Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
Contrary to myth, Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship. Indeed, the identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises. FULL ARTICLE
Here is a video of the speech too.
Comments (52)
I've used Mises' arguments in discussion before to help illustrate that -- but I usually start by pointing out that the Nazis called themselves socialists. I mean, that's what their name means -- National Socialists.
Published: November 11, 2005 8:22 AM
This is an excellent article taken from what was no doubt an excellent speech. If anyone has any socialist friends or acquaintances, (I have a few) having them read this essay would be a great way to help them see the destructive nature of their position. Mr. Reisman does an excellent job of showing why Socialism is a violent, tyrannical and destructive creed by its very nature. I think the Institute should publish more speeches like this one that are given at its various conferences, so people who are unable to attend can still benefit from them. Perhaps they do and I am just unaware of it.
Published: November 11, 2005 8:38 AM
And Stalinisim = Marxism = Communism = Socialism "heavy" which is a natural outcome of Socialism "lite". However, eugenics (master race, imperialism, purges, gulags) and other activities are not socialism per-se, but a natural child of the socialistic ("tribal" or "special interest group") mind-set.
I think the real trick is to show people that "socialism" isn't really "socialism". In other words, socialism is like saying that 2+2=3 and when confronted with the contradiction that 2+2 actually equals four, the proponent says "that's not really addition". Wrong. What you believe is addition isn't really addition. Addition really is 2+2=4.
What really IS socialism, i.e. it's actual effects, are denied AS socialism. Until basic logic will be accepted, the corrosive fantasy will continue. And I submit this is very much psychologically driven, perhaps for different reasons. I think a basic understanding of the left-wing (i.e. a modern taxonomy) and analysis of how to "evangelize" different types of people is sorely needed.
Published: November 11, 2005 9:06 AM
Does anyone have an idea what Mises would say about what's happening in China today?
Published: November 11, 2005 9:35 AM
Jim Bradley,
Other than your beliefs about evolution, I agree with a lot of what you have written on this and the other thread.
Published: November 11, 2005 9:41 AM
"For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided ..."
It seems to me that "US government" could be substituted for German government and, sadly, not be far from the current reality of the US economy.
Published: November 11, 2005 11:28 AM
Brilliant clarity again from Dr. Reisman on critical distinctions and definitions--thank you!
I am just as optimistic about out ability to effect change (depending on the strategies employed), but probably less optimistic in my interpretation of the current status (and therefore the hurdles to that change).
One party rule--there are differeces in rhetoric between the two parties; but there is no actual difference that will result in positive change; both parties will go down similar paths on an ongoing basis giving us defacto one party rule. Free Elections are not a real check on power and 98.5% re-election rates reinforced with a rigged game (campaign finance reform) will continue to assure this.
We may not be socialist, but we actually have communist models within the system (public education, for example). With indirect governement control of almost every level of our lives to varying degrees (taxes, regulations, prosecutions, various direct and indirect price controls, etc.), and ownership of significant sectors: roads; money; education; spending on defense, "quasi-fascist" seems somewhat more applicable than "capitalist" (to which Dr. Reisman alludes). The rule of law in favor of private property obviously still exists in the U.S., though under constant assualt and subject to government permissions in almost every way.
Despite the current administration's unfortunate efforts, free speech and civil liberties, at least, are probably more protected than ever. Ironically, this fact may be owed more to the American "left" than anyone, and provide the basis for our opportunity to lead us back to freedom and away from socialism. Reason and Reality will always win. When the final victory comes, we just have to hope that humanity has been on the right side. If not, the manifest irrationality of collectivism will leave us all dead rather than liberated. But that, I suppose, is our challenge!
Published: November 11, 2005 11:56 AM
Great article!
Published: November 11, 2005 11:59 AM
I think there is an error in paragraph 12. T last sentence mentions a "shortage" of pet rocks, but in context and to match the rest of the sentence it would have to be an "over-supply" of pet rocks.
The problem I have with pointing out articles like this to the people I know who I would call "socialist" is that they simply don't believe it. They cannot allow that their "third way" is no third way at all. They simply scoff, call me paranoid, and dismiss everything I have to say out of hand.
Oh well. If they had the capacity to learn from history and think logically, they wouldn't be socialists.
