Quote note (#149)

Welcome clarity:

It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not hypocritical. […] Hitler’s discovery was that socialism could be national as well as international. There could be a national socialism. That is how he reportedly talked to his fellow Nazi Otto Wagener in the early 1930s. The socialism of the future would lie in “the community of the volk”, not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to “convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists”, meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed. The state could control, after all, without owning, guided by a single party, the economy could be planned and directed without dispossessing the propertied classes.

(They’re not on the Right, and they’re not our friends.)

February 15, 2015admin 60 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , , ,

60 Responses to this entry

  • Quote note (#149) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] Quote note (#149) […]

    Posted on February 15th, 2015 at 3:50 am Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    I’ve been meaning to track down a copy of ‘The Lost Literature of Socialism’ for some time. Keep putting it off. Looks. Like it would be a good read.


    Posted on February 15th, 2015 at 4:17 am Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    You wonder how many bullets you would need to get rid of these people.


    Posted on February 15th, 2015 at 5:21 am Reply | Quote
  • Tom Hunt Says:

    How does this fit with Moldbug’s analysis? He seemed pretty clear that the Nazis were on the right, if only defined as “opposed the left”.


    admin Reply:

    This probably counts as another ‘quibble with Moldbug’. He tends to delight in making things difficult for himself, which is a noble trait, but one that can be taken to excess.


    Tom Hunt Reply:

    I suppose it depends on the substantive definition. In that part of his work Moldbug seems to define it in terms of social networks — the Bolshevists, e.g., were tied to the Progressive movements in the US/Britain, whereas the Nazis weren’t. That seems pretty reasonable to me. If you want to define it as “alignment with enduring order”, or something, the Nazis certainly seemed to be kind of malignantly chaotic. Perhaps early on they counted as more rightist than Weimar, anyway, but given their organizational tendencies, it seems likely that even if they hadn’t been crushed by the Allies they would later have evolved in a direction similar to the Soviets, as the power held by Hitler personally dispersed on his death or incapacitation.

    Either way, it seems mostly a quibble, unless you’re determined to simply define your degree of preference for a faction by how “rightist” you call it. It seems to me that it’s wholly possible to be rightist and pernicious; leftism is not the only mistake it’s possible to make. (Granted, my immediate example to support that contention would usually be “the Nazis”, which begs the question here. But I imagine with more detailed historical research I could come up with others.)


    Chris B Reply:

    Any chance anyone recalls moldbug’s posts that reference nazis? I don’t recall it being too far off the mark.

    Rasputin Reply:

    Yes, Moldbug argues that, in terms of their social network, the Nazi’s were clearly on the Right. They had no friends in Harvard and the NYT. It is one of his principal quibbles with Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (who lays out the position that the Nazi’s were Leftists quite brilliantly in ‘Leftism, From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse’. MM argues the counterpoint ion in part 4 or 5 of Gentle Introduction, but it comes up several times in his writing. Ultimately, I think Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s argument is flawed, but I wish MM had gone further and been more explicit in his attempts to counter it.

    Admin, you clearly take von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s part in this. How do you explain the social network paradox? Was National Socialism really just an unpopular strand of Socialism? If so was that not because of its identitarian / exclusive / Right wing potential?

    Harold Reply:

    What was the contemporaneous Harvard and NYT socialist sympathiser’s attitude towards anti-semitism?

    NRx_N00B Reply:

    “but given their organizational tendencies, it seems likely that even if they hadn’t been crushed by the Allies they would later have evolved in a direction similar to the Soviets, as the power held by Hitler personally dispersed on his death or incapacitation.”

    Slightly off-topic, one has to wonder how far they would have come technologically. In a way, it was through German know-how that helped fast-track and win the race to the moon (or fast-tracking the postwar development of jets). Hence, by extension: how far would they have come toward achieving, say, AI, before they would have succumbed/collapsed under the behemoth weight of inefficiency—somewhat analogous to the clumsy beast that the USSR evolved into.

    Hurlock Reply:

    I don’t know what Moldbug’s criteria for being on ‘the right’ are, but when Hitler refers to himself as a socialist, I am inclined to believe the guy.


    Chris B Reply:

    Of course he was a socialist. That there is discussion as to if a bunch of guys who called themselves national socialists where socialist tells you something is very off in the world.

    Connected to this is that one of the more interesting aspects of Moldbug and the entire NRx *thing* is the connecting of current thought and pre-20 century books. The effect of this is to route around the jedi mind bending of the 20 century and the general aggressive lying that persists. The general bull that was accepted in and after the second world war, and which the current world order has built itself on is still strong.

