The first problem with this piece is that it is written from a mistaken understanding of what socialism is. Socialism is an economic policy in which the State controls various parts of the means and forces of production in order to provide on a (theoretically) equal basis for all persons. Socialism is not "Leftism" -- it is only due to the fact that Marx and the Commies saw socialism as a step to end-stage Communism that people today associate Socialism purely with Leftist ideology. Socialism can be used by any kind of a political system or social system to achieve its ends. Yes, it is historically connected to the Communists as they were the biggest purveyors of Socialism in the 20th Century, but that doesn't mean the economics of Socialism were only used by the Lefties in Russia and forced down the throats of captive nations.
Janiczek misunderstands the core values of Fascism (Nazism being a particular form of Fascism.) She writes:
[W]e have him [Hitler]admitting his socialism. He doesn’t call Nazism by anything else other than National Socialism. Professors I know would be flipping their lids at me for daring to say what I am saying, but I knew they were lying when I was studying this. How could Hitler, who controlled Churches, Media, Schools, the Military, Health Care and everything else, be a right-winger? Was it because he was a racist? So, racism apparently makes a Nazi, or member of the National SOCIALIST German WORKER’S Party a right-winger? How convenient.
Well why don't we let the actual founder of Fascism speak to this, Benito Mussolini in his work, The Doctrine of Fascism:
The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative. Individuals and groups are admissible in so far as they come within the State. Instead of directing the game and guiding the material and moral progress of the community, the liberal State restricts its activities to recording results. The Fascist State is wide awake and has a will of its own. For this reason it can be described as " ethical ".
In Fascism, the State is the literal embodiment of the people. There are no individuals, no groups, and no associations that do not fall under the umbrella of the State. Mussolini was never the huge racist that Hitler was, although he did have a very strong ethnocentrism in that he believed that Italian culture and the Italian people were the pinnacle of human achievement. In that line of thought, he saw Fascism as the ultimate political system of a group of particular people in their nation, united in one purpose: self-glorification through the State.
Both Mussolini and Hitler shared this world view. Therefore, the Nazi and Fascist states controlled every aspect of life of their particular group of people with the purpose of self-glorification of those people. Socialism, as a system in which the State controls the important means and forces of production, was the economic system of this self-glorification. While the Nazis embraced the term "socialist" since they saw Nazism promoting the welfare of the German people, Mussolini was less enthused in calling his system "socialist," as he wrote:
Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes 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 harmonized in the unity of the State.
Neither the Italian Fascists nor the German Nazis made any attempt to wipe out the historic class system that existed in their nations -- rather, they turned the class system to the ends of the State. German and Italian industrialists made huge fortunes in colluding with the political system to gear up for war. Both German and Italian working class people were told their labor was a great build up to national and ethnic greatness, and to work as hard as possible while praising the State.
Now, Janiczek might say "yes, and this sounds a whole lot like what the Commies wanted!" There is however, a very key difference, and this is what separates Communism as a left wing socialistic movement from Fascism and Nazism as right wing socialistic movements.
Neither the Fascists nor the Nazis had any desire to empower other states or peoples. Both in fact saw weaker nations as resources for their own population. Both Fascism and Nazism were glorifications of a particular people in a particular nation. Hitler, for example, saw Britain and the USA as equals as they were powerful nations made up of "Aryan" people -- other European nations might be "Aryan" to some degree, but they were not powerful and so were to be subsumed by the expanding Reich. Mussolini, while not basing his doctrine on race per se, saw the Italian culture as supreme and so justified attacks on other nations as taking over "lesser" groups.
The Commies in principle didn't have this idea at all. As Leon Trotsky wrote:
The present productive forces have long outgrown their national limits. A socialist society is not feasible within national boundaries. Significant as the economic successes of an isolated workers’ state may be, the programme of “Socialism in one country” is a petty-bourgeois utopia. Only a European and then a world federation of socialist republics can be the real arena for a harmonious socialist society.
This is the key difference: Communism in ideology is a system of "brotherhood of man," bringing together all dispossessed people around the globe into the glories of socialist republics. This has always been the Leftist approach since 1789 (and ideologically before). Right wing social policies see a particular group in a particular nation, and acts with hostility toward other groups. Thus, Socialist policies in those nations were for those people in those nations (to wit: Germans and Italians).
Left wing politics in the USA are more accepting of the idea of more open borders, multiculturalism, sharing of wealth among all groups and using the State to ensure this equality. Right wing politics are more toward closed borders, promoting a singular culture in public, and very accepting of the class system and see mobility as a personal goal rather that a social one. The most reactionary Right Wingers, such as Pat Buchanan, live in dread fear that multiculturalism will destroy the "European cultural basis" of the United States. I am not saying that the Right in the USA is "Fascist" any more than I would suggest the Left is "Communist." My point is that both the Left and the Right in the USA have benign characteristics of the horrific, totalitarian systems that developed when either side went to their most extreme.
Once we get past the simplistic idea that Socialism is a "left wing doctrine only," we can see that the socio-political differences between the Commies and the Nazis/Fascists were quite different. However, since both were oppressive, totalitarian systems, they boiled down to using the same repressive techniques to maintain social order. In Western nations, we can have Left/Right discussions and counter-points without resorting to outright murder as our liberal (small "L") systems provide the means of political discourse.
So Janiczek is wrong: Nazism and Fascism were very Right Wing movements. Both used Socialism to empower their particular groups of people while seeing other nations at best as equals, and more often as pawns to be used. Communism, in its internationalist scope was Left Wing, seeing Socialism as the means to the "glorious" (but unattainable) end of Communism. They were not compatible in any way, nor were they mirrors of each other, except in the totalitarian ends they achieved from their particular political ideologies.
No comments:
Post a Comment