Published: November 11, 2005 12:10 PM
That is a great article by Reisman. It is also worth noting that the swastika, although it was an ancient symbol, was sometimes used to represent overlapping "S" letters for "socialism" under the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-swastika.html
I hope Reisman also explores the connection to earlier national socialists in the USA, including the author of the USA's Pledge of Allegiance (Francis Bellamy) and his cousin (Edward Bellamy). The pledge was the origin of the straight-arm salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. It was not an ancient Roman salute. http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html
Published: November 11, 2005 1:41 PM
"Oh well. If they had the capacity to learn from history and think logically, they wouldn't be socialists." Now that was funny.
Published: November 11, 2005 1:47 PM
Facism ALWAYS comes from the left. Everyone bandies the word fascism but no one knows what it means. The word history is that it comes from the Latin "fascis" or bundle and refers to the ancient Roman magistrate's symbol of authority and power. The symbol of this power was an axe head (The Leader) surrounded by a bundle of rods {the Party}. The embryonic development of fascism is always the same: A powerful person with a strong voice surrounds himself with revolutionaries and takes power. Once you know the devlopmental anatomy it's easy to identify the weed whether it's Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot or Saddam or the always present germ-seed in all of us. Tim Elrod
Published: November 11, 2005 1:51 PM
"The reason for these facts is the socialist rulers' terror of the people. To protect themselves, they must order the propaganda ministry and the secret police to work 'round the clock. The one, to constantly divert the people's attention from the responsibility of socialism, and of the rulers of socialism, for the people's misery. The other, to spirit away and silence anyone who might even remotely suggest the responsibility of socialism or its rulers — to spirit away anyone who begins to show signs of thinking for himself. It is because of the rulers' terror, and their desperate need to find scapegoats for the failures of socialism, that the press of a socialist country is always full of stories about foreign plots and sabotage, and about corruption and mismanagement on the part of subordinate officials, and why, periodically, it is necessary to unmask large-scale domestic plots and to sacrifice major officials and entire factions in giant purges." must be the part RS Weir referred to. It would not require the substitution of many words.
Published: November 11, 2005 1:52 PM
A good article linking the totalitarian aspect of both communism and fascism and calling them both socialism.
I take a little exception to not calling Sweden or other social democracies "socialist". They are socialist in my view.
I remember a question on my Grade twelve final exam which was, "What is the difference between communism and socialism?"
The difference is that communism achieves the totalitarian state through revolutionary means and socialism achieves the totalitarian state through evolutionary means.
The totalitarian state in Germany was achieved through an evolutionary process while the totalitarian state in Russia was achieved through revolutionary means.
Saying that Sweden is not socialist is saying it is not evolving toward a totalitarian state. It is very close to it now. I also would call the US socialist. it is evolving toward a totalitarian state.
Sweden and other socialist democratic nations in Europe will eventually cause discontent among its citizenry because, as Reisman correctly points out, socialism is the wellspring of evil, and that discontent will eventually turn to enough chaos that totalitarianism is the inevitable result. Resistance to the State upon which a large percentage of the citizenry has relied upon for sustenance over such a long period would be minimal. Thus, socialism will achieve its end - the totalitarian State.
I live in Canada and it is a socialist State. Americans joke about it but they are just a few decades behind us in their socialist journey. Canadians, for the most part, believe; because we have elections that we are not socialist.
It is the American Constitution and Bill of Rights that has retarded the march of socialism in the US but socialism is very much ingrained in the American fabric today.
I guess the point I stress is that socialism is an evolutionary process with a final result.
It doesn't do any good to say Sweden is not socialist, they are, and they progress toward the totalitarian state per socialism's definition.
Published: November 11, 2005 3:09 PM
It strikes me that socialism is the genus and fascism and communism the species.
Both are socialism; one maintains the facade of private ownership while the other does not; both are based on the same philosophy and goals. It may be no surprise that the facade is maintained in a more evolutionary situation where the rulers are less able to impose the final solution outright while communism requires a revolutionary catalyst to force it in one fell swoop upon those who might be more resistent to that particular final solution. I'm not convinced one can't have fascism or communism without a single dictator per se (though one may arise of necessity in the model to keep the vile machine together). Sweden IS socialist, of the fascist variety. And the U.S. is certainly on that road. Looking at Europe today, one wonders why they bothered resisting the Nazi's at all. It will be difficult to outright nationalize all industry in the U.S. due to both culture and Constitution, so our socialism will take the fascist form--if the populace continues to embrace those destructive, irrational, anti-human values and that proves to be our end.
Published: November 11, 2005 4:22 PM
It strikes me that the final breakdown of Socialism is people's desire to be Conformists. Conformist always travel in herds and resent Individualism, this is why given enough Conformists they will elect themselves a Socialist government. Trying to convert a Conformist to Individualism is nigh on impossible because all religions are Conformist producing factories. Conformist probably outnumber Individuals at least 10:1 thoughout the western world that figure is much higher except in poor countries where they have to rely on themselves to stay alive. Libertarians will probably never be elected today because of that figure. The US is now a land of Conformists who are gathering strength, Fascism is probably inevitable. Not until everyone is responsible for themselves can Conformism be contained. Probably the only way to stop Fascism/Socialism is the collapse of the fiat monetary system, I would have thought anyway.
Published: November 11, 2005 6:59 PM
I had a civil debate with a friend of mine over whether the nazis were rightist or leftist. The debate was pretty much a stalemate. I argued that the nazis were socialist and therefore leftist. He argued that they and Hitler were controlled by the big business interests and that therefore they were rightist. He also said that the records of the day supported his view. Is this true?
Published: November 11, 2005 7:21 PM
Some big banks and corporations supported Hitler at first, because they thought he was a better alternative than the Bolsheviks. But the Nazis ended up controlling business, and not the other way around. From Mises' Bureaucracy (1944):
There are more good writings on this era at mises.org, some with references to historical works which you can look up.
Published: November 11, 2005 8:26 PM
Nice article, however Mr. Reisman is wrong. He and those commenting here should give Hayek’s "Road to Serfdom" a read. Socialism and Fascism/Nationalism are diametrically opposed. They just end up at the same point--totalitarian dictatorship.
Hayek discusses how the growth of socialism causes those that pay for it to try to use their resources to control it (government). This result is Corporatism that controls the political process/government. Socialism on the other hand works to ultimately persuade the masses to empower them to control business/wealth for the “people’s� benefit—as demonstrated by Chaves’ government in Venezuela.
Hayek uses the Nazis example and how they came about in the see-saw struggles for control of the German government post WWI. The Nazi won out over the socialists, but they both slowly killed off democracy.
One sees a similar, though less dramatic struggle in the US. The left/liberals are more socialist while the right/conservatives are more nationalist. The two sides vie for power leading to a more polarized electorate every election/4-years; Think blue-state red-state.
If you haven’t read “Road to Serfdom,� please get a copy ASAP and read it. It will help you understand much of what is going on in the world and the US.
Published: November 11, 2005 9:02 PM
"... those commenting here should give Hayek’s "Road to Serfdom" a read. Socialism and Fascism/Nationalism are diametrically opposed ... This result is Corporatism that controls the political process/government."
You won't find any support for these statements in Hayek.
Near the end of chapter II, in a footnote, is a quote from one of Hitler's speeches:
The title of chapter XII of Hayek's book is "The Socialist Roots of Nazism".
In chapter XIII he discusses the attempts of corporations to achieve power and wealth in a totalitarian state:
Published: November 11, 2005 10:11 PM
I would like to address Mr. Caldwells' comments.
Mr. Reisman is not wrong. Right and left politics is passe. The two were invented as a dialectic - polar opposites, even though they are not. They were presented to the citizenry as "choices". Choice gave it credibility as being democratic. We could move toward scoialism on the left or....socialism on the right. It is a communist ploy of dialectical materialism. There is no where to go but socialism.
A totalitarian state, the end goal of both communism and socialism of whatever flavor, Stalinist, Maoist, Hitlerian, etc., is the overwhelming of the individual in favor of the State. There really is no difference to the man on the street. He sees only the State. The only movement away from socialism is towards anarchy, and so, a logical political spectrum would illustrate that fact. The left/right political spectrum is a confusing distraction. Its design being, as previously mentioned, to give democracy the illusion of choice and thus the illusion of freedom.
Published: November 11, 2005 11:46 PM
Anyone paying attention knows this is a pack of lies.
I don't know which is worse - Reisman writing it or Mises posting it.
"In the United States at the present time, we do not have socialism in any form. And we do not have a dictatorship, let alone a totalitarian dictatorship.
We also do not yet have Fascism, though we are moving towards it. Among the essential elements that are still lacking are one-party rule and censorship.
We still have freedom of speech and press and free elections, though both have been undermined and their continued existence cannot be guaranteed."
Published: November 12, 2005 2:35 AM
Could you explain your disagreement, Goldie?
Published: November 12, 2005 2:45 AM
Can I help Goldie?
On Michael Leavitts bio at http://www.hhs.gov/about/bios/dhhssec.html it states that "he manages the largest civilian department in the federal government, with more than 66,000 employees and a budget that accounts for almost one out of every four federal dollars." I assume a federal dollar is a euphemism for tax money, which he then spends on welfare programs. So if 25% of all taxes are spent on welfare surely that must be a good sign of functioning Socialism?
Published: November 12, 2005 3:28 AM
Professor Reisman's article makes a very good read. I would only disagree with his judgement of the two most important authors on the subject being Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand's fiction, in my opinion, has little to contribute to the study of economics.
There are many other writers whose works are far more important to the study of the failures of socialism and collectivist ideals. One is Hayek, who certainly qualifies more as a serious writer and thinker than the insane, second rate novelist who continues to fascinate some libertarian intellectuals.
Rand was a flake whose writings I found unbearably tedious and whose fanatical support for the GOP repulsed me when I was young. Eventually, her cult following will drift completely out of libertarian circles, as it has been doing steadily for the last 20 years. I won't be sorry to see her influence pass away.
Published: November 12, 2005 5:25 AM
This article is a bit of a screed. Like many geniuses who were also ideologues, Mises liked to stuff reality into simple categories and to see things as either black or white. Nuances were never his strong suit. He liked polemics.
His tedious insistence that Nazi Germany was "socialist" was a good example of these weaknesses. The Nazi government left most of the German economy in private hands, supressed labor unions and socialist parties, and promoted a nationalist and racist ideology that was antithetical to the socialist tradition. Using the word "socialist" to describe such a country is special pleading, not social science.
To be sure, Nazi Germany wasn't "capitalist" either -- that's a false move that many leftists make in order to discredit free markets. It's the mirror image of the false argument made by Reisman.
Hopefully, the Austrians who read this blog can see that political/economic systems can't be reduced to two or three basic types. Maybe they can even see that Nazi Germany was -- what an insight! -- fascist. But that might be hoping for too much.
Published: November 12, 2005 10:35 AM
Bravo, well written piece by Mr. Riesman. As to the lack of labeling the US as a Fascist or Oligarchy state, I wondered at what point it might become okay to do so? Do the flags have to be apparent to all or reach a certain level of acknowledgement before we become more comfortable with calling a spade a spade? Perhaps the original definitions have to be expanded? Why should the manifestation of systems be constrained to fixed interpretations when none of the economic or political modalities are isolated from each? Is it not possible that Fascism and Oligarchy can cloak themselves based upon the factors du jour?
I would also add that discounting an author, such as Rand, as the noted reader above has done, does not bode well for open thought. The masses cannot be fed from a single source and it better serves all of us to absorb and consider the merits of all sources. To properly market a concept requires tailoring a message to segments and her writings contributed to an awareness in society that may not take an individual all to the way to the finish line, but will prompt them into the race of knowledge exploration. I see authors merely as the batons one runs with for a time before a person is ready to hold another baton at a different stage of exploration.
Published: November 12, 2005 10:36 AM
I join the many readers in congratulating George Reisman for his fine article. I agree with his conclusions across the board, including: Nazism is socialism; its policies resulted in chaos, economic crimes, and totalitarianism; the United States does not have socialism, but our interventionist policies are disastrous and incur anger & resentment; socialism is above all, wrong ideas; the two most important authors to correct these ideas are Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand.
Here, I would differentiate between the roles of von Mises and Rand. The former is of course the quintessential economist, and provides the needed support for the free market. However, he is a utilitarian, who is primarily concerned with material consequences. Ayn Rand supplements this with the moral case for capitalism, and provides a philosophic foundation. I do believe that there is more to morality than what has been validated by Objectivism. In particular, there are other aspects of morality, often found in religion, that also counter totalitarianism. My only point is that in addition to the imperative for promulgating such ideas as those of von Mises and Rand, it is also advisable for their teachings to be built upon, rather than taken as the end of understanding. This I believe is done by authors such as Dr. Reisman.
Published: November 12, 2005 11:40 AM
A few comments seem give one the impression that they think socialism a static state and end in itself.
The totalitarian state should be differentiated from socialism. The totalitarian state is not all that socialism is. It is the goal of socialism.
Goldie expresses the same concept of her America as do Canadians regarding their "Democracy".
Socialism is not a static state. It is a transition towards the above stated goal. If you do not see, Goldie the growth of your government and the overwhelming cry of the people to "democratically" demand more from its government, contributing to the inexorable eventuality, of complete State dependence for ones' subsistence then you are probably too trusting of government. A government of the size of yours could one day be taken over by someone you do not like and may well replace your constitution with another one. Dependence upon that government will override opposition to its activities.
Published: November 12, 2005 1:23 PM
No lack of things to comment on...
1. Political continuum (left , right, etc.) the primary flaw in this approach is assuming that "right" versus "left" represents alternative principles. They do not. Although terms like conservative and liberal may have some general conversational uses---each representative of a different bag of various contradictory beliefs jammed together--at the end of the day, the continuum is based on the same basic acceptance of various degrees of altruism and state control. If one wants to simplify to this level (which can be analytically valuable to a limited degree at times), it requires two different continuums: individual liberty as a morally right end in and of itself and the other one a belief in the state, either in absolute control or one permitting and granting rights. Naturally, on the liberty continuum we can have a vigorous debate about limited goverment (existing solely to protect the rights we have by our nature) versus anarchy, etc. But the basic principle is unrelated to the statist continuum on which the common use of the terms Right and Left exist. If you consider yourself on the "Right" in America, you are accepting some aspect of the altruist/statist premises on which its government (and increasingly, its culture)is now based.
Ayn Rand: One can certaily take issues with, certain aspects of Objectivism if one wants, and diverse opinions on her fiction naturally exist; but to assume the argument for liberty is an economic one, not a philosphical one, shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the issues at hand. If it were only economic, we would live in a libertarian paradise right now. Separated from a proper moral framework, there is no human justification for freedom versus any other options one might randomly fall into. If her "cult" following falls away and no moral defense for capitalism takes its place, we might as well fold up our tents now and go home. Pragmatism/utilitariansim is not a formula for human flourishing and will never lead to a an environment of consistent liberty.
Published: November 12, 2005 4:23 PM
There's a signicant difference between Rand and Mises: for Mises value was subjective, for Rand "value" had no meaning unless it supported life, hence her belief values were truly objective. Reisman has (to my knowledge) not united the tension. I could have missed it as his magnum opus "Capitalism" is such a monumental work I probably have forgotten a significant part of it.
Published: November 12, 2005 5:52 PM
Here is a funny cartoon on this subject.
Published: November 12, 2005 6:41 PM
Thanks for this article. I went to a few socialist group meetings a couple of years ago when the anti-war movement was at its peak. These groups always recruit whenever the US government starts another war, and being a political newbie I was sucked in for a couple of months. It didn't last though as I began to realize that if these people ever actually took power it would be time to head for the hills. This article crystalizes a lot of my disorganized thoughts about why socialism always made me vaguely uncomfortable no matter how appealing the rhetoric was.
Thanks again.
Published: November 12, 2005 9:42 PM
I agree with Don Beeezly that the argument for liberty is not solely economic, but also philosophical and moral. As he says, pragmatism and utilitarianism cannot capture all that is needed for human flourishing. Moreover, Ayn Rand has made a philosophical and moral case for capitalism (which she defines as a complete social system rather than strictly an economic one).
I also concur with Jim Bradley that “for Mises value was subjective� whereas Rand’s values were objective. (In particular, Rand differentiates between the philosophically objective value and the socially objective value.) Moreover, it is advisable that the differences between Mises and Rand be ironed out, and Dr. Reisman seems like the man for the job.
Mises and Rand, despite some differences, are generally on the same side, and are mutually supportive. Mises is surely correct in that value originates within the subjectivity of the individual, and this is consistent with Rand’s emphasis on happiness as one’s highest moral purpose. Similarly, Rand’s view on objective values is consistent with the Austrian view of price as an objective determinant.
What is more important is that man has both a subjective and an objective nature. This is a dichotomy, rather than a matter where one component exists, while the other is merely derivative. Thus the human dimension cannot be fully reduced to what is technical or scientific. Allow me to present one reason for why that position is untenable. Science verifies a theory by objective considerations. Here there is validation by measurements which are inter-subjective. That is, what is found by one person can be found by another, such as each determining that an object is 1 pound. Consequently, science finds that which all of us (with certain minimum capabilities) can determine. Yet, there are also things that some can see, and others cannot, or will see differently. This in particular applies to intuition, where some sense a pattern that goes against what others feel exists. To deny such matters would counter the very creativity that has sustained man.
I apologize if the above has not been helpful or cogent. My intent has not been to provide answers to the contrast between Mises and Rand, but to emphasize the need to do so.
Published: November 13, 2005 8:57 AM
"Does anyone have an idea what Mises would say about what's happening in China today?"
I believe he would call it Mercantilism. China is patterning itself after Japan, without messy stuff like democracy getting in the way.
China poses a real dilema because on the one hand it appears to an un-regulated free-market orgy, but on the other hand it is a socialist nightmare with slave labor and a totalitarian government.
I really don't know what to make of China except that to this point the idea that free-market capitalism will ultimately lead to democracy has turned out to be false.
Published: November 13, 2005 9:10 AM
Capitalism is democratic only in the sense it is participatory. You can consider your voting to be undertaken every time you invest or spend your money.
Every dollar I spend on a Big Mac is a vote in favour of McDonalds and its continued existence. Similarly were I to donate money to the local school, I am voting for its continued existence (of course I do not do this as I want them gone).
Representative democracy is a form of fraud. It is based on the careless notion that entire populations can trust a professional politician to "represent" their interests collectively. A simple example shows why this can't work.
My neighbour is of the opinion that the death penalty is a proper action to be undertaken by the state for particlar "crimes." I disagree with him. We have the same member of parliament to "represent" us. That MP can't "represent" both of us. He would either decide that the death penalty is OK or that it isn't. And he would do that according to his own point of view. He "represents" no-one but himself.
The local MP does not know me or my neighbour. We've never met the man. Yet he would say that he does "represent" us and our interests. He would claim to speak on our behalf. How silly is that? Clearly based on a falsehood.
DS,
China is not Capitalist or free-market. As you indicate, it is a totalitarian state. As such, it has more in common with a representative democracy than with Capitalism.
Capitalism and representative democracy are not related. One does not lead to the other.
Published: November 13, 2005 6:15 PM
Great article! As someone who had years of experience of growing up and working under the late Soviet regime (hey, I even got a gold medal for achievements in advancing the socialist economics:) I can say that the description matches the reality of socialist life (maybe some minor details are off, like the conjecture that rules feared the populace... heh, that band of thugs feared their comrades even more). There's also no mentioning of the necessary ingredient in shifting the blame: the external Enemy. Socialism by necessity creates wars.
Published: November 14, 2005 12:31 AM
Essay describes the miserable living conditions in Norway and Sweden? No, essay confuses socialism and communism.
Socialism seems to operate decently in a small country united by "race," relion, culture, and history where the country is more like an extended family than a nation of individuals.
Published: November 14, 2005 11:45 AM
billwald
You have got to be joking! I can tell you from direct experience that living in a small country under the yoke of socialism is not a pleasnt experience. Socialism does not work. It fails everywhere.
For a start, socialism is not about extended family life. It goes directly against family life. Socialism is about stealing and defrauding. Any family that is based on those socialist ideals would soon cease to be a family.
Next, even the people living in a small country (as I did), are not all part of an extended family. The very notion a socialist mess is similar to an extended family is completely false.
In many ways having a socialist system in a small country is worse than in a big country. It is easier for the govt. to control people. It is harder for individuals to accumulate wealth without interference. The culture is more uniform and compliant. It is harder for an individual to remain unnoticed for long if he or she is "different." That is, a person who does not toe the socialist line is more easily identified and observed.
The fact that people in smaller countries may share such things as race, religon, culture, history, national myths and other ideas makes no difference to the nature of socialism or how it operates or its results.
Socialism is against the individual just as surely as it is against family. After all, what is a family made up of? Individuals.
I respectfully submit you try living in a small socialist country for a few years!
Reismann certainly does not confuse socialism and communism. He has it right on.
Published: November 14, 2005 2:25 PM
Actually, this is a common feature of all religious and quasi-religious cults: when something gets seriously wrong, the True Believers start saying that their hapless peers did not follow the "true" doctrine - and then proceed to do exactly the same things.
Communisim is a socialist eschatology, not a realistic or existing social order. It is just plain stupid to claim that Soviet system was communistic - in fact, in was never claimed to be such by the communists themselves (the official definition taught in schools was "mature socialism"). Communism figured only as some undefined happy future, never specific, and always very short on details. Exactly like Christian Heaven.
The American or European socialism is not different from Soviet socialism in anything of consequence. The difference is only of degree of penetration of the population's minds.
Published: November 14, 2005 4:32 PM
Averros - you'd have to be more specific in your criticism. If a car is assembled wrongly, it's not incorrect to say that the engineering diagrams weren't followed and that's why it doesn't run.
Socialists do more than that. Socialists are making claims about the nature of man (all social systems do). They believe "corporate man" to be greedy and sinful but "government man" to be good and upright.
Frankly I think people choose worldviews based more on personality than any other factor. So the psychological underpinnings are what has to be addressed. Dazzling logic will not convince ...
Published: November 15, 2005 3:46 PM
Jim:
Because of the surprising discussions i've had with old friends of mine, your comments regarding the socialist’s view of man really struck a chord with me.
"corporate man" greedy and sinful vs "government man" good and upright
The thing is that this mentality has infiltrated and permeated the minds of so many people from all points of view. It seems to me that even entrepreneurs have been taught subliminally to hold this view despite themselves.
Besides personal inclination, I also attribute this to the socialists’ control over the schools (the state's number one propaganda dispenser). You're right, dazzling logic is not persuasive, especially against years of subtle indoctrination. Sometimes when i think about it, it strikes me as miraculous that any adult libertarians exist at all.
By the way, I got a hoot watching the part in Serenity where the little girl explains to her teacher why people hate their government. It was great, until she had to stay after class and recite lines.
Published: November 15, 2005 4:17 PM
Jim - I was merely talking about confusion regarding the use of the word "communism". Billward seemed to say that because "communism" is different from socialism, what went in USSR and Nazi Germany bears no relation to softer European and American socialism.
Published: November 15, 2005 10:16 PM
One of the most interesting aspects of all of this, to Jim and Pauls comments, may be "why people believe what they believe."
But the socialist characterization of the greedy Corporate Man versus the all-wise altruist providing gentle tutelage to us in goverment may be more means than ends. I would suggest that there is a common element of human nature that drives all of this--the desire for security/certainty. We all (socialist, capitalist or otherwise) desire a degree of certainty--where is our next meal coming from, where will we sleep tonight, etc. But then the philosophical/psychological paths diverge. One party with the belief that greater certainty (security) can be achieved through an ethic of INdependence and the other the belief that greater certainty can be achieved though an ethic of DEpendence. This is why philosphy and a postive sense of life--a personal sense of efficacy--is so critcal to winning the battle for liberty. Anyone who doesn't believe in the basic ability of human beings to cope with the world around them will be more inclined to follow the path of believing dependence is the key to security--why wouldn't they? And I have no criticism of their desire for security--I share it. But I criticise their philosophy and concomitant psychology that leads to a sub-human existence of surrending oneself and one's rights to others. Socialist "leaders" exploit this weakness by characterizing the "greedy" capitalist who will take advantage of the "incompetent" little guy. The irony, of course, is that it is such leaders who are insecure in their (lack of belief in) humanity and are morally corrupt.
This also relates to why this is primarily a philosphical battle and not an economic one.
Published: November 16, 2005 11:04 AM
Don:
If the philosophical problem you are alluding to is the common lack of sound ethics, then i agree. Our schools raise kids to not give a second thought to the premise that it is ok for John to steal from Jane, as long as he at least puts up a pretence to give some of the loot to the more needy Paul or at least to some great and altruistic general cause.
They learn it is even better for them if they can construe themselves to in fact be that needy Paul, or at least be the beneficiary of the wealth transfer. This is, in fact to them Democracy and liberty: it is the freedom to leach off of and steal from others and the right to vote for John the thief of their choice. It's not just ignorance of economics that holds us back; it's our utter lacking in valid ethics.
Published: November 16, 2005 1:05 PM
Paul:
Assuming ethics is a conclusion drawn from a prior premise (such premise in the areas of metahysics and epistemology), if one's basic premise is that, metaphysically, the nature of reality requires dependency (rather than independence) for human security and flourishing, then leaching off of others is a natural, ethical, logical conclusion. If that really WAS the nature of reality, it might have moral (ethical) standing. Of course, that is NOT the nature of reality (despite government's best efforts to make life hard!), and such behavior, whether you rob people directly or hire thugs or goverment to do it for you, is extremely immoral, as you note.
To your point, public education and many other venues do their best to ignore reality, and start kids out upside down with the asumption that mutual plunder is the best way to live--give them bad ideas and then try to destroy their conceptual faculties so they can't figure it out on their own; quite a racket!
Published: November 16, 2005 2:33 PM
Reisman is right on.
A perfect example of precisely the conditions Reisman refers to, is modern Cuba:
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=163059878&p=y63x6x584
In regards to the US being socialist, there are clearly groups in the US whose aim is to overthrow the current order and impose socialism. These groups attempt to gain their goal through incrementalism.
However, I agree with Reisman that the US cannot be considered truly socialist, if the definition of socialism is government control of the means of production. There are many regulations to guide and nudge, but the US government in no way dictates what will produced or to whom it will be distributed.
People colloquially use the term "socialist welfare state" to refer to the US and Western Europe, but by and large we are still pretty free to do business as we see fit.
To me, one of most concerning trends in the US is government seizure of private property for someone else's private redevelopment. This pretty clearly crosses the line from regulation to outright total control of assets by the government.
Published: November 20, 2005 12:51 PM
Another rightist propaganda eh?You rightist(NAZI/Fascist/Corporate pigs)bastards are out of the line.And by the way,actual socialism nor communism has never existed so were is your base?What you would want to compare to your topic is "state capitalism" to your liberal capitalism.
Published: December 1, 2005 5:49 AM
why does hayek believe the evils of national socialism were rooted in an anti liberal understanding of the world that was shared by socialists and german traditionalists alike?
Published: November 28, 2006 11:13 AM
The Acton Institute is a great resource for liberty, too.
Published: November 28, 2006 11:59 AM
no
Published: March 2, 2007 10:59 AM
Not only was the National Socialist German Workers Party socialist, its symbol was used to represent meshed S-letters for their "Socialism." American socialists (e.g. Edward Bellamy and Francis Bellamy teamed with the Theosophical Society and Freemasons) also bear some blame for the notorious symbol used by the National Socialist German Workers Party.
http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-swastika.html
The same symbol was used by the Theosophical Society during the time when the Bellamys, Freemasons and the Theosophical Society worked together. They also helped spread the stiff arm salute via the Pledge at their meetings.
The symbol was used as alphabetical symbolism for socialism, and adopted later by German socialists as their flag symbol. Although an ancient symbol, was altered for use as overlapping S-letters for 'socialism.' It was deliberately turned 45 degrees counter clockwise and always oriented in the S-direction. Similar alphabetic symbolism is still visible as Volkswagen VW logos.
American Socialists also created the stiff-arm salute of German socialism. The early Pledge of Allegiance (created by Francis Bellamy in 1892) used a straight arm salute, not the modern hand over the heart.
http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html
Edward Bellamy's book "Looking Backward" was an international bestseller that launched the nationalism movement worldwide. Edward's book was translated into every major language, including German. They wanted government to take over all schools and impose robotic chanting to flags. The Pledge's early right-arm salute was not an ancient Roman salute, and the 'ancient Roman salute' myth came from the Pledge.
People were persecuted for refusing to perform robotic chanting to the national flag at the same time in the USA and Germany (to the American flag, and to the German symbol flag). All of the above are modern discoveries by America's leading authority on the Pledge of Allegiance, the historian Dr. Rex Curry (author of "Pledge of Allegiance Secrets").
Published: April 15, 2007 12:32 AM