    Additionally, another aspect of Moldbug is that he acted/ acts as a filter for progs and libertarians who are suitable material. If you have a curiosity and a X factor which means you can run with the wolves intellectually, you can engage with Moldbug and with NRx thought. The only problem is that this filter does not work fully with Nat-soc/ identarians and WNers who pick up on the surface features of Moldug and NRx and get confused into thinking it is WN/ identarian/ Nazi friendly.


    Tom Hunt Reply:

    “Of course he was a socialist. That there is discussion as to if a bunch of guys who called themselves national socialists where socialist tells you something is very off in the world.”

    Now, this seems entirely counter to various strains of Moldbug. For instance, modern “Democrats” certainly want nothing to do with original-style, ochlocratic democracy. The “democracy” they champion wants very little to do with the public having any actual decision-making power. Isn’t it possible that Hitler was pulling a similar trick? In which case, isn’t it useful to know the difference between classical socialism, and National Socialism, which might substantively be something completely different?

    (I don’t actually know how substantively different they are or aren’t. But it’s certainly wrong to simply dismiss the claim that there could be substantial differences, just because of the name.)

    VXXC Reply:

    Why are we talking about Hitler’s racism and not Engels racism?

    Marx and Engels’s actual grandchildren eaten by their Intellectual Children.

    To quote my Favorite Watchman: I think it’s Hilarious.

    Posted on February 15th, 2015 at 6:27 am Reply | Quote
  • Quote note (#149) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on February 15th, 2015 at 8:25 am Reply | Quote
  • muhammad chang Says:

    Are you yourself on the right? Isn’t AI beyond these petty human concerns or do you think the NRx “right” would be most supportive of AI?


    Aeroguy Reply:

    To the extent the right represents embracing Darwinian forces and the left represents hiding and avoiding them. AI has great potential, even as a kick in the pants to force development of genetic engineering. Competition is wonderful, the danger is in the potential for a stillborn AI that kills both mother and child. Zeus was a coward for not visiting Hera’s bedchamber in fear of a successor. Aspirations of immortality are disgustingly decadent. There is no shame in bending the knee to or being cut down by a superior, such is only the will of Gnon. To embrace Darwin is accept that the creation of a superior successor should be the highest aspiration of both individual and species. Lucifer was mighty, but his pride caused him to rebel against the natural order. As Satan he was reduced to pettiness and crawling on his belly.


    Posted on February 15th, 2015 at 10:11 am Reply | Quote
  • max Says:

    Some WN practice “no enemies to the more-nazi, no enemies to the less-nazi” – so Alex Linder constantly demonstrates that he’s more nazi than Hitler, and still gets purged for not being nazi enough.


    max Reply:

    *no friends to the less-nazi


    Posted on February 15th, 2015 at 10:27 am Reply | Quote
  • Y.Ilan Says:

    Tying yourself to neo-Nazis is tying yourself to a bunch of whiny losers; I would think that by itself is reason enough to ignore them. Power-seekers should not involve themselves with the pathetic.


    nydwracu Reply:

    No power-seekers here, I hope.


    Y.Ilan Reply:

    Power-seeking is ultimately the only worthwhile kind of action, small-scale or large-scale. Political passivity does not preclude powerlessness. One shouldn’t kid oneself in decrying those who seek power, as in the end one is either part of the downtrodden or part of those who tread, no matter how harmonious the hierarchy is.


    Adolf Hitler Reply:

    When the capable minds of a nation—who are always in the minority—are given a value equal with all the others, this must result in subjugating the genius to the majority, in subjecting the ability and the value of the individual to the majority, a process which is mistakenly called the rule of the people. This is not the rule of the people, but in fact the rule of stupidity, of mediocrity, of half-measures, of cowardice, of weakness, and of inadequacy. The rule of the people is rather when a people allows itself to be governed and led in all areas of life by its most capable individuals who are born for the task, than to allow all areas of life to be administered by a majority which, by its very nature, is alien to these areas.

    Private property is only morally and ethically justifiable if I assume that men’s achievements are different. Only then can I say that, because men’s achievements are different, the results of those achievements are also different. But if the results of men’s achievements are different, then it is expedient to leave the administration of these achievements to men to an appropriate degree. It would be illogical to assign the administration of the fruits of an achievement connected to one individual to the next best, less capable individual or the whole, for these latter individuals have already proven, by the simple fact that they themselves have not performed the achievement, that they cannot be capable of administering the resulting product. Therefore one must admit that, from an economic point of view, men are not equally valuable, not equally significant in every area from the onset. Having admitted this, it would be madness to claim that, while there are doubtless differences in value in the economic sector, there are none in the political sector! It is nonsense to base economic life on the concept of achievement, of personal value and thus practically on the authority of the individual, while denying this authority of the individual in the political sphere and substituting in its place the law of the greater number-democracy.

