Posted by [Tony Listi] on May 29, 2008
How many times have you heard a liberal call a conservative a “fascist” or “neo-fascist”? The Left apparently thinks that only right-wingers can be fascists. But the truth is that fascism is wholly a product of the Left, not the Right, side of the political spectrum. Only liberals can be fascists because modern American liberalism is a product of communist and fascist ideology.
This can be most clearly and immediately seen by examining the term “[Nazism],” which is actually short-hand for National Socialism in German. The [Nazi Party]was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Socialism is an ideology of the Left! Communism is global socialism, and fascism is national socialism. The ONLY real difference between the two is one of scope and geography.
Mussolini: Communist Heretic
Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini, dictator of fascist Italy and conventionally labeled the father of fascism (the term “fascism” is Italian in origin), was a lifelong socialist and follower of Karl Marx. He was named after two socialists: Amilcare Cipriani and Andrea Costa. His father was a stalwart socialist who was a member of the [First International] and served on the local socialist council. His father read him passages from [Das Kapital] (I know that’s what I read when I want to put myself to sleep, haha). Benito started early in his socialist activism: he called himself a socialist while in high school and became the secretary of a socialist organization at Forli at the age of 18.
In his youth, he carried a medallion of Karl Marx. He also became close friends with [Angelica Balabanoff], a longtime colleague of Lenin. In fact, Lenin and Mussolini were mutual admirers. Lenin wrote, “Mussolini? A great pity he is lost to us! He is a strong man, who would have led our party to victory.”
Mussolini seriously began his political career as a left-wing journalist and intellectual. He was very well read in socialist theory. He wrote countless socialist tracts and articles that both examined and translated socialist literature. In 1911, he became the editor of La lotta di classe (Class War), which served as a mouthpiece for the Italian Socialist Party. In 1912, he attended a Socialist congress.
Leading socialist Olindo Vernocchi said, “From today you, Benito, are not only the representative of the Romagna Socialists but the Duce of all revolutionary socialists in Italy.” This was how he received the nickname Il Duce, literally “the leader.” He was the Duce of Socialism!
[Leda Rafanelli], an anarchist intellectual, wrote “Benito Mussolini…is the socialist of heroic times.”
Mussolini joined the formal leadership of the Italian Socialist Party and became editor of its paper called [Avanti!] , which would become socialist gospel for a whole generation of socialists. Lenin would comment approvingly of Mussolini’s efforts in [Pravda].
Mussolini’s break with strict, dogmatic socialism would begin with the outbreak of World War I. His support of the war contravened the principle of international solidarity and the elimination of national borders (nationality itself to be precise). He saw it as a practical necessity, but he received a backlash from hardline believers. He responded, “You hate me today because you love me still. Whatever happens, you won’t lose me. Twelve years of my life in the party ought to be sufficient guarantee of my socialist faith. Socialism is in my blood.” Again, he countered, “You think you can turn me out, but you will find I shall come back again. I am and shall remain a socialist and my convictions will never change! They are bred into my very bones.”
Mussolini did not move to the right or radically change his political philosophy. He merely rejected one tenet of orthodox Marxism: class must come before nationality or any other group identity. “I saw that internationalism was crumbling,” Mussolini later observed. “The sentiment of nationality exists and cannot be denied.” He thought it was “utterly foolish” to believe that class consciousness could trump national loyalties and culture. Thus was born national socialism, a modification from traditional socialism only in the sense that it was less ambitious in scope and recognized that the natural power of nationalism could be harnessed as a means to socialist ends. Thus Mussolini said that its was “necessary to assassinate the Party in order to save Socialism.” It was this little heresy that would divide Europe’s socialists. And the Italian people would choose national socialism (fascism) over international socialists and communists.
And thus Mussolini came to power as a very popular dictator. He proceeded to create a totalitarian state (a term that he coined) as communism requires: “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” There was hardly a difference between it and the Soviet Union with regard to policy. The State would control everything and had the final authority.
