theyounghistorian77
New Member
I found this website http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html How convincing do you find it?
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Adolf Hitler was a leftist/Socialist/marxist?
- Thread starter theyounghistorian77
- Start date
Oh boy. First of all... he doesn't define socialism. So the rest is rather pointless. Secondly, his brilliant point that the "national socialist party" could have something to do with socialism (from what I read he seems to suggest that socialism had to be something related to getting the lower class people's support in order to be able to support them) is repeated over and over and over again. And I'm not impressed. I remember we had this entire two-hour lecture on the 'socialism' of 'national socialism' in advanced history class... but my teacher was shite and my interest was minimal because indeed, as the author states, if you live in Germany, you get bombarded with all the WW2 shit till you've seriously fucking had it... (so I can't quite remember what was said that day). There's dozens of documentaries about it and it gets especially bad around christmas. TV program around Christmas sucks already, but that made me hate it. I hate repitition as it is. *cough* Moving on.
"Hitler's antisemitism was of a piece with his Leftism, not a sign of "Rightism". " What nonsense. It doesn't have anything to do with either. Hitler grew up in a town where he was exposed to antisemitism, and he was not the most critical of contemporaries. But you're welcome to try to convince me otherwise. Oh and that Roman salute thing won't do jack to reinforce any point. Propaganda is propaganda, and people will use whatever works best at the time. That has as much to do with socialism as conservatism has to do with suits.
"the young products of an East German Communist upbringing" :facepalm:
I'll make this short: I won't read through all of it... so... what's the point he's trying to make? What would change if whoever he's trying to convince would say "Dang, you're right."? And where did he hide his definitions of all the isms he's using? The way it reads right now they're all pretty damn vague.
"Hitler's antisemitism was of a piece with his Leftism, not a sign of "Rightism". " What nonsense. It doesn't have anything to do with either. Hitler grew up in a town where he was exposed to antisemitism, and he was not the most critical of contemporaries. But you're welcome to try to convince me otherwise. Oh and that Roman salute thing won't do jack to reinforce any point. Propaganda is propaganda, and people will use whatever works best at the time. That has as much to do with socialism as conservatism has to do with suits.
"the young products of an East German Communist upbringing" :facepalm:
I'll make this short: I won't read through all of it... so... what's the point he's trying to make? What would change if whoever he's trying to convince would say "Dang, you're right."? And where did he hide his definitions of all the isms he's using? The way it reads right now they're all pretty damn vague.
theyounghistorian77
New Member
i thought myself that the evidence presented was highly selective at best, He doesn't take into account who Hitler glorified in Mein Kampf and elsewhere. For example,
"To them belong, not only the truly great statesmen, but all other great reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as Richard Wagner."
Mein Kampf, Vol1 - Chapter 8. (Funny how the Name of Marx isn't on the list of those "Great Reformers".)
And if you were to analyse these men, you would find that they belonged on the right. Or existed before a time when left and right were defined. Another example.
"At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger I and the Christian Social Party.
When I arrived in Vienna, I was hostile to both of them.
The man and the movement seemed 'reactionary' in my eyes.
My common sense of justice, however, forced me to change this judgment in proportion as I had occasion to become acquainted with the man and his work; and slowly my fair judgment turned to unconcealed admiration. Today, more than ever, I regard this man as the greatest German mayor of all times.
How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement!
My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all."
Mein Kampf, Vol1- Chapter 2
The Christian Social Party and Karl lueger were very much conservative, even by today's standards. It drew most of its support from the upper classes, and the Rural and clerical communities. Priests were not just Party candidates, but also active in the Executive of the Party. One priest, by the name of Ignaz Seipel, made it to the position of party chancellor. It can be speculated (Perhaps rightly or wrongly) that the Social part of the Christian Social Party means virtually the same as the Socialist part of Hitler's National Socialists; The Nazis just extended the social name to attract de-facto socialists to their cause.
As to Hitler's "socialism", i recommend you read Germany's Hitler by Heinz A Heinz, he dedicates an entire chapter to what the socialism really means, (Clue, it's not Marxian or communistic.) Bolshevism from moses to lenin by dietrich eckart is another worthy read, aswell.
I could go on and on discussing influences but i'll keep my point brief. (If there is an influence that anyone wants me to discuss. let me know.)
And anyway, Even if we were to assume that Hitler was influenced by Marx, He would still be on the right Wing, due to the other influences from Conservatives and Historical figures which were much stronger than Marx. Just because you have Marx as an influence doesn't make you Left Wing. Francis Fukuyama is instrumental in the Rise of Neo-Conservativism. He was very influential in setting up what has become known as the Regan Doctrine. But Without Marx, Where would he be? You can even find him here. On a Marxist Website.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/fukuyama.htm
"To them belong, not only the truly great statesmen, but all other great reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as Richard Wagner."
Mein Kampf, Vol1 - Chapter 8. (Funny how the Name of Marx isn't on the list of those "Great Reformers".)
And if you were to analyse these men, you would find that they belonged on the right. Or existed before a time when left and right were defined. Another example.
"At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger I and the Christian Social Party.
When I arrived in Vienna, I was hostile to both of them.
The man and the movement seemed 'reactionary' in my eyes.
My common sense of justice, however, forced me to change this judgment in proportion as I had occasion to become acquainted with the man and his work; and slowly my fair judgment turned to unconcealed admiration. Today, more than ever, I regard this man as the greatest German mayor of all times.
How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement!
My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all."
Mein Kampf, Vol1- Chapter 2
The Christian Social Party and Karl lueger were very much conservative, even by today's standards. It drew most of its support from the upper classes, and the Rural and clerical communities. Priests were not just Party candidates, but also active in the Executive of the Party. One priest, by the name of Ignaz Seipel, made it to the position of party chancellor. It can be speculated (Perhaps rightly or wrongly) that the Social part of the Christian Social Party means virtually the same as the Socialist part of Hitler's National Socialists; The Nazis just extended the social name to attract de-facto socialists to their cause.
As to Hitler's "socialism", i recommend you read Germany's Hitler by Heinz A Heinz, he dedicates an entire chapter to what the socialism really means, (Clue, it's not Marxian or communistic.) Bolshevism from moses to lenin by dietrich eckart is another worthy read, aswell.
I could go on and on discussing influences but i'll keep my point brief. (If there is an influence that anyone wants me to discuss. let me know.)
And anyway, Even if we were to assume that Hitler was influenced by Marx, He would still be on the right Wing, due to the other influences from Conservatives and Historical figures which were much stronger than Marx. Just because you have Marx as an influence doesn't make you Left Wing. Francis Fukuyama is instrumental in the Rise of Neo-Conservativism. He was very influential in setting up what has become known as the Regan Doctrine. But Without Marx, Where would he be? You can even find him here. On a Marxist Website.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/fukuyama.htm
5810Singer
New Member
Unless I'm very much mistaken the notion that "national-socialism" was in some way truly socialist, was fostered and nurtured by far right Republicans in the US post WW2.
Arguably the main reason for such a fudging of political boundaries was to demonise the new Eastern Bloc, and Soviet Union, who had so recently been the allies of the West, but had become "enemies" in the new "Cold War".
It was hard to demonise Communism when it was the adversary of fascism and Nazism,...but if you brainwashed people into believing that fascism/Nazism and communism were the same thing, no problem.
Arguably the main reason for such a fudging of political boundaries was to demonise the new Eastern Bloc, and Soviet Union, who had so recently been the allies of the West, but had become "enemies" in the new "Cold War".
It was hard to demonise Communism when it was the adversary of fascism and Nazism,...but if you brainwashed people into believing that fascism/Nazism and communism were the same thing, no problem.
theyounghistorian77
New Member
5810Singer said:
Whatever level of state intervention, it could be argued quite forcefully that belief in private property was a central to fascist ideology, as [Roger] Eatwell states: the sympathetic reference to socialism did not mean that fascists accepted the abolition of private property. This was seen as a law of nature." - "The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right" p141
"..we must also acknowledge the fact that many post-war movements on the extreme right have embraced Libertarian or 'new-right' economics in an attempt to reinvent themselves and to compete with the mainstream conservative parties" Ibid, p147
i dont think you are mistaken.
RichardMNixon
New Member
I agree that Hitler's German bears no special resemblance to liberalism, but I'm less clear on the differences between it and Stalin's Russia.
They were both totalitarian states with secret police and death camps. How would you define Hitler's totalitarianism as right-wing and Stalin's as left-wing? Is it just the motivation? Are they really more different than alike? I know very little on this subject so don't take this as a challenge, something I had been wondering about recently though.
They were both totalitarian states with secret police and death camps. How would you define Hitler's totalitarianism as right-wing and Stalin's as left-wing? Is it just the motivation? Are they really more different than alike? I know very little on this subject so don't take this as a challenge, something I had been wondering about recently though.
theyounghistorian77
New Member
RichardMNixon said:
Of course there are plenty of similarities between Hitler and Stalin and Both learned a great deal off each other.
But the tea party and the GOP Have admitted to learning off the left and indeed Stalin and Mao as well. so is learning of your enemy part and parcel of one paticular wing on the Left/right compass? I do not think so.