    There is, however, one organization in the State—the Army—which cannot be democratized in any way whatsoever without surrendering its very essence. One proof that a Weltanschauung is weak is when it is inapplicable to all areas of life as a whole. In other words: the Army can only exist if the absolutely anti-democratic principle of unconditional authority from above and absolute responsibility from below are maintained, while in contrast, democracy means, for all practical purposes, complete dependency from above and authority from below

    In summary, I see two principles starkly opposed: the principle of democracy which, wherever its practical results are evident, is the principle of destruction. And the principle of the authority of the individual, which I would like to call the principle of achievement, because everything which mankind has achieved until now and all human cultures are only conceivable given the rule of this principle.


    Harold Reply:

    I made the Adolf Hitler comment. Sorry, it wasn’t intended as a reply to Y.Ilan. (I had written and then deleted a reply to Y.Ilan leaving the reply box open) In case it is not clear, the comment is made of things from a Hitler speech, or ostensibly so, since I haven’t confirmed the reliability of the source.


    VXXC Reply:

    Oh Dear,

    This all sounds not only familiar but Contemporary.

    Lead on Ghost, we’ll follow Ye.

    [And of course you will Dears. Don’t flatter yourselves for a pico-moment you won’t].


    Aeroguy Reply:

    Absolute equality is a more recent depravity. The mantra of socialism after all is from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Something NS affirms.


    NRx_N00B Reply:

    Aeroguy, riddle me this—does clannishness/tribalism/ethnic-nepotism constitute a form of socialism?


    Aeroguy Reply:

    With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy:

    If you bailed your cousin out of jail because he was stealing from his grandparents (the ones you’re not related to), you might be a nepot-socialist

    If you gave your talentless cousin a job at your company because Gnon knows no one else will hire him, you might be a nepot-socialist.

    If you married your cousin to, keep it in the family, you might be a nepot-socialist.

    If you would love a clone of yourself more than a son that was better than you, you might be a nepot-socialist.

    If you would be marginally happier with the Kents adopting a black human baby rather than a Kryptonian, you might be a nepot-socialist.

    If you would push your best friend into oncoming traffic in order to save your cousin from being hit instead, you might be a nepot-socialist.

    If you felt inspired after seeing a starship filled with cross eyed assholes, you might be a nepot-socialist.

    If you gave your obese cousin one of your kidneys as her third kidney transplant, you might be a nepot-socialist.

    If you bought the best lawyer to get your cousin completely off the hook after his fatal hit and run DUI, you might be a nepot-socialist.

    If you think affirmative action scholarships suck because they should be legacy scholarships instead, you might be a nepot-socialist.

    VXXC Reply:

    The answer of Adolf was the same, he supplanted them and seized the power lying fallow on the Ground.


    Posted on February 15th, 2015 at 12:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • bob sykes Says:

    The real originator of national socialism is Mussolini, and he did it around 1914 when he supported Italy’s entry into WW I on nationalistic grounds. For this he was expelled from the Italian Socialist (Communist) Party, which then and now supports the internationalist view of the working class and class warfare. The ISP, like many other orthodox socialist parties, opposed WW I and hoped it would incite the working class revolt they believed was necessary. Mussolini also proposed regulating the capitalist class via his syndicalism theory (never implemented) rather than displacing them.

    Hitler narrowed Mussolini’s “nationalism” to race. He also advocated regulating capitalists rather than eliminating them, but his regulatory regime was fairly crude.

    Somewhere on YouTube there is a clip of George Bernard Shaw, a famous writer and socialsts, extolling the virtures of Italian Fascism. He opinion was standard issue among socialists in both Europe and America before WW II broke out.

    It might be noted that as WW II progressed Stalin also adopted a Russian nationalist rhetoric in order to inspire resistance to the Nazi invasion.


    Posted on February 15th, 2015 at 1:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • fnn Says:

    The Left as a club: Huey Long was more socialist than FDR, yet somehow the Left knew that Long did not belong in the club. Shortly before his assassination, Long (who had nothing against Jews) formed an alliance with Fr. Coughlin-a fellow socialist non-club member.


    Posted on February 15th, 2015 at 2:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Brilliant book on Nazi economics that includes the Nazi Left wing Policies and Politics:

    “The Wages of Destruction” by Adam Tooze.



