The "but they were National Socialists" bollocks
Here's an excellent look at those nutcases who think those nasty liberals are the real fascists, David Neiwert's review of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, a book which has apparently been endorsed by Nick Cohen (oh why doesn't that surprise me?). Here's a classic that you see time and again on the messageboards, but this time someone's actually got the batshit insanity published in the mainstream:
So when Goldberg proclaims early on: "This is the monumental fact of the Nazi rise to power that has been slowly airbrushed from our collective memories: the Nazis campaigned as socialists," more thorough observers of history might instead just shake their heads. After all, the facts of Mussolini's utopian/socialist origins and the Nazis' similar appeals to socialism by incorporating the name are already quite well known to the same historians who consistently describe fascism as a right-wing enterprise.
What these historians record -- but Goldberg variously ignores or minimizes -- is that the "socialism" of "National Socialism" was in fact purely a kind of ethnic economic nationalism, which offered "socialist" support to purely "Aryan" German business entities, and that the larger Nazi cultural appeal was built directly around an open antipathy to all things liberal or leftist. Indeed, whole chapters of Mein Kampf are devoted to vicious smears and declarations of war against "the Left," and not merely the Marxism that Goldberg acknowledges was a major focus of Hitler's animus.
"But it was called socialism, therefore all socialists are Nazis! Haha I win teh internet!!"
Related posts:
- Towards a sensible comments policy, and why the BBC’s HYS bollocks might be the least worst option
- Why it’s being called ‘socialism’
- Mail: People who complain about homophobia are Nazis
- "It is in the British national interest to confront the Taleban in Afghanistan or Afghanistan would come to us."
- How to spot bollocks journalism
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
- I just sent Robin round – 2
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
- droid on The letters you never get around to sending
- Rogue_Leader on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
February 9th, 2009 - 14:15
The easiest way to dispell that nonsense has always been to point out who amongst the ‘allies’ supported hitler and mussolini.
Hint – They did so because they believed those two would defend the rest of the world from communism.
February 9th, 2009 - 14:24
Relatedly:
“Why,” I asked Hitler, “do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?”
“Socialism,” he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, “is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
“Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
“We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.”
Also relatedly, and this is a tinsy point that tends to get glossed over by the NAZI=SOCIALIST crowd, Hitler went and killed the fucking socialists.
February 9th, 2009 - 16:05
I think from a practical perspective it’s best to concentrate on arguing discrete issues of policy rather than waving ideological labels.
Niall Ferguson argues somewhere in The War of the World that Communist Russia and Nazi Germany were both nation-state-empires.
Instead of focusing on what they both said about themselves, Ferguson advocates focusing on the way they operated (concentration camps, liquidation, supreme leader, heroic vanguard, rule of fear etc).
I started reading Liberal Fascism but found it very difficult to follow as the writer never laid his arguments out clearly, the text consists of a long stream of anecdotes and difficult-to-corroborate observations that build a vague impression but don’t add much to reader understanding.