and violence for their own sake. The liberal love affair with fascism has always been a love affair with the progressive ideals of the movement and the heroes who promised to make those ideals a reality.

And the first international hero of the 20th century progressive movement was none other than Mussolini himself. Right up until he invaded Ethiopia in 1935, you could hardly find a more well-liked fascist.

For starters, the American news media loved him almost as much as they love Obama now. Isaac F. Marcossen of The New York Times wrote in 1923 that “Mussolini is a Latin [Teddy] Roosevelt who first acts and then inquires if it is legal. He has been of great service to Italy at home.” Other journalist fans included Ida Tarbell (famous for helping to break up Standard Oil), Lincoln Steffens who said “God formed Mussolini out of the rib of Italy,” Samuel McClure who wrote that Mussolini’s fascism was “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic,” foreign correspondent for the Times Anne O’Hare McCormick, and Lowell Thomas who provided radiant commentary on the film Mussolini Speaks.

The coverage wasn’t just positive, it was pervasive. From 1925 to 1928 there were 100 articles written on Mussolini compared to only 15 on Stalin. The New York Times just couldn’t figure out if Mussolini was the reincarnation of Garibaldi or Caesar.

And when the journalists finally did run out of glowing things to say about Mussolini, they just handed the pen over to the man himself. In 1928, The Saturday Evening Post published a glowing 8-part autobiography of Mussolini. Nothing says probing, critical journalism like letting people write articles about themselves!

The intellectual, political and commercial elites were no less enamored of the man. Responding to the question “Is there a dearth of great men?” from the Literary Digest in 1927, editors listed Mussolini as Exhibit A that there was no such dearth. (Lenin came in second.)

James A. Farrell–head of US Steel–called him “the greatest living man in the world.” Rexford Guy Tugwell–of FDR’s Brain Trust–described Italian fascism as “the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious.”

In 1926, Columbia University founded Casa Italiana: Fascism’s “veritable home in America” and a “school house for budding Fascist ideologues.”

But nowhere was the praise louder than from the entertainment celebrities of the day. Poet Wallace Stevens (pardon the racial epithets) supported Mussolini even after the invasion of Ethiopia: “I am pro-Mussolini, personally. The Italians have as much right to take Ethiopia from the coons as the coons had to take it from the boa-constrictors.” Comedian Will Rogers wrote that Mussolini is “some wop. I’m pretty high on that bird” and went on to say that “[d]ictator form of government is the greatest form of government: that is if you have the right dictator.”

The 1934 version of the Cole Porter song You’re the Top had these lyrics:

You’re the top!
You’re the Great Houdini!
You’re the top!
You are Mussolini!

Hollywood weighed in with the 1923 film The Eternal City in which the heroic fascists took control of Italy from the nefarious communists. A decade later, Columbia Pictures released a documentary entitled Mussolini Speaks that was overseen by Mussolini himself. Advertising for the movie claimed “it appeals to all RED BLOODED AMERICANS” and even that “it might be the ANSWER TO AMERICA’S NEEDS.”

Even the Nazi party had their own supporters in the Angl0-American left for a time. In 1932, H. G. Wells famously told the Young Liberals at Oxford that progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” W. E. B. DuBois–though certainly not unconditionally supportive of the Nazis–was at least partially defensive when he wrote in 1937 that the rise of the Nazi dictatorship was “absolutely necessary to get the state in order,” and that “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”

Of course World War II changed all of this. Even nuanced support for Hitler was unthinkable, and as Mussolini allied with Hitler he had also become the enemy. As an ally of Hitler–and despite the fact that the Italian fascists were never anti-Semitic until forced into it by the Nazis–Mussolini subsequently assumed guilt by association for the vile crimes of the Holocaust.

All of this caused American progressives to do three things: First of all, they denied ever supporting Mussolini and fascism in the first place. Secondly, they shifted their hero-worship to fascism’s closest cousin: revolutionary communism. And, thirdly, they created the myth that fascism and communism were not only ideologically distinct but that they were polar opposites. Fascism was the far right, and communism was the far left. Obviously liberals couldn’t have ever supported fascism: that was the wrong side of the political spectrum!

The notion that fascism and communism are ideologically opposed has never made any sense. The prototypical fascists–the Nazis–were the national socialist party of Germany. Mussolini was himself a socialist before inventing fascism, and saw fascism as an extension rather than repudiation of his own socialist past. Even the fact that fascists and communists hated each other supports the conclusion that they were similar ideologies: they had to compete for the same pool of radical, idealistic followers. The fascists had to take control of the radical progressives before they could take control of their home countries.