    Posted on February 15th, 2015 at 6:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    [From linked article]

    ‘But there were still, in Marx’s view, races that would have to be exterminated. That is a view he published in January-February 1849 in an article by Engels called “The Hungarian Struggle” in Marx’s journal the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, and the point was recalled by socialists down to the rise of Hitler. It is now becoming possible to believe that Auschwitz was socialist-inspired. The Marxist theory of history required and demanded genocide for reasons implicit in its claim that feudalism was already giving place to capitalism, which must in its turn be superseded by socialism. Entire races would be left behind after a workers’ revolution, feudal remnants in a socialist age; and since they could not advance two steps at a time, they would have to be killed. They were racial trash, as Engels called them, and fit only for the dung-heap of history.’

    I was just saying the other day that Hitler’s racial policies are those of his bete-noire mirrored with Prussian efficiency and Teutonic Valor behind it.

    ‘Harold Nicolson, a democratic socialist, and after 1935 a Member of the House of Commons, conscientiously studied a pile of pamphlets in his hotel room in Rome in January 1932 and decided judiciously that fascism (Italian-style) was a kind of militarized socialism; though it destroyed liberty, he concluded in his diary, “it is certainly a socialist experiment in that it destroys individuality”.’

    Well NRXn thinks individuality is evil too, yes? Or at least individual liberty/political rights. The man should be property of the Ruler.

    ‘Socialism, Hitler told Wagener shortly after he seized power, was not a recent invention of the human spirit, and when he read the New Testament he was often reminded of socialism in the words of Jesus. The trouble was that the long ages of Christianity had failed to act on the Master’s teachings. Mary and Mary Magdalen, Hitler went on in a surprising flight of imagination, had found an empty tomb, and it would be the task of National Socialism to give body at long last to the sayings of a great teacher: “We are the first to exhume these teachings.”’ I hope Dan Brown doesn’t read this article.

    ‘That was the National Socialist vision. It was seductive, at once traditional and new.’

    Seduction by Traditional and New ideas. That’s very familiar.


    Aeroguy Reply:

    I’m not aware of animosity to individualism. It isn’t about bending the knee to the collective, but to one’s superiors. It isn’t liberty of individuals that’s problematic, but equal liberties for all. It isn’t universal slavery but the acknowledgement that the lowest of men are incapable of living as freemen. Hierarchy of individual liberties rather than universal liberties that pretend all individuals are equal.

    Men quickly learn the difference between a superior office and a superior man. It is one of the greatest depravities for a man to be placed in an office he is unworthy of or for a superior man to be placed beneath an inferior man occupying a superior office. Hierarchies don’t always reflect reality. This is why the hierarchy of peacetime militaries are shaken down in time of war. Properly sorted hierarchy is an aspiration, nothing is perfect, personally is see wiggle room (the real challenge of a design) as part of acknowledging this reality. I reject faith in any system, rather every system is perfectly designed to produce exactly the results it produces. Broken hierarchy, broken system.

    Power is distributed unevenly, power flows up affirming hierarchy, power should never be shared with inferiors, rather privileges and delegation of authority extended to inferiors according to ability and loyalty. Even a sovereign should acknowledge that he acts as steward, for there are always superiors in waiting, all are inferior before Gnon (the difference between Gnon and God is that Gnon is knowable and God is unknowable), this is how tyranny is checked, Gnon alone may lay claim to the title of tyrant.


    Posted on February 15th, 2015 at 7:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    We must get power at any cost.

    So—Thank you Admin.

    Our Path is Clear: Call Dan Brown.


    Posted on February 15th, 2015 at 7:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    “Yes, Moldbug argues that, in terms of their social network, the Nazi’s were clearly on the Right. They had no friends in Harvard and the NYT. ” So they had no Ultra-Calvinist Friends so clearly they must have been you know….not our kind of people or something….

    This is Hilarious. We couldn’t get Mime’s so mute nor Gymnasts so supple as we have here today on this Thread. Admin you show true Intellectual Courage worthy of Erwin Rommel with nailing that up.

    Go for broke. Let’s find something that says Hitler wasn’t White.


    Rasputin Reply:

    Since it’s a counter factual narrative, it’s not quite as obvious as the difference between black and white is it? Or don’t you understand the Left as a club that levies an ideological tarif, which is paid in order to be able to extract the advantages membership bestows?


    Posted on February 15th, 2015 at 7:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    @Chris B:

    > Any chance anyone recalls moldbug’s posts that reference nazis?

    Long response lost in cyberspace….

    Look in “An open letter to open-minded progressives”, part 1. There he defines left and right in terms of social classes. Hitler was low-class, therefore right wing.

    But if you look in part 3, he defines left and right in terms of order vs. chaos, which strikes me as being a more or less orthogonal definition.

    Then if you look at “The Reuther memorandum, 1961”, he defines communism as “Democracy without authentic political opposition”, which seems to me to be yet another orthogonal definition.


