I am considering starting a new feature here at Make me a Commentator!!! As some of you know, my original training is in history, and it’s still a passion of mine. It also occurs to me that many commentators speak about history without saying anything correct or meaningful. So perhaps, every so often, I’ll help set the record straight.
One thing Mr. Rush Limbaugh has said was that the Nazi movement was a liberal movement. Mostly he said this around the time of Germany’s statements against invading Iraq, which was, I admit, a while ago.
His argument was that the official name of the Nazis was the National Socialist Workers Party. So right there you see that it has socialism right in the title. And the name mentions workers as well, and as we all know, Conservatives are incapable of caring about the welfare of workers (for those who don’t know, that was a combination of sarcasm and telling commentary. Why does being for the workers make you a Liberal?).
Obviously this argument is refuted by an old analogy: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and you call it a Socialist, well, it just might be a duck, but don’t tell anybody. The name proves very little.
The other argument revolves around the mobilization of the German economy for the war effort. Of course, we did the same thing here in the United States, but FDR did it, so maybe it was socialist.
So if I’m going to tell you that Nazism/Fascism was an extreme form of conservatism, what do I mean by conservative? I discussed this in a post down the page, entitled Conservatives Doom, Conservatives Triumph, in which was proposed two faces of Conservatism, the Libertarian and Traditionalist.
Now returning to our original subject—can the Nazis/Fascists be said to be Libertarian Conservatives? No. Personal liberties were totally irrevellent to them. What was important was the health of the state, whether it was Germany or Italy.
But can the Nazis/Fascists fit as (much more extreme) Traditionalist Conservatives? I would argue yes.
“The National Socialist movement of what was then the Worker’s Party adopted as its first principle the realization that the Marxist movement was to be fought to the end; second, the realization that the revolution as a consequence of Marxism and of an unprecedented criminal act, was not a matter of the German Bourgeoisie becoming national once more; the problem is that the German people, the broad masses, must be made national again. This means not just a pure, I mean passive, return to nationalism, but an active fight against those who have ruined it till now.”
Adolf Hitler
Note the focus on building a specifically German unity. One of the strikes against Marxism was it’s international flavor—Communism of almost any form asks a nation to abandon it’s separate culture and ideals in favor of a unity along class lines. One can also look at the Programme of NSDAP. This was a program presented on February 24, 1920 and was accepted by the party. Note these provisions:
8. All non-German immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after 2 August 1914 shall be required to leave the Reich forthwith.
20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence not offend the moral feelings of the German race.
There are also planks related to the press, the importance of a strong military, and hints of the Nazi Economic program. The economic program is important, because it is one of the more common points used to indicate that Nazism was socialist. It was not. While some of the actions were similar (i.e. the management of some German industry was transferred to governmental control), the justifications were quite different.
“We therefore demand in the economy a soldierly conduct within and without. For, if the leader of a business runs it without regard to the economic independence of the nation, but only with a view to the highest possible profits, it will inevitably destroy the social peace within his company. His employees will be bound to adopt the same attitude . . .”
Werner Daitz
This economic plan rejects any sort of internationalism. It is also minimizes the possible uplift of the German workers, except in the sense that as the German people defeat their enemies all German’s will profit. But it is the life of the state as a whole that comes first, not any individual class or group.
In closing, I do want to make it clear that I do not believe that traditionalist conservatives are somehow equivalent to Nazis, any more than I believe those on the left are the equivalent of Stalinists. They have some things in common, to be sure, but American traditionalists have not, and, I believe, will not be willing to abandon the principals of Freedom of Expression or Freedom of Thought, which ideas form the backbone of what it means to be America.
No comments:
Post a Comment