MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Nazis’

Three New Deals: Why the Nazis and Fascists Loved FDR | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on December 30, 2019

Mussolini, who did not allow his work as dictator to interrupt his prolific journalism, wrote a glowing review of Roosevelt’s Looking Forward. He found “reminiscent of fascism … the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices”; and, in another review, this time of Henry Wallace’s New Frontiers, Il Duce found the Secretary of Agriculture’s program similar to his own corporativism (pp. 23-24).

https://mises.org/library/three-new-deals-why-nazis-and-fascists-loved-fdr

David Gordon

Critics of Roosevelt’s New Deal often liken it to fascism. Roosevelt’s numerous defenders dismiss this charge as reactionary propaganda; but as Wolfgang Schivelbusch makes clear, it is perfectly true. Moreover, it was recognized to be true during the 1930s, by the New Deal’s supporters as well as its opponents.

When Roosevelt took office in March 1933, he received from Congress an extraordinary delegation of powers to cope with the Depression.

The broad-ranging powers granted to Roosevelt by Congress, before that body went into recess, were unprecedented in times of peace. Through this “delegation of powers,” Congress had, in effect, temporarily done away with itself as the legislative branch of government. The only remaining check on the executive was the Supreme Court. In Germany, a similar process allowed Hitler to assume legislative power after the Reichstag burned down in a suspected case of arson on February 28, 1933. (p. 18).

The Nazi press enthusiastically hailed the early New Deal measures: America, like the Reich, had decisively broken with the “uninhibited frenzy of market speculation.” The Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, “stressed ‘Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,’ praising the president’s style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler’s own dictatorial Führerprinzip” (p. 190).

Nor was Hitler himself lacking in praise for his American counterpart. He “told American ambassador William Dodd that he was ‘in accord with the President in the view that the virtue of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline should dominate the entire people. These moral demands which the President places before every individual citizen of the United States are also the quintessence of the German state philosophy, which finds its expression in the slogan “The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual”‘” (pp. 19-20). A New Order in both countries had replaced an antiquated emphasis on rights.

Mussolini, who did not allow his work as dictator to interrupt his prolific journalism, wrote a glowing review of Roosevelt’s Looking Forward. He found “reminiscent of fascism … the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices”; and, in another review, this time of Henry Wallace’s New Frontiers, Il Duce found the Secretary of Agriculture’s program similar to his own corporativism (pp. 23-24).

Roosevelt never had much use for Hitler, but Mussolini was another matter. “‘I don’t mind telling you in confidence,’ FDR remarked to a White House correspondent, ‘that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman'” (p. 31). Rexford Tugwell, a leading adviser to the president, had difficulty containing his enthusiasm for Mussolini’s program to modernize Italy: “It’s the cleanest … most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious” (p. 32, quoting Tugwell).

Why did these contemporaries sees an affinity between Roosevelt and the two leading European dictators, while most people today view them as polar opposites? People read history backwards: they project the fierce antagonisms of World War II, when America battled the Axis, to an earlier period. At the time, what impressed many observers, including as we have seen the principal actors themselves, was a new style of leadership common to America, Germany, and Italy.

Once more we must avoid a common misconception. Because of the ruthless crimes of Hitler and his Italian ally, it is mistakenly assumed that the dictators were for the most part hated and feared by the people they ruled. Quite the contrary, they were in those pre-war years the objects of considerable adulation. A leader who embodied the spirit of the people had superseded the old bureaucratic apparatus of government.

While Hitler’s and Roosevelt’s nearly simultaneous ascension to power highlighted fundamental differences … contemporary observers noted that they shared an extraordinary ability to touch the soul of the people. Their speeches were personal, almost intimate. Both in their own way gave their audiences the impression that they were addressing not the crowd, but each listener as an individual. (p. 54)

But does not Schivelbusch’s thesis fall before an obvious objection? No doubt Roosevelt, Hitler, and Mussolini were charismatic leaders; and all of them rejected laissez-faire in favor of the new gospel of a state-managed economy. But Roosevelt preserved civil liberties, while the dictators did not.

Schivelbusch does not deny the manifest differences between Roosevelt and the other leaders; but even if the New Deal was a “soft fascism”, the elements of compulsion were not lacking. The “Blue Eagle” campaign of the National Recovery Administration serves as his principal example. Businessmen who complied with the standards of the NRA received a poster that they could display prominently in their businesses. Though compliance was supposed to be voluntary, the head of the program, General Hugh Johnson, did not shrink from appealing to illegal mass boycotts to ensure the desired results.

“The public,” he [Johnson] added, “simply cannot tolerate non-compliance with their plan.” In a fine example of doublespeak, the argument maintained that cooperation with the president was completely voluntary but that exceptions would not be tolerated because the will of the people was behind FDR. As one historian [Andrew Wolvin] put it, the Blue Eagle campaign was “based on voluntary cooperation, but those who did not comply were to be forced into participation.” (p. 92)

Schivelbusch compares this use of mass psychology to the heavy psychological pressure used in Germany to force contributions to the Winter Relief Fund.

Both the New Deal and European fascism were marked by what Wilhelm Röpke aptly termed the “cult of the colossal.” The Tennessee Valley Authority was far more than a measure to bring electrical power to rural areas. It symbolized the power of government planning and the war on private business:

The TVA was the concrete-and-steel realization of the regulatory authority at the heart of the New Deal. In this sense, the massive dams in the Tennessee Valley were monuments to the New Deal, just as the New Cities in the Pontine Marshes were monuments to Fascism … But beyond that, TVA propaganda was also directed against an internal enemy: the capitalist excesses that had led to the Depression… (pp. 160, 162)

This outstanding study is all the more remarkable in that Schivelbusch displays little acquaintance with economics. Mises and Hayek are absent from his pages, and he grasps the significance of architecture much more than the errors of Keynes. Nevertheless, he has an instinct for the essential. He concludes the book by recalling John T. Flynn’s great book of 1944, As We Go Marching.

Flynn, comparing the New Deal with fascism, foresaw a problem that still faces us today.

But willingly or unwillingly, Flynn argued, the New Deal had put itself into the position of needing a state of permanent crisis or, indeed, permanent war to justify its social interventions. “It is born in crisis, lives on crises, and cannot survive the era of crisis…. Hitler’s story is the same.” … Flynn’s prognosis for the regime of his enemy Roosevelt sounds more apt today than when he made it in 1944 … “We must have enemies,” he wrote in As We Go Marching. “They will become an economic necessity for us.” (pp. 186, 191)

Originally published September 2006.

Be seeing you

While Donald Trump flirts with Russia, Eastern Europe ...

FDR with his “Uncle Joe”

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

How to prevent the next Hitler: stop caring | The Daily Bell

Posted by M. C. on November 6, 2019

So who is the next Hitler? Oh just ask around, you’ll get plenty of answers, usually divided along (pretty convenient and suspect) political fault lines.

Instead of caring about this fight, lead by example, make the changes in your own life you want to see in the world. That is the most effective way to manifest your vision of how the world should be.

https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/how-to-prevent-the-next-hitler-stop-caring/

By Joe Jarvis

Hitler cared.

Hitler really really cared about a lot of things. He was passionate. He was dedicated. And he was effective.

Hitler was also a horrible human being. No one to be glorified or emulated.

But you can’t deny he cared about Germany. His passion for righting the wrongs done to Germany led him down a path which caused millions of deaths. Hitler was dedicated to making Germany the ruling power of the earth because he was so god-damn sure in himself, the Aryan people, and their divine destiny.

I apologize for the cliche. They say, whenever someone brings up Hitler, you should leave the conversation. And in general, that’s a good rule of thumb. Usually, at that point, the conversation has devolved into one “side” accusing another of being the most Hitler-like.