    Posted on February 15th, 2015 at 9:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • NRx_N00B Says:

    Admin says: “(They’re not on the Right, and they’re not our friends.)”

    Yet another naïve question: are you strictly speaking for tech-comm—or is this applied to all three flavors of NRx?


    admin Reply:

    Coercive usage of the collective subjective pronoun — to be interpreted with whatever degree of contention seems appropriate.


    Posted on February 16th, 2015 at 5:10 am Reply | Quote
  • vimothy Says:

    Contra Jonah Goldberg, even contra Kuehnelt-Leddihn (whose jockstrap Goldberg is not fit to carry), Hitler was not a leftist. He was a rightist. Leftism is like a club: you can’t just say you’re a leftist, and be one. You have to actually be accepted into the club. You have to be part of the Left, and if you’re not you are part of the Right – ie, the set of all those competing, unjustly of course, with the Left.

    On a social network graph, it’s very obvious who is and who isn’t. And National Socialism was never, ever part of the graph. It had very few friends, connected very weakly, in the US and Britain. Compare it to Leninism, and you’ll see the difference instantly. Hitler and I are not in the club, and nor are you – and if you are, you won’t be for long.

    — A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations (Part 9a), September 3rd, 2009.


    Rasputin Reply:

    That’s the quote I had in mind as well.


    Hanfeizi Reply:

    The tendency is for the contemporary right to say that the continuum is defined by “how much state you want”. Traditionally, however, “right” was the side of hierarchy, and “left” the side of equality. Note that this traditional definition puts Bismarck, Mussolini, and Hitler on the right… while Von Mises is hanging out with Marx on the Left.

    By the contemporary definition, I can’t see Hitler on the right; by the traditional definition, there’s nowhere else he belongs. But perhaps the real irrelevancy is all of these continuums…


    Hurlock Reply:

    Mises was an egalitarian?
    That’s a new one.


    Posted on February 16th, 2015 at 9:25 am Reply | Quote
  • vimothy Says:

    Right is right; left is left. The axis is real. Jonah Goldberg can call Hitler a leftist; Hitler, indeed, called Hitler a leftist, at least in the sense that he called his party a Socialist Workers’ Party. But Hitler, while a very bad rightist, was a rightist. Not to mention a lying bastard. And anyone in the ’30s with a dime’s worth of brains on a dollar knew him as such. And this includes rightists with brains, leftists with brains, and centrists with brains.

    You can change the definition of the word, of course. But the phenomenon remains recognizable. Being otherwise abstract and meaningless, the terms left and right are perfect. Why try to flip them over? No good reason, I fear.

    I see this Hitler-was-a-liberal trope catching on all over the right. Of course, it is a leftist trope – in two senses. First, the tactic of tarring all political adversaries with some abstruse connection to fascism in general, and Hitler in particular, is of course a characteristic tactic of the Left. Second, the tactic of disseminating a palpable misreading of history, for political purposes – etc.

    — From Mises to Carlyle: My Sick Journey to the Dark Side of the Force, February 4th, 2010.


    Hurlock Reply:

    Moldbug doesn’t help here because the only thing he is really doing is making the subject even fuzzier.
    Ok, if Hitler was not a leftist then what was he? It is undeniable that Hitler was a socialist – that one even Moldbug can’t rhetorically circle around, so what does that mean? Does it mean that there are rightist socialists?? How exactly does that work? What is the difference between a rightist socialist and a leftist socialist? And historically speaking how does this even make sense? Surely historically socialism is a leftist phenomenon, and socialists of any kind are definitely to the left of Moldbug’s favorite Tories. Hell, socialists are almost always to the left of the Whigs of the 17th and 18th century as well, or at least the moderate part of the Whigs.
    Even if we accept that through some magical reasoning Hitler is indeed not a leftist, that does not mean that he was on the right. Oooh, but we are defining the ‘right’ as “the set of all those competing, unjustly of course, with the Left.”. Wait a second, I thought using leftist concepts and reasoning is bad? We can’t say Hitler was a leftist because it is a leftist tactic to lump your political opponents together with Hitler, but it is completely OK to accept the paradigmatic leftist reasoning about everyone they disagree with being part of “the Right”?
    Historically speaking Hitler is an obvious leftist, it is just that at his time the overton window had shifted so much to the left that The Left of the day wouldn’t allow him into the leftist club, because he wasn’t leftist enough. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t a leftist. If it walks like a socialist, talks like a socialist, and claims to be a socialist, I will call it a socialist. And a socialist ain’t a reactionary.


    Little Hans Reply:

    Doesn’t it seem a bit strange to put someone whose personal views were shaped by the trenchant belief that the Austro-Hungarian Empire was too leftist on the left themselves?

