DiscussMormonism.com

Some very interesting comments from Adolf Hitler, that wascally fascist and anti-communist:

There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia.... I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will

1

The historical fun doesn't stop there:

I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun.... I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order.5

2


1. Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels (New York, Stein and Day, 1982), p. 236.

2. Ibid., p. 197.


Ayn Rand said it well:

It is a tragic irony of our time that the two worst, bloodiest tribes in history, the Nazis of Germany and the Communists of Soviet Russia, both of whom are motivated by brute powerlust and a crudely materialistic greed for the unearned, show respect for the power of philosophy (they call it "ideology") and spend billions of their looted wealth on propaganda and indoctrination, realizing that man's mind is their most dangerous enemy and it is man's mind that they have to destroy — while the United States and the other countries of the West, who claim to believe in the superiority of the human spirit over matter, neglect philosophy, despise ideas, starve the best minds of the young, offer nothing but the stalest slogans of a materialistic altruism in the form of global giveaways, and wonder why they are losing the world to the thugs.

Ahem...

I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun.... I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order.

I just noted here how Mr. Hitler validates exactly one of the primary thesis of Heyek's Road to Serfdom.

If the work of Communism we must wipe out nine-tenths of the population, we should not recoil from these sacrifices

That's a quote from V.I. Lenin, who Zoid has described in this forum as being "modest".

Notice he calls this a "sacrifice".

Kind of reminds me, in a far harsher context, of Robert Reich calling the Clinton tax hikes a "contribution".

Here's another quotation from Mr. Hitler that those who still care to maintain that Nazism and Socialism are oppositional ideologies and are different in kind, should take careful note of:

It is not Germany that will turn Bolshevist, but Bolshevism that will become a sort of National Socialism. Besides, there is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that some Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will.

1

You will notice that this is a fuller quotation of the same quote above. One interesting aspect of this whole thing is that Hitler says that he is following social democracy to its logical conclusion, but that the Social Democrats can never make it work because they are attempting to do it within the framework of democratic institutions. Notice that Hitler's major criticism is aimed at Jewish Marxists, not Marxists per se. Indeed, he even accepts Communists into the Nazi party because of their potential to be good Nazis. He even uses the classic Marxist term "petit bourgeois" to describe Marxists who believe Marxism should be imposed through democratic processes.

Interesting: Socialism contains the seeds of National Socialism. Russia is full of good Communists and potential National Socialists, except where there are Jewish Communists, who screw everything up because they would like a more democratic approach to revolution (shades of the Gramscian approach)

And yet, democratic socialism, if taken to its logical conclusion, will produce something like National Socialism or Bolshevism.

1. Hermann Rauschning, Hitler Speaks: A Series of Political Conversations with Adolf Hitler on His Real Aims (London: Thornton Butterworth, 1939), p. 134

Now, to bring this full circle a bit, a brief quotation from Karl Marx himself:

What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.

Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.

An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society. On the other hand, if the Jew recognizes that this practical nature of his is futile and works to abolish it, he extricates himself from his previous development and works for human emancipation as such and turns against the supreme practical expression of human self-estrangement.

We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development – to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed – has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate.

In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.

So here we see Nazism containing strong socialist elements and concepts, and Socialism containing strong racist elements. National Socialism emphasized one aspect of a collectivist society, and Marxian socialism emphasized another.

Both systems contain aspects of the other, and that's the point.

What's the point of all this?

The only points I ever recall trying to make were:

1) that Lenin's Socialism wasn't what Marx wrote.
2) Nazism wasn't the same as Communism/Socialism


What's the point of all this stuff? IN 50 words or less por favor.

I'll just repost my comment from the religion thread:

The tragic irony is that you don't even know who you are quoting. Ayn Rand said it well:

"Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason."

"every period of history dominated by mysticism, was a period of statism, of dictatorship, of tyranny."

Wait, it gets better: Leonard Peikoff, whose work you also quoted, although he shares your anti-communistic views and doesn't know the difference between communism and socialism either, said:

"You are probably wondering here: "What about Communism? Isn't it a logical, scientific, atheistic philosophy, and yet doesn't it lead straight to totalitarianism?" The short answer to this is: Communism is not an expression of logic or science, but the exact opposite. Despite all its anti-religious posturings, Communism is nothing but a modern derivative of religion: it agrees with the essence of religion on every key issue, then merely gives that essence a new outward veneer or cover-up.
"

And here we have the ominous parallels. Notice how the things they object to in both religion and totalitarianism is the suppression of logic, reason, and individuality. It's pretty sad when your own sources turn against you, isn't it, Coggs? On a side note, although Peikoff hates liberals just like you, he hates conservatives even more and recommends voting only for Democrats and staying as far away as possible from Republicans who you seem to have a soft spot for. Why? Because Republicans tend to be religious.

Case closed. Now would be a good time to retreat with your tail between your legs. Bye-bye.