I could so easily compare the tsars/white army to the Communists and find plenty of similarities as well as differences. Here's one lazy example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEmPaTc589M
One of the best comparisons between Hitler and Stalin is a 1993 piece called Working towards the fuhrer by Ian Kershaw. I recommend it.
Andiferous
New Member
Even if there were similarities between Stalin and Hitler, I don't see any grounds for labeling the Third Reich a socialist government.
Stalin's five-year plans were derived from the "dictatorship of the proletariat" model, which is characterised by a temporary tyranny and governmental control of the means of production. This is a transitory stage, and and such doesn't represent (in my opinion) true socialism or Marxism.
Marxist Communism: the people own the means of production. No tyranny.
The people do for the people.
This bears little similarity to:
Communism in practice (dictatorship of the proletariat)
the state ("representing" the people with totalitarian powers) controls the means of production. Tyranny.
the people do for the state
Fascism: the government controls corporations. (the means of production). Tyranny.
The people do for the corporation.
Again, I can't think of any real life examples of Communism beyond the tyrannical stage and before the juicy and rewarding socialist parts kick in. Also, socialism and communism are not interchangeable terms...
Stalin's five-year plans were derived from the "dictatorship of the proletariat" model, which is characterised by a temporary tyranny and governmental control of the means of production. This is a transitory stage, and and such doesn't represent (in my opinion) true socialism or Marxism.
Marxist Communism: the people own the means of production. No tyranny.
The people do for the people.
This bears little similarity to:
Communism in practice (dictatorship of the proletariat)
the state ("representing" the people with totalitarian powers) controls the means of production. Tyranny.
the people do for the state
Fascism: the government controls corporations. (the means of production). Tyranny.
The people do for the corporation.
Again, I can't think of any real life examples of Communism beyond the tyrannical stage and before the juicy and rewarding socialist parts kick in. Also, socialism and communism are not interchangeable terms...
RichardMNixon
New Member
Andiferous said:
This is my understanding too, especially that real-world communism doesn't at all resemble Marx's ideas, but where I'm confused is to how "the people do it for the state" differs from "the people do it for the corporation which is owned by the state." Is it just that fascism and soviet communism are close in practice but wildly different in what they claim to be practicing? Did Hitler and Mussolini really emphasize "private" corporations? My understanding is that Mussolini just had the government run everything, he made the trains run on time.
Andiferous
New Member
I don't think they look that different from those models; except that the totalitarian communist state purported to "represent" the people, and as such, their drives, goals and motivations might have been different; whereas by contrast, 'the people" don't enter the equation in the fascist state, and so its drives, goals and motivations will probably reflect that. Despite being a tyrant, Stalin was a student of Marxism, and (I presume) he probably did believe he was working toward the end goal of communism, and not just padding up government control for a perpetual kind of totalitarian government.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
In one short post, you've done more clear-headed thinking on the subject than a couple of generations of American right-wing extremists. It is so simple (especially in the way you've formulated it) that you have to assume that they know better and are intentionally lying to cover their own tracks while demonizing their opponents.Andiferous said:
theyounghistorian77
New Member
ImprobableJoe said:
I couldnt agree more
G30rg3Y0ung
New Member
The mistake people make is thinking that Fascism is a right-wing ideology; it combines both left and right wing ideas.
Fascist ideas:
Right-wing:
-Nationalism
-Conservative social values
-Right to private property
-Militarism
Left-wing;
-Powerful state
-Social intervention/engineering/mobility/welfare
-Economic intervention
-Anti-capitalism
Saying Hitler was a socialist is wrong, he was a fascist; fascism includes many left-wing ideas. I believe the SA were very left leaning, while other members of the Nazi party(like Hitler) were much more right leaning
Fascist ideas:
Right-wing:
-Nationalism
-Conservative social values
-Right to private property
-Militarism
Left-wing;
-Powerful state
-Social intervention/engineering/mobility/welfare
-Economic intervention
-Anti-capitalism
Saying Hitler was a socialist is wrong, he was a fascist; fascism includes many left-wing ideas. I believe the SA were very left leaning, while other members of the Nazi party(like Hitler) were much more right leaning
G30rg3Y0ung said:
interesting, didn't think or really know of it like that. i could pick out a few fascist ideas there which i support- anti-capitalism, economic intervention, social intervention(some what)
would that make me a left wing fascist ? .......i dont think so. or is it in its totality right and left that fascism exists?
Although fascism is usually placed on the far-right of the ideological scale it's also possible to see the scale as wrapping around and the ends joining. In this way extreme left wraps around to extreme right and vice versa. At the meeting place of both sides you have fascism.
Btw, Mussolini did not make the trains run on time.
Btw, Mussolini did not make the trains run on time.
)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
Well the National Socialist Party has very strong implications as to it having somewhat to do with Socialism - but that was simply because Germany was shit-poor and EVERYONE was broke... Socialism, in this sense, would have benefitted the whole off the works of the whole.
But if Hitler was communist, he wouldn't have invaded the U.S.S.R. - because (though I'm not so sure) there seems to be some sort of "We're gonna work together on this gaiz" with communist states in reguards to warfare, such as China and Russia fueling and helping out Cuba, Korea, and Vietnam.
Also Hitler was WAY Right-wing. The Anti-semitism was just the culture of Germany at the time... Most Germans simply hated Jews - because if you're in such a state you need someone to blame for it. The seemingly rich Jews were easy political targets for the massively poor Germany. Especially when the price of the Mark fell. Whoever wrote this article should flip through the first few chapters of "Mein Kampf" and realize it.
But if Hitler was communist, he wouldn't have invaded the U.S.S.R. - because (though I'm not so sure) there seems to be some sort of "We're gonna work together on this gaiz" with communist states in reguards to warfare, such as China and Russia fueling and helping out Cuba, Korea, and Vietnam.
Also Hitler was WAY Right-wing. The Anti-semitism was just the culture of Germany at the time... Most Germans simply hated Jews - because if you're in such a state you need someone to blame for it. The seemingly rich Jews were easy political targets for the massively poor Germany. Especially when the price of the Mark fell. Whoever wrote this article should flip through the first few chapters of "Mein Kampf" and realize it.
G30rg3Y0ung
New Member
The superiority of the "Anglo-Teutonic" race was an idea that had been growing in Germany for a very long time, I think, from about the 1870's (after the unification of the German nations into the German empire).
Maybe a bit of an overstatement, but yes, Hitler was on the right wing of the party.
Probably the best way of thinking about it, it makes more sense then just describing Fascism as far-right.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Aught3 said:
I've been saying that for years, but I think the proper way to describe it is maybe "authoritarianism is the meeting place." At some point as you go further from the center (the true center, not the crazy right-wing positions that make up the American "center") there comes a creeping "... or else!" attached to the views. At the far end, the wrap-around meeting point, "or else!" overwhelms any specific policy position. Power over people and obedience to authority become the means AND the end.
So from that perspective, it is almost useless to consider a left/right dichotomy at all. Hitler and his regime weren't ascribing to any sort of coherent political viewpoint, they were exercising power for its own sake. The same holds true for any dictatorial regime, no matter what part of the spectrum they or their opponents seek to assign them.
theyounghistorian77
New Member
Im going to revive this thread only so i can critique some elements of the website in more detail.
For the moment it is good to know that the writer a 'John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)' is NOT a historian and holds no credibility in the field. None of his work concerning the Nazis as socialists is peer reviewed but merely one of his many propaganda posts against everything he sees as Leftist. And he pretty much sees everything as Leftist that he doesn't personally like. (Or at least that's what i gather from his Dissecting leftism blog) If he hates it, It therfore has to be leftist.
degrees or not. Which as mentioned, are not in history but in psychology, and was at one time as his biography admits involved in: "psychological warfare" operations in Vietnam, That's what he tends to be doing here Folks.
So lets get into some of the details. Firstly, he uses On the Jewish question. Here's what stanford says about it.
"In this text Marx begins to make clear the distance between himself and his radical liberal colleagues among the Young Hegelians; in particular Bruno Bauer. Bauer had recently written against Jewish emancipation, from an atheist perspective, arguing that the religion of both Jews and Christians was a barrier to emancipation. In responding to Bauer, Marx makes one of the most enduring arguments from his early writings, by means of introducing a distinction between political emancipation , essentially the grant of liberal rights and liberties , and human emancipation. Marx's reply to Bauer is that political emancipation is perfectly compatible with the continued existence of religion, as the contemporary example of the United States demonstrates. However, pushing matters deeper, in an argument reinvented by innumerable critics of liberalism, Marx argues that not only is political emancipation insufficient to bring about human emancipation, it is in some sense also a barrier. Liberal rights and ideas of justice are premised on the idea that each of us needs protection from other human beings. Therefore liberal rights are rights of separation, designed to protect us from such perceived threats. Freedom on such a view, is freedom from interference. What this view overlooks is the possibility , for Marx, the fact , that real freedom is to be found positively in our relations with other people. It is to be found in human community, not in isolation. So insisting on a regime of rights encourages us to view each other in ways which undermine the possibility of the real freedom we may find in human emancipation. Now we should be clear that Marx does not oppose political emancipation, for he sees that liberalism is a great improvement on the systems of prejudice and discrimination which existed in the Germany of his day. Nevertheless, such politically emancipated liberalism must be transcended on the route to genuine human emancipation. Unfortunately, Marx never tells us what human emancipation is, although it is clear that it is closely related to the idea of non-alienated labour, which we will explore below." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/#2.1
So the language Marx is using is a metaphor and his intent was not to put those qualities upon particularly Judaism. But rather to say that the special privileges and restrictions put upon Jews [and remember that at the time the Jews were living in Ghettos and were restricted in economic activity to lending, (Christianity forbade usury), and other economic activities that were well known at the time and he only needed to describe as hucksterism] being released will not in itself free the Jews because they will still be a separate entity within Christian society. His intent is to impugn all religion as destructive not just Judaism. It goes toward his later notion of the base and superstructure. As long as there is a base of separation, in this case though religion, it will be reflected somehow in the superstructure and hence no true emancipation can result. Antisemitic? It certainly offends our post Holocaust sensibilities, But i like to take this into account.
Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, regards application of the term "anti-Semitism" to Marx as an anachronism,because when Marx wrote On the Jewish Question, virtually all major philosophers expressed anti-Semitic tendencies, but the word "anti-Semitism" had not yet been coined, let alone developed a racial component, and little awareness existed of the depths of European prejudice against Jews. Marx thus simply expressed the commonplace thinking of his era.
See his book The Politics of Hope. pp. 98-108.
As i've stated Here and above this post, Hitler drew his antisemitism from the Right and figures like Martin Luther, not the left.
Onto his quote Mining of Engels, Ray's other earlier misinterpretation is not nearly in reality as nationalistic as Ray's quote mining and inability to understand the philosophical language and type of argument used make it seem. First of all remember that at the time he is writing there was no German nation. In order for the people to be emancipated first a unified nation needs to be formed from the fractured and foreign controlled principalities and native self interested aristocracies. Wanting the formation of a nation, is not akin to Nazi nationalism. The Nazis put their nation above and beyond all others, clearly Engels doesn't do this. And in the Next sentence from the one he quotes Engels states:
"On the other hand, however, we are not worthy of the Alsatians so long as we cannot give them what they now have: a free public life in a great state. Without doubt, there will be another war between us and France, and then we shall see who is worthy of the left bank of the Rhine. Until then we can well leave the question to the development of our nationhood and of the world spirit, until then let us work for a clear, mutual understanding among the European nations and strive for the inner unity which is our prime need and the basis of our future freedom. So long as our Fatherland remains split we shall be politically null, and public life, developed constitutionalism, freedom of the press, and all else that we demand will be mere pious wishes always only half-fulfilled; so let us strive for this and not for the extirpation of the French!"
This is clearly not akin to Nazi expansionism or extreme nationalism, and actually argues against the sentence quoted by Ray. Again he is just quote mining and twisting what is a complicated philosophical style argumentation.
The 1000 years thing is nothing more than a Popular Rhetorical device, see Here
Also, It comes from a very philosophical text. It is concerning the Schelling view of god versus the Hegelian and the freedom and power of philosophical ideas. Let's take some time and, put it in context and Ray's quote mining becomes obvious.
"If we once more review this doctrine in its entirety, in addition to what has already been said we obtain also the following results for the definition of the neo-Schellingian manner of thinking. The confusion of, freedom and arbitrariness is in full flower. God is always conceived as acting in a humanly arbitrary fashion.
This is indeed necessary so long as God is conceived as single,, but it is not philosophical. Only that freedom is genuine which contains necessity, nay, which is only the truth, the reasonableness of necessity. Therefore Hegel's God cannot now or ever be a single person, since everything arbitrary has been removed from Him.
Therefore when he speaks of God, Schelling has to employ "free" thinking, for the necessary thinking, of logical inference excludes any kind of divine person. The Hegelian dialectic, this mighty, never resting driving force of thought, is nothing but the consciousness of mankind in pure thinking, the consciousness of the universal, Hegel's consciousness of God. Where, as with Hegel, everything produces itself, a divine personality is superfluous
Hegel is the man who opened up a new era of consciousness by completing the old. It is curious that just now he is being attacked from two sides, by his predecessor Schelling and by his youngest follower Feuerbach., When the latter charges Hegel with being stuck deeply in the old, he should consider that consciousness of the old is already precisely the new, that the old is relegated to history precisely when it has been brought completely into consciousness
A fresh morning has dawned, a world-historic morning, like the one in which the bright, free, Hellenic consciousness broke out of the dusk of the Orient. The sun has risen greeted with smiles by, sacrificial fires on all the mountain peaks, the sun, whose coming was announced in ringing fanfares from every watch-tower, whose light mankind was anxiously awaiting
We are awakened from long slumber, the nightmare which oppressed us has fled, we rub our eyes and look around us in amazement. Everything has changed. The world that was so alien to us, nature whose hidden forces frightened us like ghosts, how familiar, how homely they now are! The world which appeared to us like a prison now shows itself in its true form, as a magnificent royal palace in which we all go in and out, poor and rich, high and low.
Nature opens up, before us and calls to us.. Do not flee from me, I am not depraved, I have not fallen away from the truth; come and see, it is your own inmost and truest essence which gives also to me the fullness of life and the beauty of youth! Heaven has come down to earth, its treasures lie scattered like stones on the road-side, whoever desires them has but to pick them up. All confusion, all fear, all division has vanished.
The world is again a whole, independent and free; it has burst open the doors of its, dank cloister, has thrown off its sackcloth and chosen the free, pure ether to dwell in. No longer does it have to justify itself to unreason, which could not. grasp it; its splendour and glory, its fullness and strength, its life is its justification. He was surely right who eighteen hundred years ago divined that the world, the cosmos,
would one day push him aside, and bade his disciples renounce the world. And man, the dearest child of nature, a free man after the long battles of youth, returning to his mother after the long estrangement, protecting her against all the phantoms of enemies slain in battle, has overcome also the separation from himself, the, division in his own breast. After an inconceivably long age of wrestling and striving, the bright day of self-consciousness has risen for him
Free and strong he stands there, confident in himself and proud, for he, has fought the battle of battles, he has overcome himself and pressed the crown of freedom on his head. Everything has become revealed to him and nothing had the strength to shut itself up against him. Only now does true life open to him. What formerly he strove towards in obscure presentiment, he now attains with complete, free will
What seemed to lie outside him, in the hazy distance, he now finds in himself as his own flesh and blood. He does not care that he has bought it dearly, with his heart's best blood, for, the crown was worth the blood; the long time of wooing is not lost to him, for the noble, splendid bride whom he leads into the chamber has only become the clearer to him for it; the jewel, the holy thing he has found after long searching was worth many a fruitless quest.
And this crown, this bride, this holy thing is the self-consciousness of mankind, the new Grail round whose throne the nations gather in exultation and which makes kings of all who submit to it, so that all splendour and might, all, dominion and power, all the beauty and fullness of this world lie at their feet and must yield themselves up for their glorification. This is our calling,..."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1841/anti-schelling/ch05.htm
So the poor quote mining propaganda falls totally flat, the quote isn't about establishing a thousand year Reich but about the power and beauty of philosophical thought and it uses, highly metaphorical language to do so. But I guess Plato and Aristotle were also trying have a 1000yr Reich then too huh?. But I wouldn't expect Ray to understand a philosophical text even if he did happen to read one.
Brown Bolsheviks? Not really,The Nazis were not as Cohesive in their ideology as He would like to assume. The Nazis did indeed have a left wing of their Party, Comprised of indivudials like Goebbels, Along with the Likes of Ernst Rohm (Both were influenced by Gregor Strasser). Unfortunately for Beck, Hitler himself did not belong to this aspect of the Party, He actively tried to suppress it,
First, he called a conference in the City of Bamberg on 14th feb 1926 to instill the Fà¼hrerprinzip onto aspects of the party he felt were dissenting, And that included, guess who? That's Right, Goebbels, Rohm and strasser, Goebbels submitted To Hitler, although he felt dissapointed in the process, He wrote in his diaries that after the meeting "I feel devastated," "What sort of Hitler? A reactionary?" "I no longer fully believe in Hitler. That's the terrible thing: my inner support has been taken away."
He's not quoting Hitler. And sorry but you cannot use Goebbels to prove Hitler personally was Left Wing. Hitler belongs on the opposite side of the Party.
Iconography?
Looks very convincing doesn't it? Only to the foolish it does. Read what it says around the Swastika. The Red Army was formed Feb. 23, 1918. The date on the picture is smudged, but it's probably 1918. The text in Russian details the description of the patch and who it is designed for: Red Army soldiers and commanding officers of the Kalmyk troops. Kalmyksare a small pastoral ethnic group in southern Russia, with their own autonomous region west of the Caspian Sea. They are of Mongolian origin and they are Buddhists. I believe that paticular swastika, which is a common Buddhist symbol is just that, It's Buddhist, and has nothing to do with socialism per-se. In the text, the swastika is called "LYUNGTN" or some such native Kalmyk word in Cyrillic (the text is blurry and those may be characters specific to the Kalmyk language).
[edit:
and a further link will take you here. Whether that swastika represents the "wind Horse" for the kalmyks is something i will have to look into. But even so, all indications still point to it being buddhist and having nothing to do with socialism per-se.]
