BR comments in BF in the text Forbes By : Bill Flax _Op/Ed_ (http://www.forbes.com/opinions) 9/01/2011 Obama, Hitler, And Exploding The Biggest Lie In History
“The line between fascism and Fabian socialism is very thin. Fabian socialism is the dream. Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator.” John T. Flynn Numerous commentators have raised alarming comparisons between America’s recent economic foibles and Argentina’s fall _“from breadbasket to basket case.”_ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121417875081295571.html) The U.S. pursues a similar path with her economy increasingly ensnared under the growing nexus of government control. Resources are redistributed for vote-buying welfare schemes, patronage style earmarks, and graft by unelected bureaucrats, quid pro quo with unions, issue groups and legions of lobbyists. In Argentina, everyone acknowledges that fascism, state capitalism, corporatism – whatever – reflects very leftwing ideology. Eva Peron remains a liberal icon. The situation is far more complex than this to the extent that this characterization is very misleading. If Peronism has Leftist elements, which it does, it also has features that are the opposite. President Obama ’s Fabian policies (Keynesian economics) WTH ? Fabianism can hardly be called Keynesian since Keynes himself was not much of a factor until after 1936 and the Fabians were turn-of-the-century intellectuals whose heyday was two or three decades previous promise similar ends. His proposed infrastructure bank is just the latest gyration of corporatism. Why then are fascists consistently portrayed as conservatives? In the Thirties, intellectuals smitten by progressivism considered limited, constitutional governance anachronistic. The Great Depression had apparently proven capitalism defunct. The remaining choice had narrowed between communism and fascism. Hitler was about an inch to the right of Stalin. An inch ? Since Communism, for all its faults, is anti-racist, just to mention one factor, how in hell does this make Hitler an "inch" to Stalin's right ? Western intellectuals infatuated with Marxism thus associated fascism with the Right. Later, _Marxists from the Frankfurt School_ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/06/02/deconstructing-president-obamas-strange-stance-on-israel) popularized this prevailing sentiment. Theodor Adorno in The Authoritarian Personality devised the “F” scale to demean conservatives as latent fascists. The label “fascist” has subsequently meant anyone liberals seek to ostracize or discredit. Just as, in almost perfect symmetry, the Right loves to smear anyone its dislikes as a Communist. Fascism is an amorphous ideology mobilizing an entire nation (Mussolini, Franco and Peron) or race (Hitler) for a common purpose. Leaders of industry, science, education, the arts and politics combine to shepherd society in an all encompassing quest. Hitler’s premise was a pure Aryan Germany capable of dominating Europe. While he feinted right, Hitler and Stalin were natural bedfellows. Hitler mimicked Lenin’s path to totalitarian tyranny, parlaying crises into power. No other political leaders in history have used crises as stepping stones to power ??? Napoleon did not do so ? Churchill did not ? For that matter, Lincoln did not ? nor did Nazis despised Marxists not over ideology, but because they had betrayed Germany in World War I and Nazis found it unconscionable that German communists yielded fealty to Slavs in Moscow. The National Socialist German Workers Party staged elaborate marches with uniformed workers calling one another “comrade” while toting tools the way soldiers shoulder rifles. The bright red Nazi flag symbolized socialism in a “classless, casteless” Germany (white represents Aryanism). Fascist central planning was not egalitarian, but it divvied up economic rewards very similarly to communism: party membership and partnering with the state. For example, to Krupp and other major industrialists, in other words, the opposite of Communist practice. Where communists generally focused on class, Nazis fixated on race. Communists view life through the prism of a perpetual workers’ revolution. National Socialists used race as a metaphor to justify their nation’s engagement in an existential struggle. What does this say ? Are class and race equivalent ? When someone uses this kind of parallelism the reason ought to be made clear. In other cases you might substitute words like "religion" or "elites" or "unions" for class or race. Are all these terms reducible to one another ? (http://ads.forbes.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/forbes.com/opinions/sites/billflax/2011/09/01/obama-hitler-and-exploding-the-biggest-lie-in-history/1 926953744/StoryLogo/OasDefault_v5/default/empty.gif/7a3868305355355762413441 4254564c) Page 2 of 4 As many have observed, substituting “Jews” for “capitalists” exposes strikingly similar thinking. But communists frequently hated Jews too But in some areas Jews were the leadership of the Communist Party and most early Bolshevik officials were Jews themselves and Hitler also abhorred capitalists, or “plutocrats” in Nazi speak. Which is why Hitler formed rock solid alliances with businessmen, because he hated Capitalism ? From afar, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany each reeked of plutocratic oligarchy. Both were false utilitarian Utopias that in practice merely empowered dictators. The National Socialist German Workers Party is only Right if you are hopelessly Left. Or, ascribe to Marxist eschatology perceiving that history marches relentlessly towards the final implementation of socialist Utopia. Marx predicted state capitalism as the last desperate redoubt against the inevitable rise of the proletariat. The Soviets thus saw Nazis as segues to communism. Utterly false. Interestingly, almost everywhere Marxism triumphed: [ in ] Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc., all skipped the capitalist phase Marx thought pivotal. Instead, they slid [ were forced ] straight from pre-industrial feudal conditions into communism; which essentially entailed reversion back to feudalism supplanting the traditional aristocracy with party cronyism – before dissolving into corrupted variants of state capitalism economically similar to fascism. At a much later stage of things, in the case of China, no less than a generation or so after the state had been taken over, a process that was not seriously advanced until two generations had passed. As usual, Marx got it backwards. It’s also ironic that even as orthodox Marxism collapsed due to economic paralysis, cultural Marxism predicated on race, sex and identity politics thrives in “Capitalist” America. The multiculturalists substituted race where the Soviets and Maoists saw only class. America’s civic crusade has become political correctness, aka cultural Marxism, preoccupied with race. Socialism wheels around again. And why ? Because of magic ? The difference needs to be explained, just as the fact needs to be explained that Gramsci, the main originator of Cultural Marxism, was ostracized in Russia. That is, he was regarded as un-Marxist or as heretical, which, of course, says the opposite of the article. While political correctness as manifest in the West is very anti-Nazi and those opposing multiculturalism primarily populate the Right, it’s false to confuse fascism with conservatism. Coupling negatives is not necessarily positive. Because the Nazis would likely detest something that conservatives also dislike indicates little harmony. Ohio State hates Michigan. Notre Dame does too, but Irish fans rarely root for the Buckeyes. This cannot be taken seriously as a reasoned argument. America’s most fascistic elements are ultra leftwing organizations like La Raza or the Congressional Black Caucus. These racial nationalists seek gain not through merit, but through the attainment of government privileges. What’s the difference between segregation and affirmative action? They are identical phenomena harnessing state auspices to impose racialist dogma. The Nation of Islam and other Afrocentric movements, like the Nazis, even celebrate their own perverse racist mythology. Are Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright conservatives? Is Obama? Uhhh, is this all that they do ? Besides, Farrakhan is anything but Jeremiah Wright, the one thing they have in common is reverse racism. On most other counts they are diametric opposites. Which is to say that there are some glaring contradictions in the political values of Barack Hussein. Racism does not exclusively plague the Right. Many American bigots manned the Left : ex-Klansman Hugo Black had an extremely left wing Supreme Court record, George Wallace was a New Deal style liberal – he just wanted welfare and social programs controlled by states. Communists always persecute minorities whenever in power. No-one else does ? Besides, the statement is more false than true. The "minorities" the Communists persecuted generally were perceived economic 'bad guys,' like the Kulaks of the Ukraine --who were landowners and shopkeepers and not persecuted for their ethnicity but because they represented an economic class. The article is misleading. The Nazis’ anti-Semitism derived indirectly from Karl Marx, who despite Jewish ancestry was deeply anti-Semitic. Only from Marx ? Pure bull. Far more from people like Chamberlain ( not the British PM, another Chamberlain ) , from volk racism of long standing, from holdover Christian anti-Judaism, and so forth. Bankers and other capitalists were disproportionately Jewish. Elsewhere, Jews played prominent roles. Before falling under Hitler’s sway, Mussolini’s inner circle was overly Jewish. Peron was the first leader to let Jews hold public office in Argentina. Franco, a Marana, welcomed Jews back into Spain for the first time since 1492 and famously thwarted Hitler by harboring Jewish refugees. Very little of Hitler’s domestic activity was even remotely right wing. Which is why big corporations flourished under the Nazis. As everyone knows, Communists favor big corporations ? ? ? Moreover the Nazis hardly were anti-small business, either, and the Communists were anti small business as well as anti corporations Europe views Left and Right differently, but here, free markets, limited constitutional government, family, church and tradition are the bedrocks of conservatism. The Nazis had a planned economy; like hell they did, part of their problems with WWII was the fact that private corporate priorities meant that war production, as late as 1943, was thwarted by consumerist policy eradicated federalism in favor of centralized government; considered church and family as competitors; and disavowed tradition wishing to restore Germany’s pre-Christian roots. Despite Democrats’ pretensions every election, patriotism is clearly a conservative trait so Nazi foreign policy could be vaguely right wing, but how did Hitler’s aggression differ from Stalin’s? The peace movement evidenced liberals being duped as “useful idiots” more than pacifistic purity. Note the Left’s insistence on neutrality during the Hitler/Stalin pact and their urgent switch to militarism once Germany attacked. Page 3 of 4 After assuming power, Nazis strongly advocated “law and order.” Previously, they were antagonistic thugs, which mirrored the communists’ ascension. The Nazis outlawed unions Actually they simply controlled the unions, all were subservient to state policy, but far as I know few were disbanded perceiving them as competitors for labor’s loyalties, i.e. for precisely the same reason workers’ paradises like Communist China and Soviet Russia disallowed unions. To Nazis, the state sustained workers’ needs. Even issues revealing similarity to American conservatism could also describe Stalin, Mao and many communists. This is not to suggest liberals and fascists are indistinguishable, but a fair assessment clearly shows if any similarities appear with American politics they reside more on the Left than Right. On many issues the Nazis align quite agreeably with liberals. The Nazis enforced strict gun control, which made their agenda possible and highlights the _necessity of an armed populace_ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/06/17/sarah-palin-paul-revere-and-the-importance-of-an-armed-populace) . Therefore the Amish are Nazis, the Quakers are Nazis, Jains are Nazis ? This is nonsense. _The Nazis separated church and state_ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/07/09/the-true-meaning-of-separation-of-church-and-state) to marginalize religion’s influence. Let me get this right, if you insist on separation of Church and State, like Madison and Jefferson, you are a Nazi ? Hitler despised biblical morality and bourgeois (middle class) values. Crosses were ripped from the public square in favor of swastikas. Prayer in school was abolished and worship confined to churches. Church youth groups were forcibly absorbed into the Hitler Youth. Well, anything but all. There was the Confessing Church among Protestants that refused to go along with Hitler, and a major element in the Cathloic Chruch ( one of its members was the future Pope John Paul II ) was also opposed. Hitler extolled public education, even banning private schools and instituting “a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program” controlled by Berlin. Similar to liberals’ cradle to career ideal, the Nazis established state administered early childhood development programs; “ The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school as early as the beginning of understanding.” Therefore Horace Mann was a Nazi, Montessori was a Nazi ? Foreshadowing _Michelle Obama_ (http://www.forbes.com/profile/michelle-obama) , “The State is to care for elevating national health.” Nanny State intrusions reflect that persons are not sovereign, but belong to the state. Hitler even sought to outlaw meat after the war; Huh, on at least one occasion that I know about, Hitler visited the front in early WWII and , when he realized that the troops were being fed a largely vegetarian diet, insisted that they be given meat. Seems that the local commanders, knowing that Hitler was vegetarian, had assumed he would want the troops to follow his example. This was not how Hitler saw things, however blaming Germany’s health problems on the capitalist (i.e. Jewish) food industry. The Nazis idealized public service and smothered private charity with public programs. Hitler’s election platform included “an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.” Nazi propaganda proclaimed, “No one shall go hungry! No one shall be cold!” Germany had universal healthcare and demanded that “the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood.” Obama would relish such a “jobs” program. So what ? He simply borrowed a popular political idea of the time. Nazi Germany was the fullest culmination of Margaret Sanger’s eugenic vision. She was the founder of Planned Parenthood, which changed its name from the American Birth Control Society after the holocaust surfaced. Although Nazi eugenics clearly differed from liberals’ abortion arguments today, that wasn’t necessarily true for their progressive forbears. This much is correct. Germany was first to enact environmentalist economic policies promoting sustainable development and regulating pollution. Is this supposed to be bad ? The Nazis bought into Rousseau’s romanticized primitive man fantasies. Living “authentically” in environs unspoiled by capitalist industry was almost as cherished as pure Aryan lineage. Only the Nazis did so ? Not John Muir, not Thoreau, not Jefferson ? National Socialist economics were socialist, obviously, What is obvious about it ? The word ? Then was the Peoples Democracy of East Germany actually a democracy ? imposing top-down economic planning and social engineering. It was predicated on volkisch populism combining a Malthusian struggle for existence with a fetish for the “organic.” Like most socialists, wealth was thought static and “the common good supersede[d] the private good” in a Darwinist search for “applied biology” to boost greater Germany. What a mish-mash of ideas and names thrown together. The Nazis distrusted markets and abused property rights, even advocating “ confiscation of war profits” and “nationalization of associated industries.” Their platform demanded, “Communalization of the great warehouses” (department stores) and presaging modern set aside quotas on account of race or politics, “utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State.” At what times in their history ? After all, emergency war measures in 1944 can hardly be regarded as preferred policy in effect in 1934 or 1938 or even in 1941. Nazi Germany progressively dominated her economy. Although many businesses were nominally private, the state determined what was produced in what quantities and at what prices. First, they unleashed massive inflation to finance their prolific spending on public works, welfare and military rearmament. They then enforced price and wage controls to mask currency debasement’s harmful impact. This spawned shortages as it must, so Berlin imposed rationing. When that failed, Albert Speer assumed complete power over production schedules, distribution channels and allowable profits. Page 4 of 4 Working for personal ends instead of the collective was as criminal in Nazi Germany as Soviet Russia. Norman Thomas, quadrennial Socialist Party presidential candidate, saw the correlation clearly, “both the communist and fascist revolutions definitely abolished laissez-faire capitalism in favor of one or another kind and degree of state capitalism. . . In no way was Hitler the tool of big business. He was its lenient master. So was Mussolini except that he was weaker.” Mussolini recognized, “Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. 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.” Keynes saw the similarities too, admitting his theories, “can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than . . . a large degree of laissez-faire.” Hitler built the autobahn, FDR the TVA. Propaganda notwithstanding, neither rejuvenated their economies. Therefore Eisenhower, who built the Interstate system, was a Nazi and RR was a Nazi because he built up America's military ? FDR admired Mussolini because “the trains ran on time” and Stalin’s five year plans, but was jealous of Hitler whose economic tinkering appeared more successful than the New Deal. America wasn’t ready for FDR’s blatantly fascist Blue Eagle business model and the Supreme Court overturned several other socialist designs. The greatest dissimilarity between FDR and fascists was he enjoyed less success transforming society because the Constitution obstructed him. This paragraph is pure crap. Even using Republicans as proxies, there was little remotely conservative about fascism. Hitler and Mussolini were probably to the right of our left-leaning media and education establishments, but labeling Tea Partiers as fascists doesn’t indict the Right. It indicts those declaring so as radically Left. Why did Forbes publish this piece of garbage ? -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