    There needs to be some separation between someone’s own opinions and what they actually do when constrained with reality. If I buy a newspaper to read the form am I ideologically a supporter of the mass media? If I put a note in the collection tray at a funeral am I committed theist?

    As far as personal world-view goes you have to put Hitler on the right. The man thought everything that wasn’t sitting in a tea-room to be outrageously decadent!

    However, his method of taking power was socialist-collectivist (a bizarre mix up of the manner of an NCO-led putsch and mass movement trappings stolen from communism), mainly for pragmatic reasons. That’s just how one seized power in the 1930s.

    Then there’s a set of goals when in power which are pretty much uniformly imperialistic: continue imperial war, expand territory, support military.

    Finally, there’s a set of economic views, mercantilist and very pragmatic, subordinated wholly to the imperial project, hence the dualism of party/establishment reflected in the constant shift in emphasis between Goring and Four Year Plan/Schacht and Ruhr Industry depending on which one appeared to be delivering.

    I have no idea how you can reconcile all that on a two dimensional axis.


    Hurlock Reply:

    “Then there’s a set of goals when in power which are pretty much uniformly imperialistic: continue imperial war, expand territory, support military.”
    And this is rightist because…?

    “Finally, there’s a set of economic views, mercantilist and very pragmatic, subordinated wholly to the imperial project, hence the dualism of party/establishment reflected in the constant shift in emphasis between Goring and Four Year Plan/Schacht and Ruhr Industry depending on which one appeared to be delivering. ”
    And this is rightist because?

    Leftists can be imperialist, and they very often are considering that they want to spread their ideology globally imperialism is what they have to do. Which is why on the other hand, leftism is fundamentally opposed to colonialism. If being an imperialist made you rightist then the current USA is rightist as well and has been since Wilson.
    Leftists can also be mercantilist and indeed they very often are. Mercantilism is mostly a fallacious economic doctrine with a couple of decent insights made by some mercantilists and it is a doctrine which has been used both by leftists and by rightists.
    Wanting to build a giant empire does not make you a rightist, trying to build a huge empire in order to force your ideology on the entire world has been the official strategy of the Left since the French Revolution and the unofficial one since quite earlier.

    Add on top of that all of Hitler’s public statements that Nazi Germany IS a socialist state, that the Nazi party is fighting the bad, unregulated capitalists, and the fact that the Nazi party is a worker’s party. But wait! He said he hates the commies so he must be on the right, right??? As if there is no such thing as leftist infighting. Come on, we all know that most of the leftists murdered in history have been murdered not by rightist but by other leftists doing purges either of those who are too leftist or of those who are not leftist enough.

    This argument reminds me of those people who like to call Stalin a rightist because he purged everyone to the left of him. One would presume that the logical fallacy is obvious here, but I guess I am just having unrealistic expectations of some people…

    admin Reply:

    It never ceases to amaze me how many ‘neoreactionaries’ think a global crusade against capitalism is a rightist project.

    Little Hans Reply:

    How about a global crusade that’s indifferent to capitalism. Where does that stand?

    Harold Reply:

    Here is an article supposedly by Göring
    from the Illustrierter Beobachter which I could find online to confirm that the article was genuine.

    “England is a capitalist democracy. Germany is a socialist people’s state. And it is not the case that we think England is the richest land on earth. There are lords and City men in England who are in fact the richest men on earth. The broad masses, however, see little of this wealth. We see in England an army of millions of impoverished, socially enslaved, and oppressed people. Child labor is still a matter of course there. They have only heard about social welfare programs. Parliament occasionally discusses social legislation. Nowhere else is there such terrible and horrifying inequality as in the English slums. Those with good breeding take no notice of it. Should anyone speak of it in public, the press, which serves plutocratic democracy, quickly brands him the worst kind of rascal. They do not hesitate to make major changes in the Constitution if they are necessary to preserve capitalist democracy.”

    Something reminiscent of more current events
    “English lying propaganda can no longer name things by their proper names. It therefore claims that it is not fighting the German people, only Hitlerism. But we know this old song. In South Africa, England was not fighting the Boers, only Krugerism. In the World War, England wanted to destroy Kaiserism, not the German people.”

    Harold Reply:

    Having read a little more of Hitler’s speeches he strikes me as part politician, part religious leader of a volk unity movement. The message he reiterates is that there must not be class divisions within the volk, that all must work together for the common good.

    Here is a rather humdrum view no different from today’s politicians:
    “In response to the question whether ‘work for all’ meant that a proletarian levelling would take place, in other words whether the Reich Chancellor would be satisfied if, by stretching the available work, each person would in fact be assured of a certain minimum income, but that larger incomes would then disappear, the Reich Chancellor replied: “Just the opposite! Naturally the first step must be to eliminate the scourge of unemployment. However, as soon as our Volk has work again, buying power will also increase, and then the logical next step is an increase in the standard of living. We do not want to become a primitive Volk, but one with the highest possible standard of living. In my opinion, the Americans are right in not wanting to make everyone the same but rather in upholding the principle of the ladder. However, every single person must be granted the opportunity to climb up the ladder.”

    Sounding like a right-winger
    “For the last eight months we have been engaged in a heroic struggle against the Communist threat to our nation, against the subversion of our culture, the destruction of our art and the corruption of our public morality.”

    Communism brings chaos
    “It seeks to poison and disrupt in order to hurl us into an epoch of chaos…. This negative, destroying spirit spared nothing of all that is highest and most valuable. Beginning with the family, it has undermined the very foundations of morality and faith and scoffs at culture and business, nation and Fatherland, justice and honor.”

    Liberlaism leads to downfall
    “Bismarck once declared that liberalism was the pacemaker for social democracy. And I do not need in this place to say that social democracy is the pacemaker for communism. But communism is the pacemaker for death—the death of a people—downfall.”

    Hitler is for order, morality, and peace
    “This National Socialist revolution has but one goal, namely to restore order within its own nation, to give our hungry masses work and bread, to champion the concepts of honor, loyalty and decency as the basis of a moral code which cannot harm other nations but only contribute to their general welfare.”

    Alike to many reactions Hitler thinks religion is important
    “Every Reich that is founded only on the classes which represent intellect and intelligence has weak foundations. I know this intellect, always so subtle, always inquiring, but also always uncertain, always hesitating, vacillating from side to side—never steadfast! He who would construct a Reich on these intellectual classes alone will find his building insecure. It is no chance that religions are more stable than constitutional forms. Generally they tend to sink their roots deeper into the soil; they would be unthinkable in the absence of the masses of the people. I know that the intellectual classes fall all too easily a victim to that arrogance which measures the people according to the standards of its knowledge and of its so-called intelligence; and yet there are things in the people which very often the intelligence of the ‘intelligent’ does not see because it cannot see them. The masses are certainly often dull, in many respects they are certainly backward, they are not so nimble, so witty, or intellectual; but they have something to their credit – they have loyalty, constancy, stability”

    More reactionaryishness
    “A leadership must arise in which every citizen can have confidence, assured that its sole aim is the happiness, the welfare, of the German people, a leadership which can with justice say of itself that it is on every side completely independent. People have talked so much of the past Age of Absolutism, of the absolutism of Frederick the Great, and of the Age of Popular Democracy, our Parliamentary Epoch. Regarded from the standpoint of the people the earlier period was the more objective: it could really more objectively safeguard the interests of the nation, while the later period continuously descended more and more to the representation merely of the interests of individual classes.”

    Hitler is for a thrifty administration, lower taxes, and no currency experiments.
    “Here all action shall be governed by one law: the Volk does not live for the economy, and the economy does not exist for capital, but capital serves the economy and the economy serves the Volk! In principle, the Government protects the economic interests of the German Volk not by taking the roundabout way through an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the State, but by the utmost promotion of private initiative and a recognition of the rights of property.

    A fair balance must be established between productive intention on the one hand and productive work on the other. The administration should respect the results of ability, industriousness and work by being thrifty. The problem of our public finances is also a problem which is, in no small part, the problem of a thrifty administration.

    The proposed reform of our tax system must result in a simplification in assessment and thus to a decrease in costs and charges. In principle, the tax mill should be built downstream and not at the source. As a consequence of these measures, the simplification of the administration will certainly result in a decrease in the tax burden. This reform of the tax system which is to be implemented in the Reich and the Länder is not, however, an overnight matter, but one to be contemplated when the time is judged to be right.

    As a matter of principle, the Government will avoid currency experiments.”

    I leave it there. I haven’t read anything after 1934 yet.


    Specter Reply:

    Well, this is why Moldbug refers to Hitler as a bad rightist. The Nazi goals (restoring the old order) were rightist, but they made the fatal mistake of adopting leftist tactics, ie. choosing the support of “the people” as a governing formula instead of sovereignty. Presumably, they looked around and saw the demotic handwriting on the wall, and decided, well, we can’t just go back to aristocrats or nationalist militarism (at least, not without throwing the folk a socialism-bone). This is related to what MM calls “Tory democracy”, the misguided belief that you can convince the masses to support the same agenda an aristocracy would.