So with that in mind, Here's another Buddhist Swastika
It's not in some "Socialist dystopia", But rather in the cheerfully Capitalist South Korea. NE Seoul, to be precise. From the "Treasure Shining Temple" Website here
Also.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spirosk/2895007781/sizes/z/in/photostream/
For The other Bit of Iconography, Im going to focus on the Stalin Poster.
Lets see, Both have a slogan on the Bottom, Both have army advancing above the slogan, Above the Smoke/fog of war? We see the Leader, Pointing the way, Both are draped in Flags, and Both have Planes in the Background. Graphicly, Both are the same. Does that prove anything? No. And Stalin is not performing a Roman salute, The thumb is definitely away from the fingers and the Fingers appear to be seperate from each other (Although with the fingers, it's hard to tell). Stalin is just striking a pose in a poster. Again it's just superficial crap like; "Stalin had a blue painted bathroom and so did Hirohito... OMG Stalin was Japanese", and just as silly.
I'll come to the rest later
For the moment it is good to know that the writer a 'John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)' is NOT a historian and holds no credibility in the field. None of his work concerning the Nazis as socialists is peer reviewed but merely one of his many propaganda posts against everything he sees as Leftist. And he pretty much sees everything as Leftist that he doesn't personally like. (Or at least that's what i gather from his Dissecting leftism blog) If he hates it, It therfore has to be leftist.
degrees or not. Which as mentioned, are not in history but in psychology, and was at one time as his biography admits involved in: "psychological warfare" operations in Vietnam, That's what he tends to be doing here Folks.
So lets get into some of the details. Firstly, he uses On the Jewish question. Here's what stanford says about it.
"In this text Marx begins to make clear the distance between himself and his radical liberal colleagues among the Young Hegelians; in particular Bruno Bauer. Bauer had recently written against Jewish emancipation, from an atheist perspective, arguing that the religion of both Jews and Christians was a barrier to emancipation. In responding to Bauer, Marx makes one of the most enduring arguments from his early writings, by means of introducing a distinction between political emancipation , essentially the grant of liberal rights and liberties , and human emancipation. Marx's reply to Bauer is that political emancipation is perfectly compatible with the continued existence of religion, as the contemporary example of the United States demonstrates. However, pushing matters deeper, in an argument reinvented by innumerable critics of liberalism, Marx argues that not only is political emancipation insufficient to bring about human emancipation, it is in some sense also a barrier. Liberal rights and ideas of justice are premised on the idea that each of us needs protection from other human beings. Therefore liberal rights are rights of separation, designed to protect us from such perceived threats. Freedom on such a view, is freedom from interference. What this view overlooks is the possibility , for Marx, the fact , that real freedom is to be found positively in our relations with other people. It is to be found in human community, not in isolation. So insisting on a regime of rights encourages us to view each other in ways which undermine the possibility of the real freedom we may find in human emancipation. Now we should be clear that Marx does not oppose political emancipation, for he sees that liberalism is a great improvement on the systems of prejudice and discrimination which existed in the Germany of his day. Nevertheless, such politically emancipated liberalism must be transcended on the route to genuine human emancipation. Unfortunately, Marx never tells us what human emancipation is, although it is clear that it is closely related to the idea of non-alienated labour, which we will explore below." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/#2.1
So the language Marx is using is a metaphor and his intent was not to put those qualities upon particularly Judaism. But rather to say that the special privileges and restrictions put upon Jews [and remember that at the time the Jews were living in Ghettos and were restricted in economic activity to lending, (Christianity forbade usury), and other economic activities that were well known at the time and he only needed to describe as hucksterism] being released will not in itself free the Jews because they will still be a separate entity within Christian society. His intent is to impugn all religion as destructive not just Judaism. It goes toward his later notion of the base and superstructure. As long as there is a base of separation, in this case though religion, it will be reflected somehow in the superstructure and hence no true emancipation can result. Antisemitic? It certainly offends our post Holocaust sensibilities, But i like to take this into account.
Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, regards application of the term "anti-Semitism" to Marx as an anachronism,because when Marx wrote On the Jewish Question, virtually all major philosophers expressed anti-Semitic tendencies, but the word "anti-Semitism" had not yet been coined, let alone developed a racial component, and little awareness existed of the depths of European prejudice against Jews. Marx thus simply expressed the commonplace thinking of his era.
See his book The Politics of Hope. pp. 98-108.
As i've stated Here and above this post, Hitler drew his antisemitism from the Right and figures like Martin Luther, not the left.
Onto his quote Mining of Engels, Ray's other earlier misinterpretation is not nearly in reality as nationalistic as Ray's quote mining and inability to understand the philosophical language and type of argument used make it seem. First of all remember that at the time he is writing there was no German nation. In order for the people to be emancipated first a unified nation needs to be formed from the fractured and foreign controlled principalities and native self interested aristocracies. Wanting the formation of a nation, is not akin to Nazi nationalism. The Nazis put their nation above and beyond all others, clearly Engels doesn't do this. And in the Next sentence from the one he quotes Engels states:
"On the other hand, however, we are not worthy of the Alsatians so long as we cannot give them what they now have: a free public life in a great state. Without doubt, there will be another war between us and France, and then we shall see who is worthy of the left bank of the Rhine. Until then we can well leave the question to the development of our nationhood and of the world spirit, until then let us work for a clear, mutual understanding among the European nations and strive for the inner unity which is our prime need and the basis of our future freedom. So long as our Fatherland remains split we shall be politically null, and public life, developed constitutionalism, freedom of the press, and all else that we demand will be mere pious wishes always only half-fulfilled; so let us strive for this and not for the extirpation of the French!"
This is clearly not akin to Nazi expansionism or extreme nationalism, and actually argues against the sentence quoted by Ray. Again he is just quote mining and twisting what is a complicated philosophical style argumentation.
The 1000 years thing is nothing more than a Popular Rhetorical device, see Here
Also, It comes from a very philosophical text. It is concerning the Schelling view of god versus the Hegelian and the freedom and power of philosophical ideas. Let's take some time and, put it in context and Ray's quote mining becomes obvious.
"If we once more review this doctrine in its entirety, in addition to what has already been said we obtain also the following results for the definition of the neo-Schellingian manner of thinking. The confusion of, freedom and arbitrariness is in full flower. God is always conceived as acting in a humanly arbitrary fashion.
This is indeed necessary so long as God is conceived as single,, but it is not philosophical. Only that freedom is genuine which contains necessity, nay, which is only the truth, the reasonableness of necessity. Therefore Hegel's God cannot now or ever be a single person, since everything arbitrary has been removed from Him.
Therefore when he speaks of God, Schelling has to employ "free" thinking, for the necessary thinking, of logical inference excludes any kind of divine person. The Hegelian dialectic, this mighty, never resting driving force of thought, is nothing but the consciousness of mankind in pure thinking, the consciousness of the universal, Hegel's consciousness of God. Where, as with Hegel, everything produces itself, a divine personality is superfluous
Hegel is the man who opened up a new era of consciousness by completing the old. It is curious that just now he is being attacked from two sides, by his predecessor Schelling and by his youngest follower Feuerbach., When the latter charges Hegel with being stuck deeply in the old, he should consider that consciousness of the old is already precisely the new, that the old is relegated to history precisely when it has been brought completely into consciousness
A fresh morning has dawned, a world-historic morning, like the one in which the bright, free, Hellenic consciousness broke out of the dusk of the Orient. The sun has risen greeted with smiles by, sacrificial fires on all the mountain peaks, the sun, whose coming was announced in ringing fanfares from every watch-tower, whose light mankind was anxiously awaiting
We are awakened from long slumber, the nightmare which oppressed us has fled, we rub our eyes and look around us in amazement. Everything has changed. The world that was so alien to us, nature whose hidden forces frightened us like ghosts, how familiar, how homely they now are! The world which appeared to us like a prison now shows itself in its true form, as a magnificent royal palace in which we all go in and out, poor and rich, high and low.
Nature opens up, before us and calls to us.. Do not flee from me, I am not depraved, I have not fallen away from the truth; come and see, it is your own inmost and truest essence which gives also to me the fullness of life and the beauty of youth! Heaven has come down to earth, its treasures lie scattered like stones on the road-side, whoever desires them has but to pick them up. All confusion, all fear, all division has vanished.
The world is again a whole, independent and free; it has burst open the doors of its, dank cloister, has thrown off its sackcloth and chosen the free, pure ether to dwell in. No longer does it have to justify itself to unreason, which could not. grasp it; its splendour and glory, its fullness and strength, its life is its justification. He was surely right who eighteen hundred years ago divined that the world, the cosmos,
would one day push him aside, and bade his disciples renounce the world. And man, the dearest child of nature, a free man after the long battles of youth, returning to his mother after the long estrangement, protecting her against all the phantoms of enemies slain in battle, has overcome also the separation from himself, the, division in his own breast. After an inconceivably long age of wrestling and striving, the bright day of self-consciousness has risen for him
Free and strong he stands there, confident in himself and proud, for he, has fought the battle of battles, he has overcome himself and pressed the crown of freedom on his head. Everything has become revealed to him and nothing had the strength to shut itself up against him. Only now does true life open to him. What formerly he strove towards in obscure presentiment, he now attains with complete, free will
What seemed to lie outside him, in the hazy distance, he now finds in himself as his own flesh and blood. He does not care that he has bought it dearly, with his heart's best blood, for, the crown was worth the blood; the long time of wooing is not lost to him, for the noble, splendid bride whom he leads into the chamber has only become the clearer to him for it; the jewel, the holy thing he has found after long searching was worth many a fruitless quest.
