Communist And Fascist Fraternity

Littlechild@emperorsnuclothes.com/ May 17, 2018/ Uncategorized

It has long been a leftist trope that Hitler’s Nazi Party was an “extreme right wing” organization. This categorization conveniently (for leftists) distances them from the horrendous atrocities committed in the first half of the 20th century by the Nazis. I have long been suspicious, however, of this categorization. My suspicions began years ago while considering the formal name that was chosen for the Nazi Party. In German it is:

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei

In English:

National Socialist German Worker’s Party

Now it should be obvious that the prominence of the term “Socialist” would not be apropos if the party was truly “right wing” in nature. Text books on the subject gloss right over this contradiction saying the name didn’t really MEAN what it SAYS and was used only for propaganda purposes, et cetera, et cetera. But wait! What if it DID mean what it says? What if we SHOULD take the Socialist moniker in Nazism seriously? What if the term was chosen carefully (as Germans tend to do most things)? What if Nazi socialism is REAL?

I’ve been told by some apologists for the left, that main stream scholars are virtually unanimous in considering Nazism “right wing” and that only “crack pot” authors think differently. I was surprised, however, when roughly a half hour’s research yielded a list of MANY respected scholars and authors that share a contrarian point of view.

There are even readily accessible books by distinguished authors on the subject, two of which I’ll mention here. The first is by acclaimed scholar Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. Professor Kuehnelt-Leddihn taught at Georgetown University, Fordham University and others. His book, Leftism from de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot (Regeney Gateway, 1990) covers this topic in depth. Next, is acclaimed scholar Vladimir Tismaneanu. Professor Tismaneau taught at the University of Pennsylvania as well as the University of Maryland and was elected to the board of the Fulbright Institute and was a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Institute for International Scholars. One of his books is: The Devil In History: Communism, Fascism and Lessons from the Twentieth Century (University of California Press, 2014). I was able, by the way, to obtain both books easily through Amazon.com.

Reading further, I encountered the work of scholar and political activist Nikolai Tolstoy (yes, he’s a member of author Leo Tolstoy’s family). Count Tolstoy responded to another writer’s claim that Hitler was an “arch conservative” by asking: “What, indeed, was, ‘conservative’ about ending Germany’s monarchy, ending its aristocracy, denigrating its church, disrupting its military hierarchy, disrupting its judiciary and ignoring the rights of small nations?” What, indeed? (Thanks MO for the reference)

So, it seems that quite a few distinguished authors and scholars do, indeed, recognize the leftist nature of Nazism. So, why do many in academia present the opposite point of view as an open and shut case?

Commentator and conservative activist Dinesh D’Souza thinks he knows why. The answer, he says, is simply that it’s politically expedient subterfuge. D’Souza (an author with a dozen NYT bestseller books to his credit), writes in the National Review, that the branding of Naziism as “right wing” is “the big lie”. He maintains that the “right wing” moniker was created by left wing proponents and was swallowed up by complicit academics, a gullible press and those with leftist agendas. It was designed, he says, to distance the left from the Nazis and the atrocities they committed, thereby rendering the leftist meme more palatable to American and European tastes, which were, of course, extremely wary of Nazis at the conclusion of the Second World War.

Similar arguments to D’Souza’s have been made by Richard Kirk (author of “Moral Illiteracy”), Jonah Goldberg (writing for the New Yorker, The Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times, and also the author of the book “Liberal Fascism”) and others.

But, at this point, I’d like to shift from surveying scholarly opinion and, instead, do a bit of my own analysis. As with any analysis, we should begin with what WE KNOW about Nazism, Communism, and their similarities:

1) Both are totalitarian.
2) Both are populist.
3) Both are expansionist.
4) Both are collectivist.
5) Both are militaristic.
6) Both are extremely punitive toward dissent.
7) Both make use of coercive and intimidating tactics.
8) Both are accepting of horrific violence for political ends.
9) Both are, in essence, anti religious.
10) Both make excellent use of youthful idealism and naiveté.
11) Both make excellent use of propaganda.
12) Both started as WORKERS movements.
13) Both are quite intolerant of free speech.
14) Both have a utopian ethos.

Now, the differences:

1) National Socialists (Nazis) allowed the continuation of private property whereas International Socialists (Communists) did not.
2) National Socialists (Nazis) were more anti Semitic than International Socialists (Communists), although it should be recognized that Stalin was a strong antisemite.
3) National Socialists (Nazis) were headquartered in Berlin whereas International Socialists (Communists) were headquartered in Moscow.

So, when we look at this issue critically, there is NOT, as they say today, a lot of “daylight” between the two movements. So when today’s youth run willy nilly to embrace socialism, they should be aware that the end result may look a lot more like the Nazis than they could have ever imagined. And, as campuses become more and more intolerant of free speech and as Antifa groups become more and more menacing and violent, it would be wise for ALL of us to keep these similarities in mind. It CAN happen here.