Hitler is an easy comparison, the embodiment of evil. I could have said Stalin, or Mao–they did just as much damage if not much more– but then I’d have to explain myself. Hitler gives a nice emotional shot to the brain.

And that’s why Hitler comes out when people get emotional. They accuse someone–or a political party, or a movement–of being like Hitler because they care. They really freakin’ care about the point they are trying to get across. They are passionate about their beliefs and dedicated to their cause.

Which is why “Hitler” is a great signal to stop caring about what they say. Time to walk away and say, you know what, I just don’t care.

And I’m not saying they are necessarily wrong. Maybe they are right to be so passionate. Maybe they see the truth and are just so frustrated and bitter that they can’t help but lash out.

But for every one of those, I guarantee there are a hundred little Hitlers. They’ll never have the opportunity to be as effective as Hitler, thank god, but they would reach such evil heights if they could. And they would do it in the name of their righteous cause that they care so deeply about.

But you can’t tell the difference. So the solution is simple, don’t join a side, don’t evangelize a cause, just stop caring.

Let me pause here before you think I am getting cynical and nihilistic.

Things matter. I’m not saying it doesn’t all make a difference.

Hitler was elected, after all. So it makes sense to have passionate, dedicated people who really care about making sure another Hitler isn’t elected to cause the same destruction.

There were people in Germany who surely saw Hitler for what he was.

Many passionately dedicated themselves to spreading the truth about the evils of Naziism.

Some of these were communists– the same type that got their guy to power in Soviet Russia. Great job guys…

Some were patriots. They just wanted to live a happy life and leave something for their children in the motherland. They probably died, likely turned in to the Gestapo by their own children for grumblings against the Nazis.

And some left. They didn’t care enough to defend the homeland, or elect a communist, or join the Nazis. They lived and thrived. They had children who had children. They passed ideas along, they built things.

So who is the next Hitler? Oh just ask around, you’ll get plenty of answers, usually divided along (pretty convenient and suspect) political fault lines.

But the truth is, everyone has their counterpart on the other side, all passionately screaming to wake up the sheep because– you guessed it– they care.

Look, there is a lot that I care about. I’m not faulting anyone for caring. But in the past, I cared Hitler-style. I was so passionately caught up in what I knew to be right, that I just ended up contributing to the screaming match.

It’s the same screaming match I’m sure you’ve noticed, in which our society is currently engaged. It makes passions flare, it makes people angry, it creates zealots dedicated to their righteous cause.

The problems in society right now are not due to a lack of caring. Apathy is not causing the problems. People care. They just care about different things and haven’t figured out that the best way to solve them doesn’t involve forcing everyone else to bend to your demands.

Instead of caring about this fight, lead by example, make the changes in your own life you want to see in the world. That is the most effective way to manifest your vision of how the world should be.

But if your first inclination is to force everyone else to care about what you care about, try having a little empathy. Maybe that’s not the issue for them. And maybe that doesn’t make them a piece-of-shit Nazi or Commie-scum or whatever.

Maybe it makes them just another human with unique wants and needs, who has had different experiences that put emphasis on different values.

If you don’t care, stay strong, I commend you. Because at least you know you’re not supporting the next Hitler.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Nazis Were Marxists

Posted by M. C. on August 12, 2019

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/11/the_nazis_were_maxists.html#ixzz5w3Sa1N6w

By Bruce Walker

The Nazis were Marxists, no matter what our tainted academia and corrupt media wishes us to believe.  Nazis, Bolsheviks, the Ku Klux Klan, Maoists, radical Islam and Facists — all are on the Left, something that should be increasingly apparent to decent, honorable people in our times. The Big Lie which places Nazis on some mythical Far Right was created specifically so that there would be a bogeyman manacled on the wrists of those who wish us to move “too far” in the direction of Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater. 

