HITLER THE LEFTIST

Even among people who think they know their history, it almost always causes a doubletake when I point out the historical evidence which shows that Hitler was a rather extreme Leftist rather than a Rightist. And my recent article to that effect has caused some skeptical emails to flow my way. I thought therefore that it might be interesting to reproduce what one of my better informed correspondents said -- together with my reply. He actually sent me two emails, one after he had come across my blog and another after he had started to read my recent article:

�Regarding your brief notation of the differences between Nazis and British Conservatives, on Oct 10: I do not disagree with the substance of your remarks, but the Nazis most emphatically were not Leftists. The Communists were their sworn blood enemy, and most hierarchical leaders within the Party were so conservative it was painful. That isn't to say Hitler didn't swipe a page or two from Lenin's playbook -- as a matter of fact Hitler really didn't have very many original ideas on revolution or government.

Well, I do take some of this back. The phrase �Beefsteak Nazi� -- �brown on the outside, red on the inside� existed to explain party members who swapped sides, but were far from committed National Socialists. A lot of these members were WW1 veterans who were 'professional' revolutionaries, not really caring where their action came from, just so long as they got to fight. Many, if not most, were purged from the Party before or during �Die Nacht der Langen Messern�

And the second email:

�Your complete article gives several compelling reasons to consider the Nazis just to the right of the Communists. I want to reread it again more carefully when I have the time to actually digest it, and compare it to what I do know of that time. Thanks for the light. I may see something I hadn't really considered before�.


And my reply:

�You are of course right that there was a considerable range of opinion among the Nazis -- as there was among the Bolsheviks -- but Hitler definitely CAMPAIGNED as a Leftist and friend of the worker. The real contest was between Leftists who were nationalists (Mussolini & Hitler) and the rest who were not. And that went right back to very early times. As you know, Mussolini was an intimate of Lenin -- and Fascism is only slightly later than Bolshevism. And that is why they hated one-another -- just as Communists and Trotskyists hate one-another to this day. There is no rivalry more bitter than sibling rivalry.

Have a look at my paper on Hitler here�.

I might also have added that Hitler considered Mussolini to be his teacher and that Mussolini (the founder of Fascism) was a Marxist ideologue who considered (as Trotskyites would also argue) that it was Lenin who strayed off the path of true Marxism.

***************

HUMAN NATURE

A good thought from an interesting but dubious attempt by Marek Kohn to show Leftists that they could find support for their cause by accepting the idea of an inherited human nature:

Inequality was implicit in the formula for Communism: From each according to their ability; to each according to their needs.

***************

IRAQ AND THE LEFT


Some excellent thoughts from Random Jottings:

I've encountered various �anti-invasion of Iraq� arguments lately, and taken swipes at some of them, such as the previous post. But what's starting to keep me awake at night is the question of why. Why exactly are so many so opposed? Why does this one square on the chessboard seem to have an invisible field that repels so many people?.

Because it really feels like there is some unseen something going on. Why do seemingly decent, thoughtful kind-hearted people, as they approach that square, suddenly find the need to pen 99 coldly logical reasons why going there would surely turn out badly? Why are they so cold?

It would be one thing if they first felt tender-hearted towards the horrible suffering of Iraq, and then later began to have qualms about the wisdom of an invasion. But that doesn't appear to be what's happening. It looks to me like a lot of people, mostly on the left, made an instant and visceral decision to oppose an invasion, and only afterwards began to scrape up actual arguments to support this.

And these are the very people who like to label themselves as the good-guys; progressives, anti-fascists, liberals. It's weird.

I've been tending to blame reflexive anti-Americanism, or a political desire not to yield advantages to Republicans; but now I think there's more going on than that. I'm thinking that when people approach that square and suddenly have a vision "of the whole Middle-East being de-stabilized," it is really their own world-view that they sense is in danger of dissolving.

I think it's a world-view in which Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, leftists, whatever; cast themselves as heros. Vanquishing Fascism ... Opposing the Vietnam War ... Heros of the Civil Rights Movement ... champions of the oppressed and the underdog. The Party of the People.

The problem is that, while this world-view may seem solid to them, somewhere deep inside they know they are on shaky ground. Historically, they've swept a lot of inconvenient facts under the carpet, and deep down they know it. And in the world today, a lot more has to be ignored to keep their world-view intact.


****************

Comments? Email me:
Email: jonjayray@hotmail.com.