Before his death, he selected a socialist journalist to record some of his last thoughts and wishes: “I bequeath the republic to the republicans not to the monarchists, and the work of social reform to the socialists and not to the middle classes.”
Hitler: Man of the Left
Hitler wrote approvingly of Italian fascism in Mein Kampf: “The appearance of a new and great idea was the secret of success in the French Revolution. The Russian Revolution owes its triumph to an idea. And it was only the idea that enabled Fascism triumphantly to subject a whole nation to a process of complete renovation.” He realized the necessity of having an idea that would arouse the masses.
For years historians have tried to portray Nazism as the polar opposite of Communism. The role of industrialists has been exaggerated while the clear and substantial socialist aspects of Nazism have been ignored or downplayed. Nazism did not destroy the communist Left in Germany; it merely replaced the communists on the Left side of the spectrum in Germany. The fact of the matter is that the working classes (the bloc that typically supported the communists) comprised a substantial part of the Nazis electoral base. German Nazism and Italian Fascism were both populist movements that attracted support from all levels of society. Moreover, the industrial sector came to support Hitler much later than the working masses. Businesses hopped on the band wagon when they saw it was in their best interests.
Like any good leftist, Hitler was a revolutionary and exploited anti-capitalist rhetoric in his rise to power. He despised the bourgeoisie, traditionalists, aristocrats, monarchists, and all believers in the established order. Because he wished to remake German society entirely, he was no conservative! He wrote in Mein Kampf, “Either the German youth will one day create a new State founded on the racial idea or they will be the last witnesses of the complete breakdown and death of the bourgeoisie world.” He rejected traditional Christianity; he wanted to revive Germany’s so-called pre-Christian authenticity, or in other words, to create a modern paganism. He was well read in German mythology and pseudo-history. His idols were [Georg Ritter von Schonerer] and [Dr. Karl Lueger].
He rhetoric mirrored Lenin’s: “Our bourgeoisie is already worthless for any noble human endeavor.” Once he was entrenched in power he clarified his opposition to communism thus: “Had communism really intended nothing more than a certain purification by eliminating isolated rotten elements from among the ranks of our so-called ‘upper ten thousand’ or our equally worthless Philistines, one could have sat back quietly and looked on for awhile.” Hitler didn’t disagree with the German communists in principle or policy, especially with regard to economics; he was enraged at their undermining of Germany with strikes during WW I and antiwar mobilization. He thought they were part of a coalition that had stabbed Germany in the back. Indeed, Hitler often spoke with grudging admiration of Stalin and the communists. Hitler studied Marxism, which both fascinated and repulsed him, appreciating its ideas but becoming utterly convinced that Marx was the architect of some Jewish plot.
Hitler entered the Nazi Party because of a talk given by [Gottfried Feder] entitled “How and by What Means is Capitalism to be Eliminated?” The party stood for everything he believed in, and thus started his career as the party’s best salesman. The Nazis campaigned as socialists.
What exactly did the party stand for? Its [platform] included:
“We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.” Sounds like nanny state liberalism.
“Abolition of unearned (work and labor) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.” Can you say death tax and rent control?
“We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).” That doesn’t sound free market.
“We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries” Hmmm, a “windfall” profits tax?
“We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.” Sounds like FDR’s Social Security, no?
“The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program…. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State….” Sounds like a government monopoly on the schools. Isn’t that what Democrats are for?
“The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.” Hmmm, you think Hitler would have banned trans fats?
“…a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The good of the state before the good of the individual.” This is what liberals mean when they say “the common good.”
“For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich.” Centralization of power in the national government? Does that sound right-wing to you?
Read the [platform] for yourself. There is nothing conservative about it.
Racism was not an element of fascism originally in Italy. Anti-Semitism was an innovation of Hitler’s. Mussolini considered it a silly distraction. But Hitler’s identity politics was powerful and successful (hmmm, which modern American political party practices identity politics?). Of course, anti-Semitism is by no means a right-wing phenomenon. We should not forget that Stalin and Karl Marx himself hated Jews. Jews were seen (and are still seen today to some extent) as the archetypal capitalists. Thus it was only natural that the Left, including Hitler, should hate them!
Nationalism isn’t inherently right-wing at all either. Consider Stalin, Castro, Arafat, Hugo Chavez, Che Guevara, Pol Pot, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. The only reason nationalism came to be seen as right-wing is because the communists, who were internationalists, labeled the fascists as right-wing. Why the heck should we be adopting the political lens of communism in order to find out what fascism really is?!
Nazi ideologist [Gregor Strasser] was straightforward about it: “We are socialists. We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today’s capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money, instead of their responsibility and their performance, and we are determined to destroy this system whatever happens!”
Hitler dedicates an entire chapter in his Mein Kampf to how the Nazis can appropriate socialist and communist imagery, rhetoric, and ideas to attract leftists to the party. The Nazis made use of the color red deliberately: “In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man.”
Hitler would often exaggerate his identity as an “ex-worker”: “I was a worker in my youth like you, slowly working my way upward by industry, by study, and I think I can say as well by hunger.”
Fascism and communism are kindred spirits. As communist ideologue [Karl Radek] noted, “Fascism is middle class Socialism….”
(Reference [Liberal Fascism] by Jonah Goldberg)
Perhaps this will improve your unpleasent disposition...
Life goes on....
Nakhon Sawan Province, also known as "Pak Nam Pho", is where the rivers of Ping, Wang, Yom, and Nan converge and form the Chao Phraya River, the most important waterway of Thailand.
Nakhon Sawan is in the lower northern part of the country between [Northern Thailand] and the [Central Plains]. It is regarded as "the doorway to the North" and it is the hub of transportation in the Lower North.
Not many farang visit Nakhon Sawan, therefore it can be hard to get by if you don't speak at least a few words of Thai.
Correct, MOntweet if one thinks of the scale on the politcal spectrum as a flat line, rather than a circle.True, both are ultimately one form or another of authoritarianism, so they do come around full circle. Can't argue with that.
consider a map as compared to a globe- the globe is more accurate but our minds tend to see flat maps, not globes.
On a circle, communism and facism would meet on one end enventually.
Consider Mussolini.
but I have to ask what the hell are you doing betting on that game?
A friend of mine told me it was a mortal lock LOL
Not only are they old white men, they're stupid old white men...
...well my comments aren't an indictment on white people, or white men, but definitely an indictment on backward thinking, ignorant, angry, old white men in Congress...but even though you and I, and others here, get it, the clown posse continues to repeat their nonsense here daily, and continues to swear they will win in 2008, err...2012, uhh, err....2016??.....and yes, voter suppression didn't work, so gerrymandering and removing the electoral college are the next attacks in line...if you can't beat them...join them... just CHEAT...the American, Republican way...
Good post Red You'll get no argument from mespeaking of stubborn...
The Gop is never going to get
One more time they are intending to not get anything done
The good news is By the time these buffons figure it out, it will be too late
the gop is fading from our view, unaware that they are the problem, and stubbornly refusing to grasp reality
Stubborn may not be the right word, but you know......................
sec-comments, complaints, or criticisms?Red...thanks for your service! Were you drafted or did you volunteer?
The first line of your piece pretty much says it all--small town in Ohio. My guess is had you been teaching in a suburb on the east or west coast, your ideas would have been better tolerated. And here's a bit of military history from one who served. I did most of my Vietnam obligation stationed in the central highlands outside of Pleiku. Ours was a good sized Army base, and a mile or so down the road was an Air Force base similar in size. While stationed over there, we were not allowed to call this a war. Our involvement was a called a police action.
And while the hippy dippy anti-war music was tolerated, it was frowned upon. And yet when making supply runs to the coast, the bases there had a much more relaxed atmosphere.