The truth about the Nazis was that they were the antithesis of Reagan and Goldwater.  Let us consider the original Nazi movement and its evolution.  The National Socialist movement began in Austria with Walter Riehl, Rudolf Jung and Hans Knirsch, who were, as M.W. Fodor relates in his book South of Hitler, the three men who founded the National Socialist Party in Austria, and hence indirectly in Germany.  In November, 1910, these men launched what they called the Deutschsoziale Arbeiterpartei. That party was successful politically.  It established its program at Inglau in 1914.

What was this program?  It  was against social and political reaction, for the working class, against the church and against the capitalist classes.  This party eventually adopted the name Deutsche Nationalsozialistche Arbeiter Partei, which, except for the order of the words, is the same name as “Nazi.” In May 1918, the German National Socialist Workers Party selected the Harkendruez, or swastika, as its symbol.  Both Hitler and Anton Drexler, the nominal founder of the Nazi Party, corresponded with this earlier, anti-capitalistic and anti-church party.

 

Hitler, before the First World War, was highly sympathetic to socialism.  Emile Lorimer, in his 1939 book, What Hitler Wants, writes about Hitler during these Vienna years that Hitler already had felt great sympathy for the trade unions and antipathy toward employers.  He attended sessions of the Austrian Parliament.  Hitler was not, as many have portrayed him, a political neophyte in 1914.

 

The very term “National Socialist” was not invented by Hitler nor was it unique to Germany.  Eduard Benes, President of Czechoslovakia at the time of the Munich Conference, was a leader of the Czechoslovak National Socialist Party. Ironically, at the time of the Munich Conference, out of the fourteen political parties in the Snemovna (the lower chamber of the Czechoslovakian legislature) the party most opposed to Hitler was the Czechoslovak National Socialist Party. The Fascist Party in Czechoslovakia was also anti-Nazi.

 

The first and only platform of the National Socialist German Workers Party called for very Leftist economic policies.  Among other things, this platform called for the death penalty for war profiteering, the confiscation of all income unearned by work, the acquisition of a controlling interest by the people in all big business organizations and so on.  Otto Strasser, the brother and fellow Nazi of Gregor Strasser, who was the second leading Nazi for much of the Nazi Party’s existence, in his 1940 book, Hitler and I revealed his ideology before he found a home in the Nazi Party.  In his own words Otto Strasser wrote: “I was a young student of law and economics, a Left Wing student leader.”

Consider the following text from that platform adopted in Munich on February 20, 1920 and ask yourself whether it sounds like the notional Right or the very real Left: 

“We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living.  The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all.  Therefore, we demand an end to the power of the financial interests.  We demand profit sharing in big business.  We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.  The government must undertake the improvement of public health.”
Consider these remarks of Nazi leaders.  Hitler on May 1, 1927: 
 “We are socialists.  We are enemies of today’s capitalistic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” 
Goebbels, who was the only major Nazi leader who stayed with Hitler to the very end, wrote in Der Angriff in 1928:


“The worker in a capitalist state – that is his greatest misfortune – no longer a human being, no longer a creator, no longer a shaper of things.  He has become a machine.”

That image sounds almost identical to what Charlie Chaplin, a Marxist, was portraying in his caricature of industrial society, Modern Times.  In 1930, Hitler tasked Hans Buchner to clarify what Nazi economic policies were.  What did Buchner elect to call the economic policies of the Nazis?  “State socialism.” …

Karl Lowenstein in the 1940 book, Governments of Continental Europe, writes that there was a convergence in Bolshevism and National Socialism regarding private property, and that this was clear long before Hitler and Stalin became allies.  Such things as freedom of contract, inviolability of private property, and the right to dispose of one’s estate were cited as examples of the deep-reaching restrictions in both totalitarian states. National Socialists were socialists.  They had nothing but contempt for what socialists call “capitalism” or what normal people call economic freedom.  While it is convenient to portray Nazis as beholden to industrialists and militarists, even from the earliest days Nazis loathed not only industrialists in general but armament makers in particular.  The Nazis raised taxes, punished profits, reduced the power of owners, of managers, and of directors and championed the right of the state or the party to “protect” Germany and German workers from abuses of “capitalists
Nazis were Marxists, through and through.  Although Nazi condemned Bolshevism, the particular incarnation of Marx in Russia, and although the Nazis often bickered and fought with Fascism, the particular incarnation of Marx in Italy, Hitler and his ghastly accomplices were always and forever absolutely committed to that which we have come to call the “Far Left.”  Nazis were Marxists.
Be seeing you
vene social

Is that Sean Penn?

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Ukraine, Nazis and Big Ag

Posted by M. C. on April 6, 2014

If you were to believe the media’s take on the Ukraine you would think President Yanukovych was ousted by a popular upheaval. Yet another color revolution. They are right if you believe the recent color revolutions are the result of another US instigated coup.

Slowly bit surely the truth is coming out. It is now generally accepted everywhere except in Washington and the media that the Ukrainian coup was a US/National Endowment for Democracy project.

But here is an odd twist that the media is playing down. Just as we are aiding and abetting Al Qaeda jihadists in Syria, we have put a Nazi administration in charge of Ukraine.

One of the people Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt were considering for a high government position in their “F* the EU” phone call was Oleh Tyahnybo head of the ultra-nationalist Svoboda party.

Senator John McCain and Victoria Nuland are quite chummy with Tyahnybo when they happen to stop in Kiev.

Who is Oleh Tyahnybo? He his a honcho in Svoboda. What is Svoboda? It is the blatantly pro nazi and fascist party we put in charge of Ukraine.

Tyahnybok’s right hand man Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn is a fan of Joseph Goebbels and founder of the Joseph Goebbels Political Research Center.

You may have seen photos of the US installed current Ukraine president Arseniy Yatsenyuk holding his hand up in nazi style salute. You may have noticed arm bands pictured in recent Ukraine photos that are reminiscent of the swastika. That is a Nazi salute and that is indeed a swastika.

Another US foreign policy masterpiece.

But wait until the IMF buys Ukraine’s debt and forces it to do their bidding.  Don’t think the IMF is giving anything away to the Ukraine.

Which brings us to the real reason we are messing in Ukraine.

Big AG.

Cargill, Monsanto, Lllly and Chevron and Victoria Nuland’s hubby Robert Kagan founder of Project of a New American Century. PNAC, a neocon empire building front.

Big AG with the help of the IMF, neocons and the dupe Obama is going to rape Ukraine for all it is worth.

On Jan. 12,  a reported 50, 000  “pro-Western” Ukrainians descended upon Kiev’s Independence Square to protest against the government of President Viktor Yanukovych. Stoked in part by an attack on opposition leader Yuriy Lutsenko, the protest marked the beginning of the end of Yanukovych’s four year-long government. That same day,the Financial Times a major deal for U.S. agribusiness titan Cargill.Despite the turmoil within Ukrainian politics after Yanukovych rejected a major trade deal with the European Union just seven weeks earlier, Cargill was confident enough about the future to fork over $200 million to buy a stake in Ukraine’s UkrLandFarming. According to Financial Times, UkrLandFarming is the world’s eighth-largest land cultivator and second biggest egg producer. And those aren’t the only eggs in Cargill’s increasingly-ample basket.

On Dec. 13, Cargill announced the purchase of a stake in a Black Sea port. Cargill’s port at Novorossiysk — to the east of Russia’s strategically significant and historically important Crimean naval base — gives them a major entry-point to Russian markets and adds them to the list of Big Ag companies investing in ports around the Black Sea, both in Russia and Ukraine.

Ukraine is an agricultural powerhouse.

Those poor bastards.

I have learned of the book “Old Nazis, the New Right and the Republican Party” by Russ Bellant. Supposedly an expose of our Nazi relations. Looks interesting.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »