April 18, 2018
PSC 250 Political-isms
The Nazi’s use of the name “National Socialism” causes a great deal of confusion in understanding what socialism is and what the Nazi regime stood for. With recent political polarization, these terms are often thrown around and at individuals with little regard to their true meanings. Socialism and National Socialism are two very different ideologies. The Nazi use of the socialist label does not effectively describe what they believed in and what they hoped to achieve once in power. Fascism is often thought to have inspired Nazi ideology. Socialism also lacks much in common with broad fascist ideology as well as the Italian Fascism that is most well known to represent the broader movement. Confusing these terms all the more is the late nineteenth and twentieth century movements towards Communism. Bolshevik revolution and dictatorship in the Soviet Union, although inspired by earlier socialist thought, also differs from the founding socialist principles. In response to recent attempts to equate Nazis with socialists, I will explore the core beliefs and founding principles of socialism in an attempt to better understand the interconnectedness of the aforementioned political parties.
Socialism and communism is often thought to have been a product of German born writer Karl Marx. While his writings did indeed inspire and provide clear doctrine for the ideologies, other socialist thinkers also contributed to the philosophy much earlier than Marx. Starting with the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain, Robert Owen began to imagine and experiment with alternative social constructs that could give rise to a utopian society. Owen was disturbed by social and economic changes brought on by the Industrial Revolution, and the shift from a family economy to capitalism. He believes that this led to a decrease in community connections and family bonds, while workers are forced to labor for long hours in unsafe and unhealthy conditions. At the time, few child labor laws protected children as young as five years old from the toils of factory work. Owen wrote that the capitalist system being born from the concentration of wealth and mass production work failed to maximize the happiness of the majority. As Owen explains in A New View of Society and Other Writings, written in 1813, “the acquisition of wealth, and the desire which it naturally creates for a continued increase, have introduced a fondness for essentially injurious luxuries among a numerous class of individuals who formerly never thought of them, and they have also generated a disposition which strongly impels its possessors to sacrifice the best feelings of human nature to this love of accumulation.” (Festenstein & Kenny, 2005, p. 188) He believed that community co-operation and central planning would lead to the elimination of “poverty, social misery and inequality.” (Festenstein & Kenny, 2005, p. 176) Individuals exhibiting asocial behavior in this new society could not be blamed for their shortcomings. Owen declares, “this defect of character ought not to be attributed to the individuals possessing it, but to the overwhelming effect of the system under which they have been trained.” (Festenstein & Kenny, 2005, p. 189) Much of the societal and working-class ills experienced at this time were attributed to the employer, or factory owner and managers. As he explains, “the employer regards the employed as mere instruments of gain, while these acquire a gross ferocity of character, which, if legislative measures shall not be judiciously devised to prevent its increase, and ameliorate the condition of this class, will sooner or later plunge the country into a formidable and perhaps inextricable state of danger.” (Festenstein & Kenny, 2005, p. 190) State intervention is required to alleviate these issues that have arisen from a purely free market and capitalist economy. Laws and regulations must be enforced against private industry to protect child workers, limit working hours, provide for basic needs of the employees, and ensure universal education.
Thirty-five years later, Karl Marx published his iconic work, The Communist Manifesto. Together with Frederck Engels, Marx attempted to provide the masses with a brief and easy to understand definition and explanation of socialist thought and the communist ideal. During the mid-nineteenth century, revolutions were taking place across Europe, attempting to overthrow traditional monarchies. Much of Marx’s work focuses on the economic and societal structure born from the Industrial Revolution. Throughout history, however, Marx declares that, “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles… oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another.” (Marx & Engles, 2002, p. 219) Building on the similar observations that Robert Owen made earlier in the century as the Industrial Revolution was expanding, Marx explains how capitalism created a new class of people that he termed the bourgeoisie. Neither aristocratic nor peasant, this new bourgeoisie class was growing as the traditional laws and customs of the Ancien Régime, based on feudalism, were brought to an end. Those without noble birth who had access to cash and other resources, were now free to participate in open markets that grew their wealth but exploited lower class workers. The bourgeoisie was “doing away with the scattered state of the population… has agglomerated population, centralized means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands.” (Marx & Engles, 2002, p. 224) According to Marx’s theory of continual class struggle, just as the bourgeoisie rose up to overthrow the former monarchial system of rule, so too would the working class (termed the proletariat) one day rise up to overthrow the current capitalist system. This was an inevitable process, for as “modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells.” (Marx & Engles, 2002, p. 225) In its place, the proletariat would establish its own dictatorship to abolish private property, create a central planning system, and build an economy based on equitable work and equitable distribution. As Marx describes, “the proletariat movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority.” (Marx & Engles, 2002, p. 232) He goes on to explains that the, “first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class… the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.” (Marx & Engles, 2002, p. 243) At an unknown point in the future, the state and dictatorship would cease to exist when society had achieved a fully cooperative and classless stage. “When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character… in its place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” (Marx & Engles, 2002, p. 244)
Social Democratic Parties (socialists) throughout Europe were united by the goal of the, “transformation of private property in the means of production into social, or common, ownership, whole goal is socialist production, or production for the benefit of society.” (Sassoon, 1996, p. 24) To achieve this goal, socialists knew they needed to acquire political power, but had yet to gain a majority vote in any nation. By the early twentieth century, Russia was one of the last remaining monarch societies that was still based mostly on a feudal system of serfs and lords. Vladimir Lenin believed they could create a revolution based on communist principles, without the delay of democratic reforms. Lenin thought this natural system of change and class dissolution could be forced, or sped up, with educated revolutionary leaders taking advantage of the mistakes and successes other countries made in their path to Industrial Revolution. He lacked faith in the ability of the proletariat to rise up in solidarity and to “develop the appropriate kind of political consciousness,” making a clear distinction between the working man’s “trade union activities and the political vision and leadership required of revolutionary leaders.” (Festenstein & Kenny, 2005, p. 179) Following the upheaval of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, Lenin led his party to complete control of the Soviet state. Throughout the world, socialist parties experienced a split with those who supported the violent and militant methods employed by the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union. As Sassoon explains in One Hundred Years of Socialism, “on the whole communist parties were formed as a result of a minority split from the socialist parties, as was the case in Spain and Italy.” (Sassoon, 1996, p. 33) Once the Soviets had secured control over Russia, socialist parties were forced to take a side for or against Lenin. In 1920, Lenin published Twenty One Conditions, which called for the expulsion of “all reformists (and) centrists, accept the discipline which the new international organization will demand, support the Soviet Republic, be prepared for illegal political work and call yourself communists.” (Sassoon, 1996, p. 32) The “new” Communist party was making a clear and decisive break from any traditional form of socialism that was viewed to be more moderate in their actions and ideology.
With the end of World War I and the fall of the Russian Romanov dynasty, the Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, and the abdication by Germany’s Kaiser, nationalism was taking hold across the European continent. Under these rulers, people of differing ethnic, racial, and religious heritage were held together under central control of an empire. Once freed, people who identified with groups according to similar language, culture, and historical experience sought to establish their own nations that would express their solidarity. Nationalism, “invokes a sense of belonging and serving a national community, a pride in culture and traditions, and a sense that this community is entitled to form a state and to promote its own interests.” (Festenstein & Kenny, 2005, p. 257) At a time of political, economic, and social upheaval, many saw nationalism as necessary for political stabilization and resistance to foreign intrusion. However, some also recognized that this sense of community could also lead to “xenophobia, racism, and militaristic self-aggrandizement.” (Festenstein & Kenny, 2005, p. 257) Although on the winning side of World War I, Italy felt betrayed by the treaties and partitioning of colonies mandated by the Allied forces. Italians felt defeated, demoralized, and humiliated by the larger Western powers they had aligned with. Italy’s unification, democracy, and emerging global powers were still in their infancy. It remained a largely backwards country, facing economic challenges, inflation, unemployment, and rampant poverty in both urban and rural regions. The country was beginning to feel the growing discontent that might lead to revolution. Benito Mussolini, former socialist turned nationalist, seized on the sentiment of the moment, and founded Italy’s Fascist Party. First and foremost, socialism must be destroyed by force if necessary. His Blackshirt militia was the only force that seemed willing and capable of combatting the socialists. Now was also the time for a new government, as the liberal government was proving itself weak and incapable. The new Italy must be full of youth, modernism, and fearless strength. Fascists called for a revolution to “overthrow established political elites and abolish established forms of political rule.” (SDOnline, 