Although there were some ideological differences–fascists were sometimes willing to allow capitalist institutions to survive as long as they were under the ultimate control of the state–the only real difference was that fascism is hyper-nationalistic and communism is pan-nationalistic. That’s it. Take nationalism out of the picture and revolutionary communism and fascism are essentially the same thing: ideologies that promise utopian progressivism in exchange for totalitarian state-control.

So when Mussolini fell from favor, the American left found a new love affair in the already burgeoning romance with Uncle Joe Stalin. Indeed the same Lincoln Steffens who lauded Mussolini also famously said of Stalin’s Russia in 1933: “I have seen the future, and it works!” In the decades following the end of World War II, Stalin could have asked for no better apologists than then same brand of American elites who had previously defended Mussolini. Other Marxists–like Castro and Che–have won similar concessions. When they are not praised outright by the far American left they are at least tolerated as sort of benign, well-intentioned children. “Those cuddly communists, always starting revolutions to try and free the workers!”

Love Notes to Fascism (Now)

Although there’s always some idiot American intellectual comparing everyday working Americans who were killed in the 9/11 attacks to Nazis or some clueless American celebrity wearing a hip Maoist bag in a country where Maoist guerrillas killed tens of thousands, you’d think that since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism that even the far American left would have learned to stop writing love notes to fascists. Or at least to stop being so open about it.

But, apparently, you’d be wrong.

Exhibit A: Michael Moore

Michael Moore is the definition of a useful idiot. It apparently never occurred to him–in the filming of his movie Sicko–that if he went to Cuba and asked for medical treatment for some American citizens that maybe, just possibly, the Cuban PR response wouldn’t be indicative of the sort of health care that your average Cuban actually receives on a day-to-day basis.

I have not seen his most recent film (Capitalism, a Love Story) but there’s plenty to learn from this AP story on the film’s release at the Cannes Film Festival. Michael Moore says:

I am personally affected by good people who struggle, who work hard and who’ve had their lives ruined by decisions that are made by people who do not have their best interest at heart, but who have the best interest of the bottom line, of the company, at heart.

Sounds good so far. That’s the kind of understandable idealism I can respect. But his examples to try and indict the capitalist system for every economic tragedy are an exercise in “how not to make an argument.”

First of all we’ve got:

the Chicago glass and window company whose employees barricaded themselves to demand their pay after management laid off all 250 employees when the bank line of credit dried up.

This is a textbook example of failing to differentiate between a tragedy and a crime. If the company fires 250 people because they are greedy SOBs who hate all that is good and beautiful in the world, that’s one thing. And it’s an example of the fact “people are sometimes mean,” not “capitalism is of the devil.” If the company fires 250 people because they ran out of money and the entire company will go out of business otherwise, well then that’s a different matter. And it’s an example of the fact that “stuff happens,” not “capitalism is the devil.”

Then we’ve got:

the story of a privately-run juvenile detention center in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, that paid off judges to lock up juvenile offenders. One boy said he had done little more than throw a piece of meat at his mother’s boyfriend during a fight at the dinner table, and a teenage girl’s offense was making fun of her school’s vice principal on a MySpace page.

That’s my personal favorite because it is a very real example of injustice, and one that could have only been perpetuated by collusion between government and private industry. You know, the sort of thing that happens when the government meddles with the private market. That’s like trying to argue that capitalism is horrific by holding up pictures of all the Russian children who died thanks to Stalin’s artificial famines. If Michael Moore wants to make a movie about how bad government corruption can be, that’s fine. And the conclusion would be “so let’s keep a tight eye on government”. The real injustice was jailing kids who didn’t deserve it, right? And that was in the government’s court. Newsflash, Michael Moore, the more power you give to government the more tempting of a target it becomes for corruption. Instead, however, it seems that Moore thinks “paying people bribes to leverage government contacts” is synonymous with capitalism. I guess there’s a reason he makes movies instead of teaching economics.

Now you might be wondering how this ties back into Love Notes to Fascism. Here’s how: Moore considers actions like those of the Chicago workers (hey, at least they didn’t kidnap their management like the French) to be part of an anti-capitalists revolution. A revolution that “began November 4th.”

Now take a look at what Michael Moore had to say on his blog when Obama removed the CEO of General Motors (emphasis mine):

I simply can’t believe it. This stunning, unprecedented action has left me speechless for the past two days. I keep saying, “Did Obama really fire the chairman of General Motors? The wealthiest and most powerful corporation of the 20th century? Can he do that? Really? Well, damn! What else can he do?!”

This bold move has sent the heads of corporate America spinning and spewing pea soup. Obama has issued this edict: The government of, by, and for the people is in charge here, not big business… The stock market plunged as the masters of the universe asked themselves, “Am I next?” And they whispered to each other, “What are we going to do about this Obama?”

Not much, fellows. He has the massive will of the American people behind him — and he has been granted permission by us to do what he sees fit.

This may come as a shock to Michael Moore, but we elected a president, not a Supreme Dictator for Life. And the actions that President Obama can take are constrained by the United States Constitution–including the checks and balances of the judiciary and legislative branches–and not “what he sees fit.”

Is there possibly a more groveling, freedom-despising Love Note to Fascism than this plea that a “superhero” will “do what he sees fit” to rescue the helpless masses?

At the time I wrote up a short piece on Michael Moore’s fascist love note and then chalked it up to the general rule that “there’s always some idiot.” But it turns out that Michael Moore’s anti-capitalist screed wasn’t the only progressive film at Cannes. Nope! In the tradition of Hollywood love notes to Mussolini, Oliver Stone has unveiled his biography of Hugo Chavez. Congratulations, Mr. Stone, you are Exhibit B. According to Reuters, Stone claims that:

the U.S. media and government have demonized Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and other leftist South American leaders, and… that they were right to stand up to Washington.

He goes on:

I think the movie, if you’ve seen it, shows very clearly the level of stupidity in the kind of broad statements that are made about Mr. Chavez. But I didn’t want to make a movie only about the American media’s attacks. I felt that that was too small for what this man is about. This man is a big phenomenon.

So we travelled in a road trip kind of movie to visit these other presidents and we saw the positive side of what is going on, the sweeping change in this region. It’s a very important historical phenomenon that is … ignored in America.

Then Chavez weighed in himself:

What’s happening in Latin America is like a Renaissance.

Really? Is shutting down opposition media, jailing dissenters, seizing and nationalizing other people’s property to pay off your voters, and amending the constitution so that you can rule for life and the other branches of government are nothing more than rubber-stamps and kangaroo courts what you would call a Renaissance?

That’s funny, I would have used a different word.

And if you think this kind of attitude is isolated in Hollywood, then here’s the Chief Diversity Officer at the FCC (an Obama appointee) with his own take on Chavez:

Then there’s LA Congresswomen Watson weighing in on Fidel Castro:

Note the applause. Given the history of liberals and their fascist idols (Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, etc.) you’d think they would have learned that this way leads only to embarrassment for them and the deaths of thousands or millions of innocent civilians for everyone else.

I guess they just won’t learn.

—————
Robert Wallace is classical liberal studying economics in graduate school. He and his wife work as business analysis consultants, and they live as undercover conservatives with their two small children in a socialist bastion of a college town. He has been writing for America’s Right since December 2008.

Share

Comments

  1. JEFF SCHREIBER says:

    Brilliant.

    More and more, I am consumed by trying to reflect on as much of the news as possible (and this White House gives us a lot of material). I look forward to Robert's posts because they're what I would like to do if I had the time.

    Brilliant.

  2. Big ups says:

    Wow. What an amazing piece of writing through and through. I applaud you Jeff for stacking the deck with talented people like Robert.

    This is one of the best written, most well thought-out columns on this Web site so far. (Sorry Jeff).

    Great job, N. I'll be sending this to everyone I know.

  3. JEFF SCHREIBER says:

    Randy, don't you DARE let this cut into your personal life, and the business you need to take care of for you. I tell Robert and everyone else the same thing.

    I started this Web site because I needed a place to vent — for my own good, and for the good of my family. AR is cathartic for me, and it's an addicting feeling, that catharsis.

    But please, please, please don't let it ruin anything else. That's why we've got so many great people who contribute when they can. But only when they can.

    Any other way, and you turn into me. Consider that it's 3:15am, I just finished studying and paying some bills (if that's what you want to call looking at invoices and shaking your head), and now I'm typing this to you.

    Point being–and I get even more long-winded than normal when I'm tired–is that I don't want AR interfering. Okay?

    I wrote this here, rather than in an e-mail to you, so that the regulars can help keep you accountable. When I get into final exam review season at the end of each semester, everyone here is kind enough to remind me to study rather than ramble about Pelosi et al. Perhaps they can do the same for you. :D

  4. Randy Wills says:

    I can second that, Jeff, but I feel the same about your abilities. I honestly don't know how you guys do it, but I have to confess to a little (maybe not so little) twinge of jealousy when I read your stuff.

    In doing the research for an article that I feel needs to be written, I am consuming hours and hours on the Internet as well as reading material in print form, and frankly, it's wearing me out. How the heck am I supposed to do this stuff and still make a fair contibution to the business that I'm supposed to be helping to run? I think that getting fired by one's own son would be quite humilitating, don't you? I feel like my head is going to explode. I started pulling on a thread and it's like I've fallen into an inverted funnel-shaped, bottomless pit.

    Although the cast of "players" in this drama called "the fundamental transformation of America" come from many different philosophical, ethnic, social, and economic venues, the common thread is always the same; Marxism.

    Likewise, the enemy is also always same; the "Protestant ethic"- derived Constitution and the white-European-male-dominated power structure. In the eyes of these social radicals, all the evils of race, class, and gender "injustice" have their roots in this ethic, and therefore it, along with those who embrace it, must be destroyed and a "fundamentally transformed" world society, led by America, created out of its ashes.

    It's going to be quite a ride.

  5. Soloman says:

    Thank you very much for this extremely informative piece.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Thanks for putting it that way, Jeff. I awoke for no particular reason at 1:37 a.m. and come to AR to find this.

    I'm going back to bed!

  7. Chuck in San Diego says:

    Nataniel, awesome study of these forces.

    A lot of people roll their eyes at me when I say, "The foundation of the future is built on the past." Point being is that we are tied to what has happened in the past and it can't escape it. Disasters of tomorrow are doomed to repeat themselves over and over again unless we LEARN from the past.

    To all the writers, and commentary, here at America's Right – THANK YOU!! Sometimes out here in California I feel like I'm drowning in a sea of liberal stupidity. America's Right is my mental desert isle.

    Keep up the good work!!

  8. Anonymous says:

    Wow, Robert. Best so far.

  9. Ian Thorpe says:

    A fine article Robert. I'll try to add an extra, historical dimension to the understanding of fascism's origins through this link
    to an article on The Fasces, the symbol of Ancient Rome. The Fasces, a depiction of an axe bound into a bundle of sticks symbolises the unbreakable power of the central authority. I will not say more, the article explains the principle better than I can.

  10. Randy Wills says:

    Thanks, Jeff, for the reminder to keep our lives balanced, but what you are doing with AR, and the talent that you and others like Robert, is so infectious that it's hard to stay away from it.

    My personal feeling is that we are in the midst of one of those climactical periods in history that will determine the future of nations for ages to come. You know that my perspective melds both the spritural and political into a congruent view, so, for me, these days have very special significance.

    By the way, today being the day of the "big speech" to the school children reminds me of how consisently Marxists (such as Bill Ayers, Peter McLaren, and not surprisingly, Barack and Michelle Obama) have employed the educational system as a tool to pre-program the children to accept their worldview.

  11. Dee says:

    Robert, this is such an excellent article. Thank you for the time and thought that you have put into writing this. Jeff, thank you for all you do.
    When I read about Michael Moore's new movie, I had to laugh because it is capitalism that had enabled him to be where he is.
    Keep up the good work.

  12. Monica's boyfriend says:

    WASHINGTON – Former President Bill Clinton says those in his party should ignore any grief from Republicans on health care reform, because the GOP is just waiting for Democrats to "mess up."

    Clinton told Esquire magazine that lawmakers should put together the best health care measure for President Barack Obama, even if it must be fixed later.

    "All we have to worry about is getting things done and doing them as well as we can," Clinton said. "Don't even worry about the Republicans. Let them figure out what they're going to stand for. 'Cause as long as they're sitting around waiting for us to mess up, they don't have a chance."

  13. Uncle Rick says:

    "I guess they just won't learn."

    They don't need to learn. They are the geniuses who always know what's best for the rest of us. And they are not the first. Read "The Intellectuals" by Paul Johnson.

  14. JEFF SCHREIBER says:

    Dee … I have to agree with your assessment of the article. Upon reading it again, I think this may be the best piece at AR so far.

  15. Anonymous says:

    I myself, would rather be dead than RED. What is it with these ignorant people?

  16. Gail B says:

    Robert, as I read this obviously brilliant piece, I ran across this statement:

    "Although many fear that Obama has some kind of paramilitary organization in mind, I believe this is what he was thinking of when he made his infamous remarks about a civilian defense force:"

    I dunno, man–with everything that this "long-legged Mack Daddy" (Hat Tip to Rev. James Manning) has up his sleeves and trouser legs in store for us, I believe I'd get it verified that there is no "paramilitary organization in mind" before I'd start to assume ANYTHING this double-talking, TelePrompTer-reading, two-timing anti-American wanna-be says!

    (Now back to the piece! –and thanks!)

  17. Bobbie says:

    Excellent and important piece. Thanks for the time, thought, and energy that went into this. I don't know whether to continue to applaud you or find a suitable place to hide these next several years.

  18. Anonymous says:

    These people do not deserve to be Americans. I M H O.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Nice job consolidating a lot of thought into one easily digested piece. Kudos.

    Matt McDonough

  20. Rix says:

    The analysis deserves a standing round of applause. It is not just dead-on accurate – it also dares to foray into an area carefully dodged by the American school education. There is a good reason for dodging it: we might recognize the signs in our own government.

    Thank you, Robert.

  21. classical liberal says:

    Brilliant analysis! Progressives, Fascists, Socialists, Marxists have infiltrated most of the higher education universities and been pushing this myth that Fascism is the opposite of Communism.DUH!!!! You brilliantly laid it out. Now the time is to help others understand that it is not a decision between two cousins. We have the opportunity to embrace true free markets, individual rights, limited government, etc.

    I want to add some quotes and insight into your wonderful work. ( I am bookmarking for future reference)

    It should be noted that modern progressive liberalism NOT true liberalism (ie classical liberalism). Its amazing how corrupted the word “liberal” has become in America to mean almost the complete opposite of the original meaning…

    Think about this “Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of [Classical] liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere.” –Mussolini (p. 32)

    Are modern liberals economic liberals? Not at all, which means they are not true political liberals either. Goofy!!!!

    Communism, Socialism, Fascism — they are all forms of political collectivism based on the Marxist credo: from each according to his ability – to each according to his need. There is another term for it: altruism (“other” ism), which was coined by Auguste Comte. The meaning of altruism is that self-sacrifice is considered the supreme good, and selfishness is regarded as the supreme evil.

    In none of these three political systems is there any essential difference. All require government “ownership” (actual ownership requires the recognition of private property, which is the right of use and disposal) of the means of production, and individuals in those systems are not regarded as private any longer. The state regards the individual as property of the state.

    Communism and socialism are more honest about what they claim to be: they admit that no one has a private life any longer, and that all goods, services, and human beings are the property of the state. One may argue, as I do, that this is evil, but it is also honest.

    Fascism, however, is both dishonest and evil. The fascists claim that there is such a thing as private property, with all the responsibilities of ownership, and the facade of ownership — yet, the state controls the “owner’s” every decision on penalty of fine or imprisonment (or both).
    In the ultimate analysis, there is no real difference between any of these systems. All hold human beings as right-less. Individuals cannot act freely provided that they respect the rights of others; now they can only act with permission from the state.
    And this is where medicine is headed — formally, legally, and disgustingly.

    Simplified even more-Under fascism, the citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, but without the freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it—at least until the next purge. In either case, the government officials hold the economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens . . . .Both equally evil.

    Now an illustration in quotes to drive the point.

    “…All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community.” (Ernst Huber, Nazi party spokesman; National Socialism, prepared by Raymond E. Murphy, et al; quoting Huber, Verfassungsrecht des grossdeutschen Reiches (Hamburg, 1939)

    Adolf Hitler, whose National Socialist (Nazi) Party adapted fascism to Germany beginning in 1933, said: “The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property.” (Barkai, pp. 26–27)

    The National Socialist (Nazi) said “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system…. and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” –Adolf Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

    “The party is all-embracing…” said Adolf Hitler upon taking power, “Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good…This is Socialism- not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape. Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over all, regardless of whether they are owners or workers…Our Socialism goes far deeper…[the people] have entered a new relation…What are ownership and income to that? Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.” (From Herman Rauschning’s The Voice of Destruction, as quoted in The Ominous Parallels, by Leonard Peikoff, page 231-232.)

    Mussolini personally set his approval and signature over a book which proclaims:

    “Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes…In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud.” – Benito Mussolini

    In a laudatory review of Roosevelt’s 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.… Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.”

    “Fascism is likewise opposed to trade-unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade–unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State.” –Mussolini (P.15)

    “Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and the will of the people. [Classical] Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State…” –Mussolini (To the General staff Conference of Fascism, in Discorsi del 1929, Milano, Alpes, 1930, p. 280).

    “The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state. Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic problem of Socialism—until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name. The most recent slogan is “State Capitalism.”[Fascism] It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy, and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the “classic” ideal of egalitarian Socialism.” – Ludwig von Mises

Trackbacks

  1. [...] tradition of the American left’s love affair with iron-fisted dictators begun in the days of Mussolini.  And Obama’s right when he said it would be easier to be president of China.  When [...]

Speak Your Mind

*