Newsgroups: alt.politics.socialism From: jos boersema Subject: Re: Socialism exposed in Hitler Youth booklet & Swastika = S-letters for "SOCIALISM" References: <5ff7c4fb-82d4-4f27-80b2-3481793aa4ab@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com> Organization: www.socialism.nl Reply-To: jos boersema Followup-To: On 2009-02-06, News Journalism wrote: [...] It is hard to see how the nazis are not the exact opposite of everything socialist. How about this amuzing tidbit: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERnazi.htm (...) Propaganda cost money and this was something that the Nazi Party was very short of. Whereas the German Social Democrat Party was funded by the trade unions and the pro-capitalist parties by industrialists, the NSDAP had to rely on contributions from party members. When Hitler approached rich industrialists for help he was told that his economic policies (profit-sharing, nationalization of trusts) were too left-wing. In an attempt to obtain financial contributions from industrialists, Hitler wrote a pamphlet in 1927 entitled The Road to Resurgence. Only a small number of these pamphlets were printed and they were only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany. The reason that the pamphlet was kept secret was that it contained information that would have upset Hitler's working-class supporters. In the pamphlet Hitler implied that the anti-capitalist measures included in the original twenty-five points of the NSDAP programme would not be implemented if he gained power. Hitler began to argue that "capitalists had worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead." Hitler claimed that national socialism meant all people doing their best for society and posed no threat to the wealth of the rich. Some prosperous industrialists were convinced by these arguments and gave donations to the Nazi Party, however, the vast majority continued to support other parties, especially the right-wing German Nationalist Peoples Party (DNVP). (...) I guess the conclusion has to be: the nazi party said everything it thought it needed to in order to obtain support from people. What they said was not necessarily what they where thinking. This is a problem that is still haunting the Marxists (the only real anti-capitalists left), because Marx called for a singular unity party while failing to tightly describing its internal democratic protocols. The Marxist strategy for change is one notoriously vulnerable to internal corruption because of its emphasis on totalitarianism (singularity of organization, both in party and later in the state which was to dominate society and crush out all free trade, which is perceived as being wrong). The Marxists strategy relies on 'electing the best communists' to power, giving these people total support of all people, and they would solve all problems. Sure enough that is more or less what the nazi party did: all power to the single person they trusted. The nazi adventure holds important lessons for Marxists, because even if they don't see their own ideals implemented, they do see their own revolutionay strategy enacted in the nazi party. However both are related: with a corruption vulnerable strategy, you won't get your ideals implemented because of that corruption. Blame the corruption ? I say blame the Marxist revolutionary strategy because it seems to be substandard and can easily be improved upon, like so: many minority parties never unite their management but work together keeping a critical eye on one another. The internal democracy is extensively written down in procedures, the internal democracy must be maximized, meaning people get rotated in and out of the leadership positions routinely, binding party member referendum power, voting per block of voters rather then allowing the danger of demagoguery you may get with a singular ballot accross a wide mass of people. Even if some parties corrupt, which they presumably will, these can drop out of the pool, lose members: that's market pressures for you ! The multiple parties give the ruling class a big problem, because they can't lean on the singular opponent and play it. If you push hard enough on a big bear it falls over, if you put a knife deep in the skull of a bear it dies. But if you similarly push against a swarm of dogs, you may hit a few but the rest is at your tail already. If you put a knife in a dog one dies and the others have their teeth around your throat. The real killer in all of this is having the new system to be done worked out in law, so that later you don't depend on the few people who happen to be in power to solve these great problems for you. Even at the last possible moment you can fail if once you gain sovereign power you have little or no clue what to do next, except for muddying on from one day toward the other (which is what the Marxist revolutionaries found themselves in after winning power: they didn't know what to do structurally, except muddying on toward the next day). There's a saying: think before you act. As a concquence their actions have not led to the sorely needed end of capitalism (for profit finance, trade in power rather then effort). The anarchists are even less defined, they opt apparently for complete disregard of organization. The Marxists are totalitarian which is why it does not work, the anarchists are disintegrationists which is why it does not work. You need to be in the middle of these extremes: decent organizations with high end democracy (really a form of decency, listening to the people), many of them: none has totalitarian power but neither is there a complete organizational vacuum leading to nothing. When it comes to the state something similar: not totalitarian Marxist plan economy under "totalitarian democracy," or a total anarchist disintegration, but a highly democracy (meaning listening to the people) state managing a system in which many independent organizations float freely in the markets (who keep them clean), and in which all people have equal power to trade (meaning all people own natural resources, levels the playing field). Note that business investment belongs under the People and not in the markets, and that business ownership belongs either under the entrepreneur or the employees, and that sectors of productivity without good competitiveness belong under the state (infrastructure), and that countries should never be too large and be fully sovereign (their own currency). That results in a society neither totalitarian (marxist) or disintegrated (anarchist), having a correct trade system where work, innovation and competence are rewarded by the market and not by a parasitic ruling capitalist class. It isn't so simple as the marxists or anarchists (both utopians, fully and solely depending on the moral good in people) think it is. You have to balance the self-interest of all people in a system where chasing that self-interest becomes a force for good. That way you don't have to fight self-interest, it becomes an asset, and that makes people feel better. Note that people ought to chase self-interest one way or the other (a just and fair society is in the self-interest of people). The third group, "social democrats" is making a different kind of mistake: the social democrats are neither totalitarian or disintegrationists, and they appreciate the value of trade, but they have misunderstood the trade system itself. As a concequence the social democrats have allowed for profit finance, allow trade in company ownership titles, allow free trade in natural resources. The social democrats merely need to update their technical program on these points. This means a war with the banks, which the state can easily win. Everyone seems to have a slice of the truth on the left: - totalitarian marxists are anti-capitalist - anarchists oppose totalitarianism - marxists oppose disintegrationism - social democrats favor free markets - marxists are anti-capitalists, on occaision supported land-distribution - social democrats oppose totalitarianism - marxists oppose extreme wealth inequality as do the anarchists - both anarchists and marxists focus too much on revolution - social democrats shy away from revolution too much A kind of pie and you all hold a piece and nobody really understands it. So who rules the day: the capitalist ruling class, because it is a law of economics that they will gain more and more power through money for profit lending, thrusting society into pains and themselves into luxury until things crash/radicalize. Marxists need to drop their totalitarianism and fear of free markets, but retain their anti-capitalism and hate for exploitation and extreme wealth, they should also retain their willingness to do good for "the sick and disabled", and they should come to understand the value of rule of law above rule of club (and start to propose rules that seem right). Anarchists need to drop their fear of organization but retain the need for freedom in these organizations. Social democrats should learn economics.