2011) Fascist rhetoric attacks individualism and declares the state above all else. An important foundational philosophy of the Fascists was a return to the glory of the former Roman Empire, as a ruler of lands, home to a military that cannot be defeated, and a world leader. Mussolini proclaimed, “everything within the state, nothing against the state, nothing outside the state.” (Mussolini, 1932) This was the core of his fascist ideology, proclaiming that the state is more important than any individual or group, even family. In determining specific national policy, however, contradictions often grew out of a lack of clarity within the Fascist party. Mussolini once explained, “Fascism for the moment only has a history (back to 1915) and not a doctrine. It will acquire one when it has the time to elaborate and coordinate its ideas.” (Bosworth, 2007, p. 148) Fascists sought to regain Italy’s glorious past, yet they also sought to “become slimmer, more efficient, less yielding and clement, more modern…slough off delusions of a lackadaisical past.” (Bosworth, 2007) They were tasked with restoring law and order and smashing any remaining Bolshevik threat. At the same time, they called for a rebirth of a new, powerful, modern country. To overcome any confusion, state propaganda unleashed the cult of Mussolini. So much so that many viewed the man above the party. One Fascist anthem declared, “Italians are remade. They are remade by Mussolini for the war to come tomorrow, for the joy of hard work, for peace and the laurel, for those who are renegades of the patria to be placed beneath the yoke. The poets and the artisans, the gentlemen and the peasants, proud of being Italian, swear faith to Mussolini.” (Bosworth 2005 p. 198). In striking contrast to this call for undying loyalty, was the fact that the Fascist rule left much cultural practice unchanged. The family structure and importance remained a key aspect of daily life. Property distribution remained relatively the same. Fascist rhetoric, from its inception, spoke relentlessly of coming war, Italy’s glory, of individuals’ duty to heroism and sacrifice, of unrestrained aggression towards any nation that disregarded Italy. It touted the immediate need for technological breakthrough in every field. Civic duty demanded a total commitment to fascism from every Italian. Liberalism and its emphasis on the individual is unacceptable under fascism. So too is socialism, which fascists believed pitted social classes against each other. Conservatives fail to see the need for radical and violent political change in bringing about a strong nation. (Festenstein & Kenny, 2005, p. 381)
During the 1920’s Germany was in a state of utter strife and struggle. The Weimar Republic was Germany’s first attempt at democracy after their loss of World War I. Economic conditions were terrible. The country was subject to strict regulations against armament and militarization under the Versailles Treaty. Reparations to Allied powers were high, putting an additional burden on the German people. Political polarization pitted multiple groups and parties against each other, often resulting in street warfare. One of these right-wing groups, violently opposed to communism, called themselves the National Socialists, or Nazis. Adolf Hitler emerged as a leader and face of the party. His charismatic and fiery speeches mobilized young and old alike to align with party rhetoric that called for the end of democracy and the Weimar Republic that brought destruction to Germans by agreeing to the demands set in the Versailles Treaty. While similar to fascist ideology in it’s national unity, militant actions, and strong opposition to communism, the key difference between the Nazis and Italian Fascists was that the Nazis believed in the core unit of race over state. German heritage and identity was the tie that binds individuals into a nation greater than themselves. For Hitler, “history is viewed as a process of struggle among races.” (Festenstein & Kenny, 2005, p. 382) Out of this, the Nazis staunch Anti-Semitism became a core value. “The Jew is viewed as embodying the alienating and bestial materialism of modern life.” (Festenstein & Kenny, 2005, p. 382) Those of the Jewish race were synonymous with Bolsheviks as well as capitalists. They were blamed for the destruction of Germany, touted as a parasite that drains its host (superior white races) of all that it needs to survive. German people must be reunited under one nation, regardless of the divisions enacted by the Versailles Treaty, and the Jews (along with any other class of sub-human) must be eradicated from society. For Hitler, the nation is, above all, in service to the superior Aryan race. As he states in Mein Kampf, “Anyone who speaks of a mission of the German people on earth must know that it can exist only in the formation of a state which sees its highest task in the preservation and promotion of the most noble elements of our nationality, indeed of all mankind, which still remain intact.” (Festenstein & Kenny, 2005, p. 389) The nation’s mission must be the free development of those who share its common nationality. However, Hitler makes an important note that “we must first clearly understand what kind of people it is to contain and what purpose it is to serve.” (Festenstein & Kenny, 2005, p. 388) Identity as German is more than residing within its boundaries. German identity can only mean those who are pure of blood and free from any defects. Should those who are included in this definition reside outside the current boundaries of the German nation, then it is imperative that the nation be expanded to incorporate those peoples. It is also the state’s duty to raise these people up to a dominant world position. “The German Reich as a state embraces all Germans and has the task, not only of assembling and preserving the most valuable stocks of basic racial elements in this people, but slowly and surely of raising them to a dominant position.” (Festenstein & Kenny, 2005, p. 390)
Socialism is a political and economic outlook that seeks to create a redistribution of wealth and property in an equitable manner, across all social classes. National Socialism focuses on building racial pride, with the belief in special qualities of the superior Aryan race, rather than solving a cross-cultural problem of mass inequality. Traditional socialists reject the capitalist idea that those with wealth and privilege have the right to own property and resources at the expense of others, but rather wealth should be held by the community and shared equally among all its members. Socialism is not meant to be limited to a single nation, but common ownership of the world’s resources to all it’s people. Communists and Soviets alike believed in international revolution that would unite all people. National Socialism, however, utilized existing capitalist structures while bringing together employers and workers under a broader racial identity. Feelings of pride and patriotism were meant to overcome class differences, but at the expense of those deemed non-German. For those who insist that National Socialism was based on earlier socialist doctrines, such as the idea of a common and equal community under centralized state control, and the mere use of the word socialism in its name, fail to account for the Nazi party’s need to draw workers away from competing socialist and communist groups within Germany. The Nazi party would eventually outlaw any socialist or community party within Germany, along with any other opposition party. Hitler himself was given the Chancellorship in 1933 largely due to capitalist powers who urged the German President, Paul von Hindenburg, to appoint Hitler in an attempt to prevent any socialist revolution that may threaten their property holdings. As Leon Trotsky pointed out in 1933, “in Germany as well as in Italy, fascism leaves the social system untouched; taken by itself, Hitler’s overturn has no right even to the name counter-revolution. As Social Democracy saved the bourgeoisie from the proletarian revolution, fascism came in its turn to liberate the bourgeoisie from the Social Democracy… German fascism, like Italian fascism, raised itself to power on the backs of the petty bourgeoisie, which it turned into a battering ram against the organizations of the working class and the institutions of democracy… It is the most ruthless dictatorship of monopoly capital; fascism succeeded in putting them at the service of capital.” (Trotsky, 1933)
REFERENCES
Bosworth, R. J. (2007). Mussolini’s Italy: Life Under the Fascist Dictatorship, 1915-1945. London, UK: Penguin Books.
Eley, G. (2002). Forging Democracy: The History of the Left in Europe 1850-2000. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Festenstein, M., & Kenny, M. (2005). Political Ideologies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Fox, D. W. (1932, February 25). Mussolini and the New Italy. Retrieved from The Empire Club of Canada Addressess: http://speeches.empireclub.org/62129/data?n=1
Geyer, M., & Fitzpatrick, S. (2009). Beyond Totalitarianism. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Goldberg, J. (2014, February 27). Nazis: Still Socialists. Retrieved from National Review: https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/02/nazis-still-socialists-jonah-goldberg/
Kershaw, I., & Lewin, M. (1997). Stalinism and Naziism: Dictatorships in Comparison. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Klein, D. (2011, January). Hitler, Nazis, Socialism, and Rightwing Propoganda. Retrieved from California State University: https://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/NazismSocialism.html
Marx, K., & Engles, F. (2002). The Communist Manifesto. London, UK: Penguin Books.
Mussolini, B. (1932). The Doctrine of Fascism. Retrieved from World Future Fund: http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm
National Socialist German Workers Party. (n.d.). Program of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party. Retrieved from Yale Law School: The Avalon Project: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/nsdappro.asp
Price, G. (2017, August 14). Nazis Are Not Socialists Nor Democrats Despite What Alt-Right Might Say. Retrieved from Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/nazis-democrats-socialists-alt-right-650572
Reisman, G. (2005, November 11). Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian. Retrieved from Mises Institute: Austrian Economics, Freedom, and Peace: https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian
Sassoon, D. (1996). One Hundred Years of Socialism. New York, NY: The New Press.
SDOnline. (2011, March 8). Two Ways of Looking at Fascism. Retrieved from Journal of the Research Group on Soclialism and Democracy: http://sdonline.org/47/two-ways-of-looking-at-fascism/
Selby, W. G. (2015, October 16). Jason Villalba said Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist and “Nazis were Democratic Socialists”. Retrieved from PolitiFact Texas: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/oct/16/jason-villalba/jason-villalba-said-bernie-sanders-democratic-soci/
Trotsky, L. (1933, June). What Is National Socialism. Retrieved from Marxists Internet Archive: https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330610.htm
Watson, G. (1998, November 22). Hitler and the Socialist Dream. Retrieved from The Independent Culture: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html
Kelly Murmello 