And this crown, this bride, this holy thing is the self-consciousness of mankind, the new Grail round whose throne the nations gather in exultation and which makes kings of all who submit to it, so that all splendour and might, all, dominion and power, all the beauty and fullness of this world lie at their feet and must yield themselves up for their glorification. This is our calling,..."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1841/anti-schelling/ch05.htm
So the poor quote mining propaganda falls totally flat, the quote isn't about establishing a thousand year Reich but about the power and beauty of philosophical thought and it uses, highly metaphorical language to do so. But I guess Plato and Aristotle were also trying have a 1000yr Reich then too huh?. But I wouldn't expect Ray to understand a philosophical text even if he did happen to read one.
Brown Bolsheviks? Not really,The Nazis were not as Cohesive in their ideology as He would like to assume. The Nazis did indeed have a left wing of their Party, Comprised of indivudials like Goebbels, Along with the Likes of Ernst Rohm (Both were influenced by Gregor Strasser). Unfortunately for Beck, Hitler himself did not belong to this aspect of the Party, He actively tried to suppress it,
First, he called a conference in the City of Bamberg on 14th feb 1926 to instill the Fà¼hrerprinzip onto aspects of the party he felt were dissenting, And that included, guess who? That's Right, Goebbels, Rohm and strasser, Goebbels submitted To Hitler, although he felt dissapointed in the process, He wrote in his diaries that after the meeting "I feel devastated," "What sort of Hitler? A reactionary?" "I no longer fully believe in Hitler. That's the terrible thing: my inner support has been taken away."
He's not quoting Hitler. And sorry but you cannot use Goebbels to prove Hitler personally was Left Wing. Hitler belongs on the opposite side of the Party.
Iconography?
Looks very convincing doesn't it? Only to the foolish it does. Read what it says around the Swastika. The Red Army was formed Feb. 23, 1918. The date on the picture is smudged, but it's probably 1918. The text in Russian details the description of the patch and who it is designed for: Red Army soldiers and commanding officers of the Kalmyk troops. Kalmyksare a small pastoral ethnic group in southern Russia, with their own autonomous region west of the Caspian Sea. They are of Mongolian origin and they are Buddhists. I believe that paticular swastika, which is a common Buddhist symbol is just that, It's Buddhist, and has nothing to do with socialism per-se. In the text, the swastika is called "LYUNGTN" or some such native Kalmyk word in Cyrillic (the text is blurry and those may be characters specific to the Kalmyk language).
[edit:
Translation of [url=http://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC_%D0%AE%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%92%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%84%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0_%E2%84%96_213 said:
and a further link will take you here. Whether that swastika represents the "wind Horse" for the kalmyks is something i will have to look into. But even so, all indications still point to it being buddhist and having nothing to do with socialism per-se.]
So with that in mind, Here's another Buddhist Swastika
It's not in some "Socialist dystopia", But rather in the cheerfully Capitalist South Korea. NE Seoul, to be precise. From the "Treasure Shining Temple" Website here
Also.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spirosk/2895007781/sizes/z/in/photostream/
For The other Bit of Iconography, Im going to focus on the Stalin Poster.
Lets see, Both have a slogan on the Bottom, Both have army advancing above the slogan, Above the Smoke/fog of war? We see the Leader, Pointing the way, Both are draped in Flags, and Both have Planes in the Background. Graphicly, Both are the same. Does that prove anything? No. And Stalin is not performing a Roman salute, The thumb is definitely away from the fingers and the Fingers appear to be seperate from each other (Although with the fingers, it's hard to tell). Stalin is just striking a pose in a poster. Again it's just superficial crap like; "Stalin had a blue painted bathroom and so did Hirohito... OMG Stalin was Japanese", and just as silly.
I'll come to the rest later
theyounghistorian77
New Member
Hitler appealing to Labor unions? I think i've already covered this enough in my Beck Critique. So go read what i said there. But here's the Telegraph article in full that i talked about.
David Cameron is doing pretty much the Same Thing as Hitler did, Doesn't prove Cameron or Hitler are left wing necessarily.
A modern Leftist?
The place, that one takes on the political spectrum is usualy determined by the position that one takes on the ownership of the means of production and the distribution of property and wealth in general. It is a political economy position. That is the general academic position, and it has nothing to do with government interference or control and has not changed. There is no such concept as there being a 'modern left' that is different in conception to a 'non-modern or past Left.
There is in this sense only one Left and Right, and it is determined by the political economy position I stated, and that determiner has not changed, which is why it is a useful measure in history and political economy. It is separate from 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' and as long as it is used correctly in the academic manner it is always consistent. Then you have the problem in that you are mixing the economic and social sphere in your categorization of conservative and liberal. Taken as its most basic; a conservative is one who wishes to retain the existing social and economic structure and the power of the existing elites. Throughout history the strategies to do this can take various forms in different places and times. In the past, it has sometimes taken the form more gov't involvement in the private sector to secure the position of those elites either through and aristocracy or the fascist parties.
The modern inception of maintaining the elites (i.e., conservative) is to push the idea of the 'free-market' and total laissez faire which shifts money and power upward and gives more power to the large trusts. So modern conservatives are acting in a consistently conservative manner. A liberal or, to liberalize is one who wishes to remove restrains, but it, like 'conservative' it must be delineated as to whether this involves the social or economic sphere. This is because one can be fiscally conservative but socially liberal,, as is the case for what are called conservative Democrats, and to varying degrees the present day Libertarians. (Although many Libertarians are so far to the Right economically they are beyond being fiscally conservative, they are reactionary ultra-right. Neoliberals on steroids) In the modern usage, a fiscal liberal is, not one who wishes to, remove restrains on the economy, but one who wishes to remove economic restraints put upon the lower classes by the economy using social programs and regulation to do so.
-
So in this way, while the particular ideas and policies pushed by those called Liberal or Conservative may shift, the exact concept behind those terms do not.
When it is said that modern conservatives are the "classical liberals" this is, not really the case either. First of all, in the social sphere, it is the present day liberals that carry on the mantle of the Classical Liberals in political freedoms with positive policies on civil rights, anti-discrimination legislation and fostering free speech through organizations such as the ACLU for example. Additionally, the Classic Liberal economists were not "free-market' as is it is interpreted by the modern libertarian crowd or even most Republicans. Not even Adam, Smith himself preached the type of fanatical type of 'free-market' that is put forth by the modern liberation crowd.
"Adam Smith was not a dogmatic proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. A careful exposition of his work will demonstrate that there were many functions which the government could fulfil in capitalist-organized society. In many (although not quite all) ways, Smith's position on the role of the state in a capitalist society was, close to that of a modern twentieth century US liberal democrat" Spencer Pack "Capitalism as a Moral System, Adam Smith's critique of the Free Market Economy" p1
The Classical Liberals in the economic sphere refers really to the ones who wished to dismantle the mercantilist trading system and the privilege of the aristocracy, issues which; neither is relevant to contemporary society. That was the extent of their idea of "free-market" not the modern usage, of lowering the taxes on the wealthy and totally unregulated markets and trade.
Admittedly the contemporary conservatives do try to claim that they acting from the same concepts, but more properly the modern conservatives are Neoliberal, or, if they include a social aspect Neoconservative, but both push Neoliberal economic policies like 'free-trade' and 'privatization' which is the way to keep the existing social structure and elite status quo; in other words, a conservative policy.
With that in mind, Contemplate the following.
'Whatever level of state intervention, it could be argued quite forcefully that belief in private property was central to fascist ideology, as [Roger] Eatwell states: the sympathetic reference to socialism did not mean that fascists accepted the abolition of private property. This was seen as a law of nature. "The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right" p141
"Although modern economic literature usually fails to notice it, the Nazi government in 1930s Germany undertook a wide scale privatization policy. The government sold public ownership in several state-owned firms in different sectors. In addition to this, delivery of some public services previously produced by the public sector was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the Nazi Party."
"Nazi Privatization in the 1930s" - Economists View 9/06
"Both Mussolini and Hitler showed their gratitude to their big business patrons by privatizing many perfectly solvent state-owned steel mills, power plants, banks and steamship companies. Both regimes dipped heavily into the public treasury to re-float or subsidize (private) heavy industry. Agribusiness farming was expanded and heavily subsidized. Both states guaranteed a return on the capital invested by giant corporations while assuming most of the risks and losses on investments. As is often the case with reactionary regimes, public capital was raided by private capital."
Parenti "Blackshirts and Reds" p7
"The combination of domestic demand, an end to foreign competition, rising prices and relatively static wages created a context in which it was not hard to make healthy profits. Indeed, be 1934 the bonuses being paid to the boards of some firms were so spectacular that they were causing acute embarrassment to Hitler's government." "The Wages of Destruction" Adam Tooze p108.
"Though it is important to justice to the shift in power relations between the state and business that undoubtedly occurred in the early 1930s, we must be careful to avoid falling into the trap of viewing German business as a passive object in the regimes new system of regulation. As we have seen profits were rising rapidly after 1933 and this opened attractive future prospects for German corporate management." Tooze, Ibid, p114
to the extent that
"Big business was an active partner in many key facets of Hitler's National Revolution. Certainly in relation to Germany's managerial elite,, one of the more important segments of that population, the regime found willing partners." Ibid, p134
It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc
In an article published in the Der Deutsche Volkswirt in February 1934, Heinz Marschner proposed 'The reprivatization' of urban transportation, which after the period of inflation came under public control, especially in the hands of local governments. This proposal was related to the Nazi governments support for returning the ownership of urban transportation back to the private sector
several months later, in an article discussing banking policy in Germany; Hans Baumgarten analyzed the conditions required for the reprivatization in the German banking sector. Discussion of privatization was increasingly common soon after the Nazi government took office early in 1933, and privatizations soon followed.
In the 1930s The Deutsche Reichsbahn (German Railways) was the largest single public enterprise in the world, bringing together most of the railways services operating within Germany. The German Budget for fiscal year 1934/35, the last one published established that Railway preference shares worth Reichsmark 224 million were to be sold.
The Commerz-Bank was reprivatized through several share sales in 1936-37. These shares amounted to Rm. 57 million, and the largest single transaction was a sale of Rm. 22 million in October 1936. Deutsche Bank was reprivatized in several operations effectively implemented in 1935-37. I suggest anyone out there to go read Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany, By Germà Bel
The list of Nazi privatizations covers every other sector as well, Mining Steel, Shipbuilding etc.. even areas within the social sector were privatized. This is also demonstrable in fascist Italy
"He (Mussolini) was relieved no doubt to find the commanding heights of Italian capitalism joining the great majority of the liberal order and certainly most landowners in applauding the march on Rome." (don't misread here, the word 'liberal' is being used in its actual form and not the politicized form that exists in the US. One could substitute 'upper middle-class' or 'Petty Bourgeoisie' here) Thereafter he and de' Stefani were careful to present the new government as fiscally orthodox, preoccupied with cutting wasteful expenditure but willing to assist capital by the denationalization of the telephone network and the cancellation of Giolitti's investigation into excessive war profits, and determined to balance the budget." "Mussolini's Italy" RJB Bosworth p224
(and wasn't that McCains platform too? A Right Wing Republican, Oh yes it was.)
And the actions of the Italian fascists showed their capitalist intentions.
"Once in power the fascists issued the so called "Carta del Lavoro" or Labor Charter which encouraged private entrepreneurship and specifically stated, "State intervention in economic production will only happen when private initiative is lacking or insufficient and when the political interests of the state are directly involved." ibid p227, Bosworth.
"Nazi planning left business intact, from the great firms like IG Farben all the way down to small retailers and backstreet artisanal workshops" Richard Evans, "The Third Reich in Power" p371
"The Darwinian principles that animated the regime dictated that competition between companies and individuals would remain the guiding principle of the economy, just as competition between different agencies of state and party were the guiding principles of politics and administration." Richard Evans, Ibid p410
"The point could be made that private capitalism and bureaucratization of the economy are essentially incompatible. If this is true, then Hitler's regime should have begun the process of destroying, capitalism in Germany. But this did not happen,despite, the fact that a radical element in the Nazi Party wanted to do exactly that. But that radical element, led by Otto Strasser, was already effectively eliminated before Hitler's seizure of power. What actually developed After 1933 Was an interesting demonstration of how well Capitalism And Bureaucratization Complement Each Other." - The Political System of the Third Reich - Professor Gerhard Rempel.
And this little quote surely tops it all off.
"Those who believed that the Nazis would seal them from 'wucherkapital', wild exploitative capitalism, were to be quickly disappointed. The role of capital was strengthened rather than sapped by the Nazis." "Seduced by Hitler" Adam leBor and Roger Boyes, p61
The description by Edward Feser is not quite accurate, Firstly, Hitler was Pro-christian. See here. The part about that he "regarded capitalist society as brutal and unjust, and sought a third way between communism and the free market." The refrence is to Corporatism. Which whilst it may not promote the free markets, is still Pro-capital
Corporatism in capitalist as well as even so called socialist states is a delicate and unstable mode of interest intermediation. Expectations can always rise, definitions of what constitutes a fair share are always subject to debate and change, and the asymmetrical access to resources in all societies means that some groups will always be able to bargain more effectively for money and influence because they have the weight of tradition and the claim to indispensibility behind them. Moreover, the very characteristics that encourage the development of corporatism-a strong, interventionist state, economic planning, cleavages centred around class, an organized working class, economic abundance, and fusion or at the least co-operative relations between the state and those who control capital-can also work to undermine corporatist arrangements. The dependence in the final analysis of labour (and labour parties) on capital, state monopoly of political and economic resources, and pressures on the working class to use unrest in lieu of any other bargaining chip can tilt the balance in the system in favour of labour, capital, or the state, thereby undermining the consensus that is essential to the maintenance of the deal.
Moreover, the close interdependence between political stability and economic growth makes such systems unusually vulnerable to recession. This is because continued support is conditional on performance, dissatisfaction is expressed primarily in the form of economic demands, and, finally, because in a political economy based on outcomes dissent cannot be easily channelled as in pluralist systems into a focus on processes. Indeed, stringency not only generates conflict; it also works to strengthen capital, since capital generates growth, while labour generates costs. Finally, corporatist arrangements depend upon state control over resources. Incursions into that control-from within or outside the system-deprive the state of the power to monopolize interest intermediation, and to balance as well as discipline domestic demands.
If power is distributed according to one's economic importance and performance, if ambitions are easily kindled by the resources the system concentrates, and if the distribution of economic goods is strongly affected by political influence, then decision-making is bound to be highly conflictual and thereby subject to rather short-term evaluations of performance and opportunity costs. This in turn implies that, while one may 'trust cadres', one cannot trust interests, and bargaining as a result can become a highly volatile process, especially when funds are diminishing. Stringency, therefore, works against consensus and moderation of demands, because funding decisions and the distribution of power are interdependent processes which are telescoped into smaller and smaller time frames.
Finally, and most importantly, stringency skews the bargaining process in the direction of those interests which are more vital to the smooth functioning of the economy and those interests that are needed to control the demands and the growing dissatisfaction of labour. Stringency, therefore, encourages a close alliance between the state and capital, an alliance focused on generating
growth, holding down consumption, and legitimating the privileged role of those who control the resources vital to economic recovery and political solvency.
In policy and rhetorical terms, this translates into renewed confidence in the benefits of planning, close adherence to the 'laws' of trickledown economics and to trade-offs between equality and efficiency, sharp distinctions drawn between productive and unproductive investment, and the paring back of an interventionist state in social and regulatory policy, coupled
with an expansion of the state's involvement in enforcing social and political conformity and in encouraging the generation of capital.
For further clarification. Corporatism is often regarded as a term which refers to a type of interest intermediation process and therefore to certain policy outcomes. In corporatism, as opposed to pluralism and syndicalism, there is an activist state, concerned with social consensus and growth through a consensual planning process. Towards this end, the state incorporates functionally-based groups, such as labour and those who manage capital, into the economic decision-making process. The by-products of such a system include an expanding welfare state which co-opts the support of labour, investment priorities palatable to capital, and social harmony. Thus, corporatism is a broad, highly generalized descriptive term for political economies that share the following traits: (I) a concern with growth, consensual decision processes, and the nature of policy outcomes rather than (as in the case of pluralist systems) policy processes; (2) centralization of power in the executive, economic planning, and highly-articulated bureaucratic structures; (3) a state actively involved in the creation of hierarchically-organized, functionally-based interests and the admission of these interests into the policy process; (4) a form of interest intermediation that emphasizes on functional. as opposed to attitudinal, group concerns; and (5) policy priorities which recognize the need to co-opt labour, yet attract the support of capital and generate investment for growth. For where i get this part from, see Philippe Schmitter and Gerhard Lehmbruch, eds. Trends Towards Corporatist Inter-Mediation (Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1979).
"In a sense, autarchy and corporatism can be viewed as artificial and coercive, nothing more, than state-sponsored capitalism...Perhaps he last word on the economy should be left to Gramsci, who said that fascist economic policy aimed to nationalize loses, but not [private] profits" Ibid, Routledge, p146-147
The pro capital part is most important part here, That's what makes it , and the Nazi regime. Right Wing. I'll come onto his Anti-capitalist rhetoric soon. You know someone hasn't been reading much if he trots out the old idea that "hitler was a vegetarian therfore....."
(It's not a good way to ague for anything, especialy Hitler's place on the political spectrum.)
[ Edit. "Curiously, shortly after her [Geli Raubal] death, Hitler looked with disdain on a piece of ham being served during breakfast and refused to eat it, saying it was like eating a corpse. From that moment on, he refused to eat meat." - The History Place. Success and a Suicide. His "vegetarianism" has nothing to do with politics it seems, more like a phobia of meat, triggered by an association with his niece's death.]
It's funny that Ray always seems to target the Democrats, Hitler according to him, would probably be a modern member of the democrat party. Completely forgetting that the dems are in absolute terms, More right wing than parties like the British conservatives. and are in fact where the GOP used to be, before the GOP moved to pretty much the Far right in terms of economics. Some are even asking the question if Obama is actualy More conservative than Reagan?
And now, Why you shouldn't really be using Von-Mises as a source.
Simply put, the Nazis didn't use 'Bolshevik' tactics as whatever that vague statement is meant to mean, Hitler campaigned in the state elections and sought out and got the help of the large capitalists and other Right Wing types (See Adam Tooze). One could draw the same comparisons between many societies he makes, from Bismarck's Right-Wing with, its privileges of its ruling elite through the skewed weighing of the vote to the secret police in Right-Wing capitalist and vehemently anti communist Japan. He just lists thing that were common of many states at the time and says this is proof that Germany and socialism were uniquely similar. But none of those things are uniquely similar or exclusive. It is again its nothing more than trying to say: Hitler's bathroom was painted blue... Churchill's bathroom was painted blue... OMG Churchill, was a Nazi! And Mises fails to mention that the real Nazi usage is 'Volksgenosse' which is Racial comrade. So again the Nazis never meant 'comrade' in the socialist sense but only in the racial sense. Their usage of the word had absolutely nothing to do with socialism. And Bullock and many other real historians already debunk Mises with his comparison of the real ideology.
Indeed, and aside from quote Mining Eric Hobsbawm the rest of this part of His webpage is devoted to similarities which are not specific to any one side of the political spectrum.
And now, why you shouldn't be using Rauschning either.
"Now, after more than forty years, a Swiss historian has thoroughly exposed this supposed document [Rauschning's book ] of Hitler's madness as completely fraudulent. Wolfgang Haenel presented the results of his research to the annual conference in May 1983 of the Ingolstadt Contemporary History Research Center in West Germany." The Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1983 (Vol. 4, No. 3)
the part about "Because what he records is so inconvenient" is a strawman
"I have on no single occasion cited Hermann Rauschning's Hitler Speaks, a work now regarded to have so little authenticity that it is best to disregard it altogether." - Ian Kershaw, speaking about his biography of Hitler.
[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/2565787/David-Cameron-launches-secret-mission-to-win-over-trade-unions.html said:
David Cameron is doing pretty much the Same Thing as Hitler did, Doesn't prove Cameron or Hitler are left wing necessarily.
A modern Leftist?
The place, that one takes on the political spectrum is usualy determined by the position that one takes on the ownership of the means of production and the distribution of property and wealth in general. It is a political economy position. That is the general academic position, and it has nothing to do with government interference or control and has not changed. There is no such concept as there being a 'modern left' that is different in conception to a 'non-modern or past Left.
There is in this sense only one Left and Right, and it is determined by the political economy position I stated, and that determiner has not changed, which is why it is a useful measure in history and political economy. It is separate from 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' and as long as it is used correctly in the academic manner it is always consistent. Then you have the problem in that you are mixing the economic and social sphere in your categorization of conservative and liberal. Taken as its most basic; a conservative is one who wishes to retain the existing social and economic structure and the power of the existing elites. Throughout history the strategies to do this can take various forms in different places and times. In the past, it has sometimes taken the form more gov't involvement in the private sector to secure the position of those elites either through and aristocracy or the fascist parties.
The modern inception of maintaining the elites (i.e., conservative) is to push the idea of the 'free-market' and total laissez faire which shifts money and power upward and gives more power to the large trusts. So modern conservatives are acting in a consistently conservative manner. A liberal or, to liberalize is one who wishes to remove restrains, but it, like 'conservative' it must be delineated as to whether this involves the social or economic sphere. This is because one can be fiscally conservative but socially liberal,, as is the case for what are called conservative Democrats, and to varying degrees the present day Libertarians. (Although many Libertarians are so far to the Right economically they are beyond being fiscally conservative, they are reactionary ultra-right. Neoliberals on steroids) In the modern usage, a fiscal liberal is, not one who wishes to, remove restrains on the economy, but one who wishes to remove economic restraints put upon the lower classes by the economy using social programs and regulation to do so.
-
So in this way, while the particular ideas and policies pushed by those called Liberal or Conservative may shift, the exact concept behind those terms do not.
When it is said that modern conservatives are the "classical liberals" this is, not really the case either. First of all, in the social sphere, it is the present day liberals that carry on the mantle of the Classical Liberals in political freedoms with positive policies on civil rights, anti-discrimination legislation and fostering free speech through organizations such as the ACLU for example. Additionally, the Classic Liberal economists were not "free-market' as is it is interpreted by the modern libertarian crowd or even most Republicans. Not even Adam, Smith himself preached the type of fanatical type of 'free-market' that is put forth by the modern liberation crowd.
"Adam Smith was not a dogmatic proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. A careful exposition of his work will demonstrate that there were many functions which the government could fulfil in capitalist-organized society. In many (although not quite all) ways, Smith's position on the role of the state in a capitalist society was, close to that of a modern twentieth century US liberal democrat" Spencer Pack "Capitalism as a Moral System, Adam Smith's critique of the Free Market Economy" p1
The Classical Liberals in the economic sphere refers really to the ones who wished to dismantle the mercantilist trading system and the privilege of the aristocracy, issues which; neither is relevant to contemporary society. That was the extent of their idea of "free-market" not the modern usage, of lowering the taxes on the wealthy and totally unregulated markets and trade.
Admittedly the contemporary conservatives do try to claim that they acting from the same concepts, but more properly the modern conservatives are Neoliberal, or, if they include a social aspect Neoconservative, but both push Neoliberal economic policies like 'free-trade' and 'privatization' which is the way to keep the existing social structure and elite status quo; in other words, a conservative policy.
With that in mind, Contemplate the following.
'Whatever level of state intervention, it could be argued quite forcefully that belief in private property was central to fascist ideology, as [Roger] Eatwell states: the sympathetic reference to socialism did not mean that fascists accepted the abolition of private property. This was seen as a law of nature. "The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right" p141
"Although modern economic literature usually fails to notice it, the Nazi government in 1930s Germany undertook a wide scale privatization policy. The government sold public ownership in several state-owned firms in different sectors. In addition to this, delivery of some public services previously produced by the public sector was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the Nazi Party."
"Nazi Privatization in the 1930s" - Economists View 9/06
"Both Mussolini and Hitler showed their gratitude to their big business patrons by privatizing many perfectly solvent state-owned steel mills, power plants, banks and steamship companies. Both regimes dipped heavily into the public treasury to re-float or subsidize (private) heavy industry. Agribusiness farming was expanded and heavily subsidized. Both states guaranteed a return on the capital invested by giant corporations while assuming most of the risks and losses on investments. As is often the case with reactionary regimes, public capital was raided by private capital."
Parenti "Blackshirts and Reds" p7
"The combination of domestic demand, an end to foreign competition, rising prices and relatively static wages created a context in which it was not hard to make healthy profits. Indeed, be 1934 the bonuses being paid to the boards of some firms were so spectacular that they were causing acute embarrassment to Hitler's government." "The Wages of Destruction" Adam Tooze p108.
"Though it is important to justice to the shift in power relations between the state and business that undoubtedly occurred in the early 1930s, we must be careful to avoid falling into the trap of viewing German business as a passive object in the regimes new system of regulation. As we have seen profits were rising rapidly after 1933 and this opened attractive future prospects for German corporate management." Tooze, Ibid, p114
to the extent that
"Big business was an active partner in many key facets of Hitler's National Revolution. Certainly in relation to Germany's managerial elite,, one of the more important segments of that population, the regime found willing partners." Ibid, p134
It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc
In an article published in the Der Deutsche Volkswirt in February 1934, Heinz Marschner proposed 'The reprivatization' of urban transportation, which after the period of inflation came under public control, especially in the hands of local governments. This proposal was related to the Nazi governments support for returning the ownership of urban transportation back to the private sector
several months later, in an article discussing banking policy in Germany; Hans Baumgarten analyzed the conditions required for the reprivatization in the German banking sector. Discussion of privatization was increasingly common soon after the Nazi government took office early in 1933, and privatizations soon followed.
In the 1930s The Deutsche Reichsbahn (German Railways) was the largest single public enterprise in the world, bringing together most of the railways services operating within Germany. The German Budget for fiscal year 1934/35, the last one published established that Railway preference shares worth Reichsmark 224 million were to be sold.
The Commerz-Bank was reprivatized through several share sales in 1936-37. These shares amounted to Rm. 57 million, and the largest single transaction was a sale of Rm. 22 million in October 1936. Deutsche Bank was reprivatized in several operations effectively implemented in 1935-37. I suggest anyone out there to go read Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany, By Germà Bel
The list of Nazi privatizations covers every other sector as well, Mining Steel, Shipbuilding etc.. even areas within the social sector were privatized. This is also demonstrable in fascist Italy
"He (Mussolini) was relieved no doubt to find the commanding heights of Italian capitalism joining the great majority of the liberal order and certainly most landowners in applauding the march on Rome." (don't misread here, the word 'liberal' is being used in its actual form and not the politicized form that exists in the US. One could substitute 'upper middle-class' or 'Petty Bourgeoisie' here) Thereafter he and de' Stefani were careful to present the new government as fiscally orthodox, preoccupied with cutting wasteful expenditure but willing to assist capital by the denationalization of the telephone network and the cancellation of Giolitti's investigation into excessive war profits, and determined to balance the budget." "Mussolini's Italy" RJB Bosworth p224
(and wasn't that McCains platform too? A Right Wing Republican, Oh yes it was.)
And the actions of the Italian fascists showed their capitalist intentions.
"Once in power the fascists issued the so called "Carta del Lavoro" or Labor Charter which encouraged private entrepreneurship and specifically stated, "State intervention in economic production will only happen when private initiative is lacking or insufficient and when the political interests of the state are directly involved." ibid p227, Bosworth.
"Nazi planning left business intact, from the great firms like IG Farben all the way down to small retailers and backstreet artisanal workshops" Richard Evans, "The Third Reich in Power" p371
"The Darwinian principles that animated the regime dictated that competition between companies and individuals would remain the guiding principle of the economy, just as competition between different agencies of state and party were the guiding principles of politics and administration." Richard Evans, Ibid p410
"The point could be made that private capitalism and bureaucratization of the economy are essentially incompatible. If this is true, then Hitler's regime should have begun the process of destroying, capitalism in Germany. But this did not happen,despite, the fact that a radical element in the Nazi Party wanted to do exactly that. But that radical element, led by Otto Strasser, was already effectively eliminated before Hitler's seizure of power. What actually developed After 1933 Was an interesting demonstration of how well Capitalism And Bureaucratization Complement Each Other." - The Political System of the Third Reich - Professor Gerhard Rempel.
And this little quote surely tops it all off.
"Those who believed that the Nazis would seal them from 'wucherkapital', wild exploitative capitalism, were to be quickly disappointed. The role of capital was strengthened rather than sapped by the Nazis." "Seduced by Hitler" Adam leBor and Roger Boyes, p61
The description by Edward Feser is not quite accurate, Firstly, Hitler was Pro-christian. See here. The part about that he "regarded capitalist society as brutal and unjust, and sought a third way between communism and the free market." The refrence is to Corporatism. Which whilst it may not promote the free markets, is still Pro-capital
Corporatism in capitalist as well as even so called socialist states is a delicate and unstable mode of interest intermediation. Expectations can always rise, definitions of what constitutes a fair share are always subject to debate and change, and the asymmetrical access to resources in all societies means that some groups will always be able to bargain more effectively for money and influence because they have the weight of tradition and the claim to indispensibility behind them. Moreover, the very characteristics that encourage the development of corporatism-a strong, interventionist state, economic planning, cleavages centred around class, an organized working class, economic abundance, and fusion or at the least co-operative relations between the state and those who control capital-can also work to undermine corporatist arrangements. The dependence in the final analysis of labour (and labour parties) on capital, state monopoly of political and economic resources, and pressures on the working class to use unrest in lieu of any other bargaining chip can tilt the balance in the system in favour of labour, capital, or the state, thereby undermining the consensus that is essential to the maintenance of the deal.
Moreover, the close interdependence between political stability and economic growth makes such systems unusually vulnerable to recession. This is because continued support is conditional on performance, dissatisfaction is expressed primarily in the form of economic demands, and, finally, because in a political economy based on outcomes dissent cannot be easily channelled as in pluralist systems into a focus on processes. Indeed, stringency not only generates conflict; it also works to strengthen capital, since capital generates growth, while labour generates costs. Finally, corporatist arrangements depend upon state control over resources. Incursions into that control-from within or outside the system-deprive the state of the power to monopolize interest intermediation, and to balance as well as discipline domestic demands.
If power is distributed according to one's economic importance and performance, if ambitions are easily kindled by the resources the system concentrates, and if the distribution of economic goods is strongly affected by political influence, then decision-making is bound to be highly conflictual and thereby subject to rather short-term evaluations of performance and opportunity costs. This in turn implies that, while one may 'trust cadres', one cannot trust interests, and bargaining as a result can become a highly volatile process, especially when funds are diminishing. Stringency, therefore, works against consensus and moderation of demands, because funding decisions and the distribution of power are interdependent processes which are telescoped into smaller and smaller time frames.
Finally, and most importantly, stringency skews the bargaining process in the direction of those interests which are more vital to the smooth functioning of the economy and those interests that are needed to control the demands and the growing dissatisfaction of labour. Stringency, therefore, encourages a close alliance between the state and capital, an alliance focused on generating
growth, holding down consumption, and legitimating the privileged role of those who control the resources vital to economic recovery and political solvency.
In policy and rhetorical terms, this translates into renewed confidence in the benefits of planning, close adherence to the 'laws' of trickledown economics and to trade-offs between equality and efficiency, sharp distinctions drawn between productive and unproductive investment, and the paring back of an interventionist state in social and regulatory policy, coupled
with an expansion of the state's involvement in enforcing social and political conformity and in encouraging the generation of capital.
For further clarification. Corporatism is often regarded as a term which refers to a type of interest intermediation process and therefore to certain policy outcomes. In corporatism, as opposed to pluralism and syndicalism, there is an activist state, concerned with social consensus and growth through a consensual planning process. Towards this end, the state incorporates functionally-based groups, such as labour and those who manage capital, into the economic decision-making process. The by-products of such a system include an expanding welfare state which co-opts the support of labour, investment priorities palatable to capital, and social harmony. Thus, corporatism is a broad, highly generalized descriptive term for political economies that share the following traits: (I) a concern with growth, consensual decision processes, and the nature of policy outcomes rather than (as in the case of pluralist systems) policy processes; (2) centralization of power in the executive, economic planning, and highly-articulated bureaucratic structures; (3) a state actively involved in the creation of hierarchically-organized, functionally-based interests and the admission of these interests into the policy process; (4) a form of interest intermediation that emphasizes on functional. as opposed to attitudinal, group concerns; and (5) policy priorities which recognize the need to co-opt labour, yet attract the support of capital and generate investment for growth. For where i get this part from, see Philippe Schmitter and Gerhard Lehmbruch, eds. Trends Towards Corporatist Inter-Mediation (Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1979).
"In a sense, autarchy and corporatism can be viewed as artificial and coercive, nothing more, than state-sponsored capitalism...Perhaps he last word on the economy should be left to Gramsci, who said that fascist economic policy aimed to nationalize loses, but not [private] profits" Ibid, Routledge, p146-147
The pro capital part is most important part here, That's what makes it , and the Nazi regime. Right Wing. I'll come onto his Anti-capitalist rhetoric soon. You know someone hasn't been reading much if he trots out the old idea that "hitler was a vegetarian therfore....."
(It's not a good way to ague for anything, especialy Hitler's place on the political spectrum.)
[ Edit. "Curiously, shortly after her [Geli Raubal] death, Hitler looked with disdain on a piece of ham being served during breakfast and refused to eat it, saying it was like eating a corpse. From that moment on, he refused to eat meat." - The History Place. Success and a Suicide. His "vegetarianism" has nothing to do with politics it seems, more like a phobia of meat, triggered by an association with his niece's death.]
It's funny that Ray always seems to target the Democrats, Hitler according to him, would probably be a modern member of the democrat party. Completely forgetting that the dems are in absolute terms, More right wing than parties like the British conservatives. and are in fact where the GOP used to be, before the GOP moved to pretty much the Far right in terms of economics. Some are even asking the question if Obama is actualy More conservative than Reagan?
And now, Why you shouldn't really be using Von-Mises as a source.
Simply put, the Nazis didn't use 'Bolshevik' tactics as whatever that vague statement is meant to mean, Hitler campaigned in the state elections and sought out and got the help of the large capitalists and other Right Wing types (See Adam Tooze). One could draw the same comparisons between many societies he makes, from Bismarck's Right-Wing with, its privileges of its ruling elite through the skewed weighing of the vote to the secret police in Right-Wing capitalist and vehemently anti communist Japan. He just lists thing that were common of many states at the time and says this is proof that Germany and socialism were uniquely similar. But none of those things are uniquely similar or exclusive. It is again its nothing more than trying to say: Hitler's bathroom was painted blue... Churchill's bathroom was painted blue... OMG Churchill, was a Nazi! And Mises fails to mention that the real Nazi usage is 'Volksgenosse' which is Racial comrade. So again the Nazis never meant 'comrade' in the socialist sense but only in the racial sense. Their usage of the word had absolutely nothing to do with socialism. And Bullock and many other real historians already debunk Mises with his comparison of the real ideology.
Indeed, and aside from quote Mining Eric Hobsbawm the rest of this part of His webpage is devoted to similarities which are not specific to any one side of the political spectrum.
And now, why you shouldn't be using Rauschning either.
"Now, after more than forty years, a Swiss historian has thoroughly exposed this supposed document [Rauschning's book ] of Hitler's madness as completely fraudulent. Wolfgang Haenel presented the results of his research to the annual conference in May 1983 of the Ingolstadt Contemporary History Research Center in West Germany." The Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1983 (Vol. 4, No. 3)
the part about "Because what he records is so inconvenient" is a strawman
"I have on no single occasion cited Hermann Rauschning's Hitler Speaks, a work now regarded to have so little authenticity that it is best to disregard it altogether." - Ian Kershaw, speaking about his biography of Hitler.