Monday, January 4, 2010

Why Socialists Love War And The State

"Neocons are not classical liberals nor are they conservatives in the Old Right sense. They are in fact socialists who derive their inspiration from national socialism (hence all the talk about the homeland aka fatherland) and support the social welfare programs of the Progressives thus appealing to the communist branch of socialism. It is an attempt to unite socialism under one roof."

For a little run-down in our times where this approach has been used, go to "Will There Be A War With China?"

According to "The Foreign Policy of the Third Reich" by Klaus Hildebrand, "Göring was certainly an ardent Nazi and utterly loyal to Hitler. But his preferences in foreign policy were different. Besides Hitler's foreign policy program that there existed three other rival foreign programs held by factions in the Nazi Party, whom Hildebrand dubbed the agrarians, the revolutionary socialists, and the Wilhelmine Imperialists. Göring was the most prominent of the "Wilhelmine Imperialist" group in the Nazi regime. This group wanted to restore the German frontiers of 1914, regain the pre-1914 overseas empire, and make Eastern Europe Germany's exclusive sphere of influence. This was a much more limited set of goals than Hitler's dream of Lebensraum seized in merciless racial wars. By contrast, Göring and the "Wilhelmine Imperialist" faction were more guided by traditional Machtpolitik in their foreign policy conceptions. Furthermore, the "Wilhelmine Imperialists" expected to achieve their goals within the established international order. While not rejecting war as an option, they preferred diplomacy, and sought political domination in eastern Europe rather than the military conquests envisioned by Hitler. And they rejected Hitler's mystical vision of war as a necessary ordeal for the nation, and of perpetual war as desirable. Göring himself feared that a major war might interfere with his luxurious lifestyle."

In our modern times, U.S. political policy runs between progressive communism and incremental fascism which is derived from the Latin word fasces. This nation has not had a free market economy in around 100 years or so. Fascism and communism are merely two brands of socialism. Both find classical liberalism (rights of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) to be repulsive.

In terms of economic policy, many fascist leaders have claimed it was a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of the free market and state socialism. This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labor. Italian fascist leader Mussolini called his nation's system "the corporate state".

In theory, communism and its derivatives is supposed to result in a classless, stateless and oppression-free society. Generally, communists would be opposed to the imperial aims that most European nations have embarked on since ancient times, but see a struggle of the workers rising up in every nation against what they see as oppressive capitalism. Economic decisions are supposedly made in a democratic fashion, but in fact is determined by a central planning committee. In a nutshell, whenever communism theory has been put to practice, the end result was a disaster. Communist leaders like Stalin and Mao justified their collectivist policies as being for the public good or that he was modernizing society and his means of doing this led to a cult of personality, famine or terror. According to R.J. Rummel, in the 20th century alone, 262,000,000 people have been murdered as a result of democide.

So basically, while both systems were undoubtedly collectivist, they differed greatly in their socio-economic content. For Communism was a genuine revolutionary movement that ruthlessly displaced and overthrew the old ruling elites; while fascism, on the contrary, cemented into power the old ruling classes. Therefore, fascism was a counter-revolutionary movement that froze a set of monopolistic privileges upon society. This was the reason that Fascism proved so attractive (which Communism, of course, never did) to big business interests in the West throughout much of the 20th century.

Given that the Communist approach would not work in the revolutionary sense, it had to adopt a different tactic. Thus it adopted the ways of the Fabian Society vis a vis gradualist and reformist, rather than revolutionary. In a nutshell, communism became institutionalized. Is it any wonder why people are graduating from college with economic degrees, but couldn't tell you the first thing about how to run a small business or know what fractional reserve banking is?

Essentially war is done for the benefit of the state and to detriment of the people. Historically, wars have been justified in the name of building an empire that reflected a rulers rightful sphere on Earth similar to the God's sphere in the universe. They would even admit that they were doing it "because the Gods told me to". Given that this method of explanation would not work in Western society, it had to be subtextual. Progressive communists would justify war as being for the public good, to liberate the poor from evil capitalism, or to make us all "equal" which flies in the face of recognizing every person as a unique individual with a unique personality. "The ends justify the means!"

National Socialism hence the word NAZI (National Socialist Workers Party) would justify war in terms of racial purity, or that one nation is infinitely superior to another nation in terms of its culture, industry, religion, etc... Thus if a nation wants to attack another nation, it was justified as we were just civilizing them. "Might makes right!"

In any event, tyranny is almost always justified along the lines of God's will or "the will of the people." That being said, it is the inherent right and duty of the people, regardless of what labels you attach to yourself or to others, to resist socialism in all its forms. Only when we recognize that individual liberty and the right of each individual to have the opportunity to make something of themselves however they may see fit that we can reduce pain and suffering and solve many of the problems that occupy our existence.


Mike K said...

Chris, thanks for the post. It was informative. I enjoy reading your blog.

Clay Barham said...

Is government at any level, invented, designed or fashioned for the purpose of providing justice or preventing injustice? For those who look to government as our nation’s highest authority, the dispensing of justice is its highest duty, instead of a nation based on freedom principles, where the people are the highest authority and government’s highest duty is to prevent injustice, usually closest to the people served. There is a major difference between justice given and injustice prevented, just like equality and inequality. Justice and equality inspire admiration, but preventing injustice and encouraging inequality made America the great nation it became. It is easy to decide which is best when comparing America’s prosperity to almost 200 other nations in the world where most starve, are whipped, beaten and murdered by their prosperous elite rulers.

Libz Bane said...

Excellent post. I despise the NeoCons almost as much as I despise the Progressives. But try explaining that to hardcore sheep that still believe that Bush kept us safe.

larzkins said...

Excellent writing and explanations of these warped systems Chris! Thanks, reposting. PS Will you follow my new blog, "America Seizing Absolutes"? I have just started it. Thank you!