    In general, MM is discerning about these types of admixtures; he notes that the Soviets used right-wing power structures to promote leftist ends. So the Nazis were “of the right” by aspiration (and thus hated by Club Lefty), but failed to grasp the problem of authoritarian legitimacy, and were thus fated to eventual left-ish chaos. He concludes that Reactionaries had no dog in the fight during WWII (though I always wondered if he’s including imperial Japan there, or just ignoring it.)


    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    My impression of the Club Lefty view of fascism was that “The good is the enemy of the best.” Communism was “the best”. If there was a conflict between fascism and communism, Club Lefty would support communism. But in the US and Great Britain, communism wasn’t on the table domestically, so domestically, Club Lefty was willing to settle for policies that were indistinguishable from fascism.

    Rasputin Reply:

    @Spectre, Very well put.

    Aeroguy Reply:

    Speeches define the politician? I suppose when women tell me what they want I should take that at face value, instead of, I don’t know, observing actual behavior. It strikes me as intellectually dishonest to emphasize no currency manipulation in his speech when there most certainly was currency manipulation during his administration. Besides, I’ve always been fond of the Roman left right between populares and patricians, proposing the lala land staple of a classless society, how much more leftist can you get. Just another miserable invisible hierarchy where rank is earned through lies and madness like every other leftist hierarchy hiding in the shadow. I’ve met white trash and men of true noble bearing, I’m neither so humble or so arrogant as to call either one my equal, I know and acknowledge my place as should any well ordered society.


    Harold Reply:

    “As far as Germany is concerned, there will be no new war. Germany knows the terrible consequences of war better than any other country. Almost all of the members of the National Government know its horrors.
    They know that it is not a romantic adventure, but rather an atrocious catastrophe. It is the conviction of the National Socialist Movement that war is of no use to anyone and can only result in ruin. We would not profit by a war. […] We demand only that our present borders be maintained. We will certainly never fight again, except in self defense.”—Adolf Hitler
    I suppose you will tell me now that there was a war during his administration.


    Posted on February 16th, 2015 at 9:44 am Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    “Having read a little more of Hitler’s speeches he strikes me as part politician, part religious leader of a volk unity movement.” – quite. Socialism, nationalism etc all have the Xtian religious impulse running through them. Lots of NRx are working hard to enshrine it in NRx at the moment, consciously or not.

    The best way to understanding Nat-soc is to imagine a prog who has realized that progisms conclusions are bullshit, but is convinced the current systems in place are correct (nation state, economic system based on fiat, people based sovereignty legitimacy etc.) The prog, and all his followers then use the current systems to institute a bunch of utopian polices designed to combat progisms degeneracy. Basically a Greek tragedy in the form of a political ideology.


    Posted on February 16th, 2015 at 3:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • an inanimate aluminum tube Says:

    Orwell quote explains the fundamental difference between fascism / Islamism and socialism

    (rest of the article is meh)

    Fascism, Orwell continued, is
    psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life … Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people “I offer you a good time,” Hitler has said to them, “I offer you struggle, danger, and death,” and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet … We ought not to underrate its emotional appeal.
    —end Orwell quote—————
    Nor, in the case of the Islamic State, its religious or intellectual appeal. That the Islamic State holds the imminent fulfillment of prophecy as a matter of dogma at least tells us the mettle of our opponent. It is ready to cheer its own near-obliteration, and to remain confident, even when surrounded, that it will receive divine succor if it stays true to the Prophetic model.
    —–end Atlantic quote———–

    Struggle, danger and death, it seems that we’ve discussed the relevance of this stuff before.

    Byrce Laliberte at Social Matter: “If the law of Gnon might be put timidly, it is as a kind of universal Darwinism; the universe is a framework for the selection of those forms able to maintain their order through entropy.”

    It seems that we can draw a distinction between stuff like socialism / social democracy, that attempts to deny Gnon’s law, to pretend that the struggle for life isn’t happening, and forms that embrace the struggle for life and attempt to win it.

    Gnon denying forms are likely headed for a rude awakening, but many forms that attempt to embrace the struggle for life will still lose in the end. Like Pygmies. Their evolutionary strategy didn’t work out, so now they’re getting eaten. That doesn’t make them leftist (Pygmo-Bolshevism), it just makes them losers. Losers should be ruthlessly dissected and analyzed so that we can learn from their mistakes.

    Adding a -Bolshevist suffix to losers so that you don’t have to analyze their strengths and weaknesses obscures the analysis. And doing it intentionally is probably a form of Gnon denial.


    Exfernal Reply:

    The theoretical principle of communism:
    “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
    The theoretical principle of socialism:
    “To each according to his contribution”.

    The first is wrong for more reasons than the second, but that doesn’t mean that the second is right.


    Posted on February 18th, 2015 at 12:30 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment