Newsgroup: it.politica
Titolo: Nazismo: Destra o Sinistra?

Qualche tempo fa c'era un'acceso dibattito su SCI
se i nazional-socialisti potevano essere considerati come "destra"
o "sinistra".
Beh, ecco un'articolo "tratto dalla Liberal FAQ a 
http://www.scruznet.com/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
che dovrebbe tagliare la testa al toro.
-------------------------------------------------
Myth: Hitler was a leftist.
Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right. 
Summary
Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that
his party was named
"National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and
control of the means of
production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the
means of production, and
they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state.
True socialism does not
advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic.
Hitler's other political beliefs
place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over
racial tolerance, eugenics over
freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over
cooperation, power politics and
militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over
Marxism, realism over
idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over
inclusiveness, common sense over
theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly
relations with the Church,
even though he was an atheist. 
Argument
To most people, Hitler's beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For
example, most conservatives
believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far
enough, and you arrive at Hitler's
warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an
embarrassment to the far
right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a
counter-attack, claiming
that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political
left, not the right.
The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National
Socialist. The word "National"
evokes the state, and the word "Socialist" openly identifies itself as
such. 
However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term:
it was a misnomer.
Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples
include the German
Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's
"Liberal Democrat" party
(which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called
his party "socialist," but
whether or not it actually was.
In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere
in the world. This may
surprise some people -- after all, wasn't the Soviet Union socialist?
The answer is no. Many
nations and political parties have called themselves "socialist," but
none have actually tried
socialism. To understand why, we should revisit a few basic political
terms.
Perhaps the primary concern of any political ideology is who gets to own
and control the means the
production. This includes factories, farmlands, machinery, etc.
Generally there have been three
approaches to this question. The first was aristocracy, in which a
ruling elite owned the land and
productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in
return for their livelihood. The
second is capitalism, which has disbanded the ruling elite and allows a
much broader range of
private individuals to own the means of production. However, this
ownership is limited to those
who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are
excluded. The third (and untried)
approach is socialism, where everyone owns and controls the means of
production, by means of the
vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few
people owning productive wealth
at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.
Socialism has been proposed in many forms. The most common is social
democracy, where
workers vote for their supervisors, as well as their industry
representatives to regional or national
congresses. Another proposed form is anarcho-socialism, where workers
own companies that
would operate on a free market, without any central government at all.
As you can see, a central
planning committee is hardly a necessary feature of socialism. The
primary feature is worker
ownership of production.
The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it was a
dictatorship over workers -- that is,
a type of aristocracy, with a ruling elite in Moscow calling all the
shots. Workers cannot own or
control anything under a totalitarian government. In variants of
socialism that call for a central
government, that government is always a strong or even direct democracy…
never a dictatorship. It
doesn't matter if the dictator claims to be carrying out the will of the
people, or calls himself a
"socialist" or a "democrat." If the people themselves are not in
control, then the system is, by
definition, non-democratic and non-socialist. 
And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of
production in Nazi
Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy
and capitalism. Technically,
private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The
Nazi "Charter of Labor"
gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the
employer as the "leader of
the enterprise," and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the
decisions for the employees and
laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise." (1)
The employer, however, was subject to the frequent orders of the ruling
Nazi elite. After the Nazis
took power in 1933, they quickly established a highly controlled war
economy under the direction
of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht. Like all war economies, it boomed, making
Germany the second nation to
recover fully from the Great Depression, in 1936. (The first nation was
Sweden, in 1934.
Following Keynesian-like policies, the Swedish government spent its way
out of the Depression,
proving that state economic policies can be successful without resorting
to dictatorship or war.)
Prior to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, worker protests had spread
all across Germany in
response to the Great Depression. During his drive to power, Hitler
exploited this social unrest by
promising workers to strengthen their labor unions and increase their
standard of living. But these
were empty promises; privately, he was reassuring wealthy German
businessmen that he would
crack down on labor once he achieved power. Historian William Shirer
describes the Nazi's dual
strategy: 
     "The party had to play both sides of the tracks. It had to allow
[Nazi officials] Strasser,
     Goebbels and the crank Feder to beguile the masses with the cry
that the National Socialists
     were truly 'socialists' and against the money barons. On the other
hand, money to keep the
     party going had to be wheedled out of those who had an ample supply
of it." (2) 
Once in power, Hitler showed his true colors by promptly breaking all
his promises to workers.
The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to
strike. An organization
called the "Labor Front" replaced the old trade unions, but it was an
instrument of the Nazi party
and did not represent workers. According to the law that created it,
"Its task is to see that every
individual should be able… to perform the maximum of work." Workers
would indeed greatly boost
their productivity under Nazi rule. But they also became exploited.
Between 1932 and 1936,
workers wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an hour for skilled labor,
and from 16.1 to 13 cents an
hour for unskilled labor. (3) Yet workers did not protest. This was
partly because the Nazis had
restored order to the economy, but an even bigger reason was that the
Nazis would have cracked
down on any protest.
There was no part of Nazism, therefore, that even remotely resembled
socialism. But what about
the political nature of Nazism in general? Did it belong to the left, or
to the right? Let's take a
closer look:
The politics of Nazism
The political right is popularly associated with the following
principles. Of course, it goes without
saying that these are generalizations, and not every person on the far
right believes in every
principle, or disbelieves its opposite. Most people's political beliefs
are complex, and cannot be
neatly pigeonholed. This is as true of Hitler as anyone. But since the
far right is trying peg Hitler as
a leftist, it's worth reviewing the tenets popularly associated with the
right. These include: 
     Individualism over collectivism. 
     Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance. 
     Eugenics over freedom of reproduction. 
     Merit over equality. 
     Competition over cooperation. 
     Power politics and militarism over pacifism. 
     One-person rule or self-rule over democracy. 
     Capitalism over Marxism. 
     Realism over idealism. 
     Nationalism over internationalism. 
     Exclusiveness over inclusiveness. 
     Meat-eating over vegetarianism. 
     Gun ownership over gun control 
     Common sense over theory or science. 
     Pragmatism over principle. 
     Religion over secularism. 
Let's review these spectrums one by one, and see where Hitler stood in
his own words. Ultimately,
Hitler's views are not monolithically conservative -- on a few issues,
his views are complex and
difficult to label. But as you will see, the vast majority of them
belong on the far right:
Individualism over collectivism.
Many conservatives argue that Hitler was a leftist because he subjugated
the individual to the state.
However, this characterization is wrong, for several reasons.
The first error is in assuming that this is exclusively a liberal trait.
Actually, U.S. conservatives
take considerable pride in being patriotic Americans, and they deeply
honor those who have
sacrificed their lives for their country. The Marine Corps is a classic
example: as every Marine
knows, all sense of individuality is obliterated in the Marines Corps,
and one is subject first,
foremost and always to the group.
The second error is forgetting that all human beings subscribe to
individualism and collectivism. If
you believe that you are personally responsible for taking care of
yourself, you are an individualist.
If you freely belong and contribute to any group -- say, an employing
business, church, club,
family, nation, or cause -- then you are a collectivist as well. Neither
of these traits makes a person
inherently "liberal" or "conservative," and to claim that you are an
"evil socialist" because you
champion a particular group is not a serious argument.
Political scientists therefore do not label people "liberal" or
"conservative" on the basis of their
individualism or collectivism. Much more important is how they approach
their individualism and
collectivism. What groups does a person belong to? How is power
distributed in the group? Does it
practice one-person rule, minority rule, majority rule, or self-rule?
Liberals believe in majority
rule. Hitler practiced one-person rule. Thus, there is no comparison.
And on that score, conservatives might feel that they are off the hook,
too, because they claim to
prefer self-rule to one-person rule. But their actions say otherwise.
Many of the institutions that
conservatives favor are really quite dictatorial: the military, the
church, the patriarchal family, the
business firm.
Hitler himself downplayed all groups except for the state, which he
raised to supreme significance
in his writings. However, he did not identify the state as most people
do, as a random collection of
people in artificially drawn borders. Instead, he identified the German
state as its racially pure
stock of German or Aryan blood. In Mein Kampf, Hitler freely and
interchangeably used the terms
"Aryan race," "German culture" and "folkish state." To him they were
synonyms, as the quotes
below show. There were citizens inside Germany (like Jews) who were not
part of Hitler's state,
while there were Germans outside Germany (for example, in Austria) who
were. But the main
point is that Hitler's political philosophy was not really based on
"statism" as we know it today. It
was actually based on racism -- again, a subject that hits uncomfortably
closer to home for
conservatives, not liberals.
As Hitler himself wrote: 
     "The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish
the liberalistic concept of
     the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to
substitute for them the folk
     community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its
common blood." (4)
     "The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation
and advancement of a
     community of physically and psychically homogenous creatures. This
preservation itself
     comprises first of all existence as a race… Thus, the highest
purpose of a folkish state is
     concern for the preservation of those original racial elements
which bestow culture and
     create the beauty and dignity of a higher mankind. We, as Aryans,
can conceive of the state
     only as the living organism of a nationality which… assures the
preservation of this
     nationality…" (5)
     "The German Reich as a state must embrace 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." (6) 
And it was in the service of this racial state that Hitler encourage
individuals to sacrifice
themselves: 
     "In [the Aryan], the instinct for self-preservation has reached its
noblest form, since he
     willingly subordinates his own ego to the life of the community
and, if the hour demands it,
     even sacrifices it." (7)
     "This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to
the conservation of the
     community, is really the first premise for every truly human
culture." (8) 
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance. 
     "All the human culture, all the results of art, science, and
technology that we see before us
     today, are almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan."
(9)
     "Aryan races -- often absurdly small numerically -- subject foreign
peoples, and then…
     develop the intellectual and organizational capacities dormant
within them." (10)
     "If beginning today all further Aryan influence on Japan should
stop… Japan's present rise in
     science and technology might continue for a short time; but even in
a few years the well
     would dry up… the present culture would freeze and sink back into
the slumber from which it
     awakened seven decades ago by the wave of Aryan culture." (11)
     "Every racial crossing leads inevitably sooner or later to the
decline of the hybrid product…"
     (12)
     "It is the function above all of the Germanic states first and
foremost to call a fundamental
     halt to any further bastardization." (13)
     "What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and
reproduction of our race and our
     people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our
blood…" (14) 
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction 
     "The folkish philosophy of life must succeed in bringing about that
nobler age in which men
     no longer are concerned with breeding dogs, horses, and cats, but
in elevating man himself…"
     (15)
     "The folkish state must make up for what everyone else today has
neglected in this field. It
     must set race in the center of all life. It must take care to keep
it pure… It must see to it that
     only the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace:
despite one's own sickness
     and deficiencies, to bring children into the world, and one highest
honor: to renounce doing
     so. And conversely it must be considered reprehensible: to withhold
healthy children from
     the nation. Here the state… must put the most modern medical means
in the service of this
     knowledge. It must declare unfit for propagation all who are in any
way visibly sick or who
     have inherited a disease and therefore pass it on…" (16) 
Merit over equality. 
     "The best state constitution and state form is that which, with the
most unquestioned
     certainty, raises the best minds in the national community to
leading position and leading
     influence. But as in economic life, the able men cannot be
appointed from above, but must
     struggle through for themselves…" (17) 
     "It must not be lamented if so many men set out on the road to
arrive at the same goal: the
     most powerful and swiftest will in this way be recognized, and will
be the victor." (p. 512.) 
Competition over cooperation. 
     "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want
to fight in this world of
     eternal struggle do not deserve to live." (18)
     "It must never be forgotten that nothing that is really great in
this world has ever been
     achieved by coalitions, but that it has always been the success of
a single victor. Coalition
     successes bear by the very nature of their origin the germ of
future crumbling, in fact of the
     loss of what has already been achieved. Great, truly world-shaking
revolutions of a spiritual
     nature are not even conceivable and realizable except as the
titanic struggles of individual
     formations, never as enterprises of coalitions." (19)
     "The idea of struggle is old as life itself, for life is only
preserved because other living things
     perish through struggle… In this struggle, the stronger, the more
able, win, while the less able,
     the weak, lose. Struggle is the father of all things… It is not by
the principles of humanity that
     man lives or is able to preserve himself in the animal world, but
solely by means of the most
     brutal struggle… If you do not fight for life, then life will never
be won." (20) 
Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
Allan Bullock, probably the world's greatest Hitler historian, sums up
Hitler's political method in
one sentence: 
     "Stripped of their romantic trimmings, all Hitler's ideas can be
reduced to a simple claim for
     power which recognizes only one relationship, that of domination,
and only one argument,
     that of force." (21) 
The following quotes by Hitler portray his rather stunning contempt for
pacifism: 
     "If the German people in its historic development had possessed
that herd unity [defined here
     by Hitler as racial solidarity] which other peoples enjoyed, the
German Reich today would
     doubtless be mistress of the globe. World history would have taken
a different course, and no
     one can distinguish whether in this way we would not have obtained
what so many blinded
     pacifists today hope to gain by begging, whining and whimpering: a
peace, supported not by
     the palm branches of tearful, pacifist female mourners, but based
on the victorious sword of
     a master people, putting the world into the service of a higher
culture." (22)
     "We must clearly recognize the fact that the recovery of the lost
territories is not won
     through solemn appeals to the Lord or through pious hopes in a
League of Nations, but only
     by force of arms." (23)
     "In actual fact the pacifistic-humane idea is perfectly all right
perhaps when the highest type
     of man has previously conquered and subjected the world to an
extent that makes him the sole
     ruler of this earth… Therefore, first struggle and then perhaps
pacifism." (24) 
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy. 
     "The young [Nazi] movement is in its nature and inner organization
anti-parliamentarian;
     that is, it rejects… a principle of majority rule in which the
leader is degraded to the level of
     mere executant of other people's wills and opinion." (25)
     "The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion,
but must dominate it. It
     must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!" (26)
     "By rejecting the authority of the individual and replacing it by
the numbers of some
     momentary mob, the parliamentary principle of majority rule sins
against the basic
     aristocratic principle of Nature…" (27)
     "For there is one thing we must never forget… the majority can
never replace the man. And no
     more than a hundred empty heads make one wise man will an heroic
decision arise from a
     hundred cowards." (28)
     "There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons,
and the word 'council'
     must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will
have advisers by his side, but
     the decision will be made by one man." (29)
     "When I recognized the Jew as the leader of the Social Democracy,
the scales dropped from
     my eyes." (30)
     "The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism…" (31)
     "Only a knowledge of the Jews provides the key with which to
comprehend the inner, and
     consequently real, aims of Social Democracy." (32) 
Capitalism over Marxism.
Bullock writes of Hitler's views on Marxism: 
     "While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt,
towards Marxism he
     showed an implacable hostility… Ignoring the profound differences
between Communism and
     Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the
rival working class parties,
     he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he
detested -- mass democracy
     and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state
and the rule of an elite;
     equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial
inequality and the domination of
     the strong; class solidarity versus national unity;
internationalism versus nationalism." (33) 
As Hitler himself would write: 
     "The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." (34)
     "In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the
question of the future of the
     German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." (35)
     "In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the
political sphere." (36)
     "The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in
indirectly obtaining for their
     criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world,
destined by them for
     extinction." (37)
     "Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the
Jews." (38)
     "The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle
of Nature and replaces the
     eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and
their dead weight." (39) 
Realism over idealism.
Hitler was hardly an "idealist" in the sense that political scientists
use the term. The standard
definition of an idealist is someone who believes that cooperation and
peaceful coexistence can
occur among peoples. A realist, however, is someone who sees the world
as an unstable and
dangerous place, and prepares for war, if not to deter it, then to
survive it. It goes without saying
that Hitler was one of the greatest realists of all time. Nonetheless,
Hitler had his own twisted
utopia, which he described: 
     "We are not simple enough, either, to believe that it could ever be
possible to bring about a
     perfect era. But this relieves no one of the obligation to combat
recognized errors, to
     overcome weaknesses, and strive for the ideal. Harsh reality of its
own accord will create
     only too many limitations. For that very reason, however, man must
try to serve the ultimate
     goal, and failures must not deter him, any more than he can abandon
a system of justice
     merely because mistakes creep into it…" (40)
     "The same boy who feels like throwing up when he hears the tirades
of a pacifist 'idealist' is
     ready to give up his life for the ideal of his nationality." (41) 
Nationalism over internationalism. 
     "The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when… their
international poisoners are
     exterminated." (42)
     "The severest obstacle to the present-day worker's approach to the
national community lies
     not in the defense of his class interests, but in his international
leadership and attitude which
     are hostile to the people and the fatherland." (43)
     "Thus, the reservoir from which the young [Nazi] movement must
gather its supporters will
     primarily be the masses of our workers. Its work will be to tear
these away from the
     international delusion… and lead them to the national community…"
(44) 
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness. 
     "Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature;
they imagine that they
     know practically everything and yet with few exceptions pass
blindly by one of the most
     patent principles of Nature: the inner segregation of the species
of all living beings on earth."
     (45)
     "The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in
this world lies in the
     religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically
convinced of its own right, it
     intolerantly imposes its will against all others." (46) 
Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
It may seem ridiculous to include this issue in a review of Hitler's
politics, but, believe it or not,
conservatives on the Internet frequently equate Hitler's vegetarianism
with the vegetarianism
practised by liberals concerned about the environment and the ethical
treatment of animals.
Hitler's vegetarianism had nothing to do with his political beliefs. He
became a vegetarian shortly
after the death of his girlfriend and half-niece, Geli Raubal. Their
relationship was a stormy one,
and it ended in her apparent suicide. There were rumors that Hitler had
arranged her murder, but
Hitler would remain deeply distraught over her loss for the rest of his
life. As one historian writes: 
     "Curiously, shortly after her 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." (47) 
Hitler's vegetarianism, then, was no more than a phobia, triggered by an
association with his
niece's death.
Gun ownership over gun control
Perhaps one of the pro-gun lobby's favorite arguments is that if German
citizens had had the right
to keep and bear arms, Hitler would have never been able to tyrannize
the country. And to this
effect, pro-gun advocates often quote the following: 
     "1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized
nation has full gun registration.
     Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world
will follow our lead into
     the future." - Adolf Hitler 
However, this quote is almost certainly a fraud. There is no reputable
record of him ever making it:
neither at the Nuremberg rallies, nor in any of his weekly radio
addresses. Furthermore, there was
no reason for him to even make such a statement; for Germany already had
strict gun control as a
term of surrender in the Treaty of Versailles. The Allies had wanted to
make Germany as impotent
as possible, and one of the ways they did that was to disarm its
citizenry. Only a handful of local
authorities were allowed arms at all, and the few German citizens who
did possess weapons were
already subject to full gun registration. Seen in this light, the above
quote makes no sense
whatsoever.
The Firearms Policy Journal (January 1997) writes: 
     "The Nazi Party did not ride to power confiscating guns. They rode
to power on the inability
     of the Weimar Republic to confiscate their guns. They did not
consolidate their power
     confiscating guns either. There is no historical evidence that
Nazis ever went door to door in
     Germany confiscating guns. The Germans had a fetish about paperwork
and documented
     everything. These searches and confiscations would have been
carefully recorded. If the
     documents are there, let them be presented as evidence." 
On April 12, 1928, five years before Hitler seized power, Germany passed
the Law on Firearms
and Ammunition. This law substantially tightened restrictions on gun
ownership in an effort to
curb street violence between Nazis and Communists. The law was
ineffectual and poorly enforced.
It was not until March 18, 1938 -- five years after Hitler came to power
-- that the Nazis passed
the German Weapons Law, their first known change in the firearm code.
And this law actually
relaxed restrictions on citizen firearms.
Common sense over theory or science.
Hitler was notorious for his anti-intellectualism: 
     "The youthful brain should in general not be burdened with things
ninety-five percent of
     which it cannot use and hence forgets again… In many cases, the
material to be learned in the
     various subjects is so swollen that only a fraction of it remains
in the head of the individual
     pupil, and only a fraction of this abundance can find application,
while on the other hand it is
     not adequate for the man working and earning his living in a
definite field." (48)
     "Knowledge above the average can be crammed into the average man,
but it remains dead,
     and in the last analysis sterile knowledge. The result is a man who
may be a living dictionary
     but nevertheless falls down miserably in all special situations and
decisive moments in life."
     (49)
     "The folkish state must not adjust its entire educational work
primarily to the inoculation of
     mere knowledge, but to the breeding of absolutely healthy bodies.
The training of mental
     abilities is only secondary. And here again, first place must be
taken by the development of
     character, especially the promotion of will-power and
determination, combined with the
     training of joy in responsibility, and only in last place comes
scientific schooling." (50)
     "A people of scholars, if they are physically degenerate,
weak-willed and cowardly pacifists,
     will not storm the heavens, indeed, they will not be able to
safeguard their existence on this
     earth." (51) 
Pragmatism over principle. 
     "The question of the movement's inner organization is one of
expediency and not of
     principle." (52) 
Religion over secularism.
Hitler's views on religion were complex. Although ostensibly an atheist,
he considered himself a
cultural Catholic, and frequently evoked God, the Creator and Providence
in his writings.
Throughout his life he would remain an envious admirer of the Christian
Church and its power
over the masses. Here is but one example: 
     "We can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its
doctrinal edifice… comes
     into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less
unwilling to sacrifice so
     much as one little syllable of its dogmas. It has recognized quite
correctly that its power of
     resistance does not lie in its lesser or greater adaptation to the
scientific findings of the
     moment, which in reality are always fluctuating, but rather in
rigidly holding to dogmas once
     established, for it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole
body the character of faith.
     And so it stands today more firmly than ever." (53) 
Hitler also saw a useful purpose for the Church: 
     "The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers;
precisely for the masses,
     [religious] faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude…
For the political man, the
     value of a religion must be estimated less by its deficiencies than
by the virtue of a visibly
     better substitute. As long as this appears to be lacking, what is
present can be demolished
     only by fools or criminals." (54) 
Hitler thus advocated freedom of religious belief. Although he would
later press churches into the
service of Nazism, often at the point of a gun, Hitler did not attempt
to impose a state religion or
mandate the basic philosophical content of German religions. As long as
they did not interfere with
his program, he allowed them to continue fuctioning. And this policy was
foreshadowed in his
writings: 
     "For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions
of his people must always
     remain inviolable; or else he has no right to be in politics…" (55)
     "Political parties have nothing to do with religious problems, as
long as these are not alien to
     the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as
religion cannot be
     amalgamated with the scheming of political parties." (56)
     "Worst of all, however, is the devastation wrought by the misuse of
religious conviction for
     political ends." (57)
     "Therefore, let every man be active, each in his own denomination
if you please, and let
     every man take it as his first and most sacred duty to oppose
anyone who in his activity by
     word or deed steps outside the confines of his religious community
and tries to butt into the
     other." (58) 
Hitler was raised a Catholic, even going to school for two years at the
monastery at Lambauch,
Austria. As late as 24 he still called himself a Catholic, but somewhere
along the way he became an
atheist. It is highly doubtful that this was an intellectual decision,
as a reading of his disordered
thoughts in Mein Kampf will attest. The decision was most likely a
pragmatic one, based on power
and personal ambition. Bullock reveals an interesting anecdote showing
how these considerations
worked on the young Hitler. After five years of eking out a miserable
existence in Vienna and four
years of war, Hitler walked into his first German Worker's Party
meeting: 
     "'Under the dim light shed by a grimy gas-lamp I could see four
people sitting around a
     table…' As Hitler frankly acknowledges, this very obscurity was an
attraction. It was only in a
     party which, like himself, was beginning at the bottom that he had
any prospect of playing a
     leading part and imposing his ideas. In the established parties
there was no room for him, he
     would be a nobody." (59) 
Hitler probably realized that a frustrated artist and pipe-dreamer like
himself would have no
chance of achieving power in the world-wide, 2000-year old Christian
Church. It was most likely
for this reason that he rejected Christianity and pursued a political
life instead. Yet, curiously
enough, he never renounced his membership in the Catholic Church, and
the Church never
excommunicated him. Nor did the Church place his Mein Kampf on the Index
of Prohibited Books,
in spite of its knowledge of his atrocities. Later the Church would come
under intense criticism for
its friendly and cooperative relationship with Hitler. A brief review of
this history is instructive.
In 1933, the Catholic Center Party cast its large and decisive vote in
favor of Hitler's Enabling Bill.
This bill essentially gave Chancellor Hitler the sweeping dictatorial
powers he was seeking.
Historian Guenter Lewy describes a meeting between Hitler and the German
Catholic authorities
shortly afterwards: 
     "On 26 April 1933 Hitler had a conversation with Bishop Berning and
Monsignor Steinmann
     [the Catholic leadership in Germany]. The subject was the common
fight against liberalism,
     Socialism and Bolshevism, discussed in the friendliest terms. In
the course of the
     conversation Hitler said that he was only doing to the Jews what
the church had done to them
     over the past fifteen hundred years. The prelates did not
contradict him." (60) 
As anyone familiar with Christian history knows, the Church has always
been a primary source of
anti-Semitism. Hitler's anti-Semitism therefore found a receptive
audience among Catholic
authorities. The Church also had an intense fear and hatred of Russian
communism, and Hitler's
attack on Russia was the best that could have happened. The Jesuit
Michael Serafin wrote: "It
cannot be denied that [Pope] Pius XII's closest advisors for some time
regarded Hitler's armoured
divisions as the right hand of God." (61) As Pope Pius himself would say
after Germany conquered
Poland: "Let us end this war between brothers and unite our forces
against the common enemy of
atheism" -- Russia. (62)
Once Hitler assumed power, he signed a Concordat, or agreement, with the
Catholic Church.
Eugenio Pacelli (the man who would eventually become Pope Pius XII) was
the Vatican diplomat
who drew up the Concordat, and he considered it a triumph. In return for
promises which Hitler
increasingly broke, the Church dissolved all Catholic organizations in
Germany, including the
Catholic Center Party. Bishops were to take an oath of loyalty to the
Nazi regime. Clergy were to
see to the pastoral care of Germany's armed forces (regardless of what
those armed forces did). (63)
The Concordat eliminated all Catholic resistance to Hitler; after this,
the German bishops gave
Hitler their full and unqualified support. A bishops' conference at
Fulda, 1933, resulted in
agreement with Hitler's case for extending Lebensraum, or German
territory. (64) Bishop
Bornewasser told a congregation of Catholic young people at Trier: "With
our heads high and with
firm steps we have entered the new Reich and are ready to serve it body
and soul." (65)
Vicar-General Steinman greeted each Berlin mass with the shout, "Heil
Hitler!" (66)
Hitler, on the other hand, kept up his attack on the Church. Nazi bands
stormed into the few
remaining Catholic institutions, beat up Catholic youths and arrested
Catholic officials. The
Vatican was dismayed, but it did not protest. (67) In some instances, it
was hard to tell if the
Church supported its own persecution. Hitler muzzled the independent
Catholic press (about 400
daily papers in 1933) and subordinated it to Goebbels' Ministry of
Propaganda and Enlightenment.
Yet soon the Catholic Press was doing more than what the Nazis required
of it -- for example,
coordinating their Nazi propaganda to prepare the people for the 1940
offensive against the West.
(68) Throughout the war, the Catholic press would remain one of the
Third Reich's best
disseminators of propaganda.
Pacelli became the new Pope Pius XII in 1939, and he immediately
improved relations with Hitler.
He broke protocol by personally signing a letter in German to Hitler
expressing warm hopes of
friendly relations. Shortly afterwards, the Church celebrated Hitler's
birthday by ringing bells,
flying swastika flags from church towers and holding thanksgiving
services for the Fuhrer. (69)
Ringing church bells to celebrate and affirm the bishops' allegiance to
the Reich would become
quite common throughout the war; after the German army conquered France,
the church bells rang
for an entire week, and swastikas flew over the churches for ten days.
But perhaps the greatest failure of Pope Pius XII was his silence over
the Holocaust, even though he
knew it was in progress. Although there are many heroic stories of
Catholics helping Jews survive
the Holocaust, they do not include Pope Pius, the Holy See, or the
German Catholic authorities.
When a reporter asked Pius why he did not protest the liquidation of the
Jews, the Pope answered,
"Dear friend, do not forget that millions of Catholics are serving in
the German armies. Am I to
involve them in a conflict of conscience?" (70) As perhaps the world's
greatest moral leader, he
was charged with precisely that responsibility.
The history of Hitler and the Church reveals a relationship built on
mutual distrust and
philosophical rejection, but also shared goals, benefits, admiration,
envy, friendliness, and ultimate
alliance.
--
To reply by email remove "xxxx" from the start of my email address
---------------------------------------------------------
G. Torrieri, Particle physics group, Univ. of Birmingham
Work: 0121-414-46-30   Home:0121-455-04-06
Homepage:   
http://www.ep.ph.bham.ac.uk/user/torrieri
---------------------------------------------------------
"When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him:
'Whose?'"
   -- Don Marquis, quoted in Edward Anthony, O Rare Don Marquis

Ne' l'una, ne' l'altra, tutte e due.
Dipende che senso dai a Destra e Sinistra.
Se Liberta' - Uguaglianza, se Ordine - Disordine, se Liberalismo - Stato
Sociale, etc. etc.
Da par mio, ti consiglio l'autobiografia di un liberale di Ludwig Von
Mises e "La via della schiavitu'" di Hayek a proposito, rispettivamente
edite da Rubbettino e Rusconi, ottimi mezzi con cui analizzare la comune
matrice anti-liberale dei due fenomeni.
-- 
Ciao.
Mingo
"The state is the great fiction by which everybody tries to live at
the expense of everybody else."
                               Frederic Bastiat
Mingo ICQ UIN : 4178983
Mingo Home Page : 
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/Mingo

 Mingo Home Page : 
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/Mingo
-- 
To reply by email remove "xxxx" from the start of my email address
---------------------------------------------------------
G. Torrieri, Particle physics group, Univ. of Birmingham
Work: 0121-414-46-30   Home:0121-455-04-06
Homepage:   
http://www.ep.ph.bham.ac.uk/user/torrieri
Libertarian socialism: 
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/9586/


...


 
La domanda e' priva di senso se preventivamente non si definisce cosa vuol
dire destra e cosa sinistra. Se con destra si intende quanto da' il
primato all'individuo e con sinistra quanto da' il primato ad entita' che
lo trascendono (la soceita', la patria, etc.) di cui lo stato pretende di
farsi interprete, allora il nazismo fa compagnia al comunismo all'estrema
sinistra.
Hayek, come ha detto giustamente Mingo, in Road to Serfdom mostra come il
nazismo non sia altro che il progressismo portato alle estreme
conseguenze.  Infatti se si consente allo stato di pianificare per il bene
comune su determinati temi sul piano economico, il passo con il
pianificare sul piano etnico sara' in fondo breve. Inoltre nel nazismo la
liberta' economica fu anch essa soffocata nell'illusione di uno stato
organico.
Coerente con questa analisi e' anche Path To Power di Margaret Thatcher.
Ciao,
Marco


25 Chapter Chambers, Esterbrooke Street 
London SW1P 4NN, England 
ICQ 8091240

 ultracapitalista.
Chomsky meriterebbe un thread piu' lungo ed a se'. Personalmente, lo
ritengo un grandissimo studioso del linguaggio ed apprezzo alcune sue
considerazioni ma ritengo altre, di natura prettamente economica,
assolutamente non condivisibili.
La storia ci dimostra purtroppo come qualsiasi potere dato allo stato
porti a una sua espansione assoluta, il che mostra il palese fallimento
e del liberalismo "classico" (a meno di non continuamente appellarci al
cielo ! -:)) e delle ideologie stataliste di sinistra. In ambo i casi,
sinceramente mi ripugna l'idea del bisogno di qualcosa che tuteli gli
"uomini da se stessi", e in campo economico e in campo civile.
P.S. : Gia' che ci sei, spiegami un po' perche' a pubblicare Chomsky in
Italia ("La Quinta LIberta'") in tempi non sospetti ci sia voluto un
editore dichiaratamente "di destra" come il Cerchio... ? -:)


 ICQ 8091240
-- 
To reply by email remove "xxxx" from the start of my email address
---------------------------------------------------------
G. Torrieri, Particle physics group, Univ. of Birmingham
Work: 0121-414-46-30   Home:0121-455-04-06
Homepage:   
http://www.ep.ph.bham.ac.uk/user/torrieri


Libertarians have "comrades"?  :-)
Sure we do :-)


 Mingo Home Page : 
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/Mingo
-- 
To reply by email remove "xxxx" from the start of my email address
---------------------------------------------------------
G. Torrieri, Particle physics group, Univ. of Birmingham
Work: 0121-414-46-30   Home:0121-455-04-06
Homepage:   
http://www.ep.ph.bham.ac.uk/user/torrieri


 Marco


 Puoi fare lo stesso con Von Mises?
Sinceramente, non ho problemi ad ammettere di non conoscere abbastanza
Mises per farlo. Lascio la parola a chi l'ha studiato o lo studia piu'
di me.
Io non ho alcuna preclusione verso la tua citazione, mi interessava
conoscere il contesto e una possibile edizione italiana del libro per
poterlo leggere, dopo di che ti potro' dire.
Tuttavia, non avendomi tu risposto in questo senso, ribadisco le
medesime richieste.  


 production. In Nazi Germany, [snippete, se dai il riferimento dell'articolo perche' poi lo immetti sul NG?]
Non penso che quell'articolo tagli nulla, la questione non e' se Hitler
fosse di destra o di sinistra, ma cio' che esso voleva realizzare
qualora avesse vinto e che in parte realizzo'.
Premesso che l'articolo giudica eventi storici con parametri odierni,
cosa gravissima, nessuno puo' dire che il nazismo fosse un movimento 
veramente anti-comunista.
Molte delle argomentazioni per questa tesi sono riportate nell'articolo,
e la loro smentita avviene, come ho detto, sulla base di cio' che accade
oggi.
Ma quello che nell'articolo mi pare di non aver letto e' che il nazismo,
se vincente, 
avrebbe sostituito alle classi sociali le classi razziali.
I nazisti infatti avevano realizzato una classifica delle razze che 
vedeva i nordici al primo posto, gli europei dell'Ovest al secondo, gli
europei del Sud (compresi quelli dell'Italia del Nord) al terzo posto, e 
giu' fino al 10° posto dove avevano messo gli africani.
All'interno della societa' tedesca, qualora la vittoria avesse arriso ad
Hitler, l'economia sarebbe
stata organizzata secondo criteri comunisti, non molto diversi da quelli
che Stalin aveva usato.
Infatti mentre i russi avevano il piano quinquennale i tedeschi avevano
il piano quadriennale, mi
pare che ve furono tre in Germania.
L'unica differenza con il pieno comunismo sovietico era da ricercarsi
appunto nel razzismo biologico
nazista.
Quindi la societa' tedesca non avrebbe conosciuto le classi sociali, nel
nuovo ordine hitleriano tutti i tedeschi sarebbero stati uguali, oguno
di essi era degno in
quanto portatore del superiore sangue tedesco, ma , ed e' qui la
differenza con Stalin,
proprio per questo i tedeschi avevano il diritto di dominare sugli
untermenschen e di usarli
come schiavi.
Ecco quindi come si spiega il nome, nazionale perche' era il sangue
che creava la differenza tra gli uomini, non la cittadinaza o le 
capacita' personali di ognuno (un po' quello che dice Bossi "I 
settentrionali sono superiori perche' settentrionali e basta"), ma 
indubbiamente socialista perche' poi l'economia sarebbe stata
organizzata secondo criteri 
comunisti.
Quindi il movimento di Htler puo' ben dirsi nazional-comunista.
Un ultima prova per questa tesi e' costituita dall'eliminazione dei capi
delle SA nella "notte dei lunghi coltelli", i quali volevano fin
dall'inizio la nazionalizzazione totale dell'industria e' l'avvio della
nuova societa' social-comunista.
Hitler capi' che pero' non poteva fare a meno delle grandi famiglie
capitaliste per avviare i programmi di riarmo e rimando' la 
realizzazione del programma alla fine della guerra.
Non lo fece perche' non poteva non perche' non voleva.
Cosi' come rimando' alla fine della guerra la distruzione delle due
chiese cristiane.
L'unico punto' in cui ebbe un parziale successo fu l'annientamento 
dell'ebraismo europeo, passato da 11 milioni di soggetti a poco meno di
4.
E' da notare che nella stesura della "classifica" delle razze gli ebrei
non compaiono, essi sono una gegenrasse, una contro-razza.
Mentre per i nazisti gli africani hanno comunque diritto di vivere,
seppure in schiavitu',
gli ebrei non lo hanno.
L'Olocausto e' anch'esso un progetto che e' nella mente dei nazisti fin 
dall'inizio.

 (Economics, 1960)
Puo' darsi che Samuelson sappia poco di storia.

 Enrico.
Osservazione intelligente.
Ciao
Gm

 Mingo Home Page : 
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/Mingo
-- 
To reply by email remove "xxxx" from the start of my email address
---------------------------------------------------------
G. Torrieri, Particle physics group, Univ. of Birmingham
Work: 0121-414-46-30   Home:0121-455-04-06
Homepage:   
http://www.ep.ph.bham.ac.uk/user/torrieri
---------------------------------------------------------
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line seperating good and evil 
passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political 
parties--but right through every human heart--and all human hearts."
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"

 a casa.
E' ridicolo, senza contesto, senza l'intera lettura del libro non e' una
prova. Io posso fare una citazione di un passo in cui un autore dice una
cosa salvo poi confutarla due righe dopo.
Dimmi dove reperire il libro, quando l'avro' letto ti diro'. Non prima


 si verificarono sotto il suo potere?
Forse la Thatcher era piuttosto conservatrice che libertaria. Vedi per
esempio: Sean Gabb, THE FULL COERCIVE APPARATUS OF A POLICE STATE:
THOUGHTS ON THE DARK SIDE OF THE THATCHER DECADE
http://www.digiweb.com/igeldard/LA/legal/polistat.txt
Ciao,
Hansjoerg.
=========================
 
http://www.liberalismus.com
  Freiheit - auf vielfachen Wunsch
         wieder im Programm
=========================

 =========================
-- 
ATTENZIONE: Si sta votando per la creazione del newsgroup
soc.culture.padania
Chi non considera quella "padana" una cultura a se stante puo votare
NO ,secondo le istruzioni a
http://x2.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=340156492.2&CONTEXT=891709095.768147661&hitnum=2


 Eppure Hayek era la sua ispirazione principale.
A parole, e neanche sempre.
Fatto sta che la Thatcher si e' sempre definita "conservatore", eccetto
che in una intervista a inizio mandato in cui uso' per se' la
definizione di "liberale gladstoniano". Punto.
Fatto sta che la riforma thatcher ebbe non pochi aspetti positivi, a
livello economico. Gli stessi che ora permettono alla Gran Bretagna di
essere il paese europeo con la minore disoccupazione.
Tuttavia, obiettivamente il testo di Gabb e' molto persuasivo e
bacchetta da un'ottica libertarian la Lady di Ferro.
Un'osservazione interessante potrebbe essere quella che fa Luigi De
Marchi nel suo manifesto dei liberisti (Seam, Roma), ovvero che
l'elettorato di middle class reaganiano e thatcheriano votava a favore
della liberta' tout court (impersonata dal Reagan "democratico"
governatore della California) e che soltanto dopo venne la svolta
bacchettona e anche militarista in U.S.A., in cui i due storsero il voto
della middle class causa le pressioni di date lobby
clerico-nazionaliste.
(il discorso e' molto riassunto. Prova ne sia - spiega De marchi - il
fatto che la "popolarita'" dei diritti civili sia andata
esponenzialmente crescendo negli anni reaganiani e thatcheriani)


George,
Prima di chiedere se il nazismo fosse "di destra" o "di sinistra", 
dovresti specificare un po' meglio cosa intendi con questi termini.
Il paragone con la citazione del giudice americano non c'entra un fico
secco, visto che quasi tutti abbiamo concetti completamente diversi 
l'uno dall' altro di "destra" e "sinistra".
   Se per te un partito di destra e' uno che favorisce il libero mercato
e uno di sinistra si occupa dei problemi dei lavoratori, il nazismo non 
era ne' l'una ne' l'altra cosa. Dovresti anche specificare su cosa 
basi questa distinzione: sul piano economico, su quello sociale, o su 
che? A una domanda imprecisa e'facile dare la risposta che si vuole.
Per curiosita', si puo'paragonare la situazione dei lavoratori nel 
1937 con quella nel 1928, l'anno finale del boom della Repubblica di 
Weimar (quindi a parita' di disoccupazione). Questo forse puo' dare 
una mano a chi volesse seriamente stabilire i rapporti tra il 
nazionalsocialismo e i movimenti socialisti.
Vediamo:
Vantaggi del 1937
-----------------
1) Il lavoratore del 1937, a differenza di quello del 1928, godeva di 
   un servizio di assistenza medica illimitata. Tra l'altro la fine 
   della disoccupazione e lo sviluppo di un'adeguata rete di servizi di 
   assistenza per i lavoratori e per i poveri fecero guadagnare al regime 
   di Hitler una stima internazionale non indifferente. Persino Lloyd 
   George, il leader dell'opposizione liberale britannica, era un fervido 
   ammiratore di Hitler. Va anche notato che questa rete di servizi 
   sociali sopravvisse al crollo del nazismo. Se oggi la Germania e'
   uno dei paesi europei in cui i lavoratori hanno piu' benefici dallo
   stato, il merito va proprio agli anni del governo nazionalsocialista.
2) Il lavoratore del '37 poteva beneficiare di schemi come quello della
   KdF (Kraft durch Freude) che gli permettevano, a prezzi bassissimi, 
   di visitare altre parti del Reich o paesi stranieri (es. Italia o
   Scandinavia), o come quello della "Volkswagen", che avrebbe 
   permesso a tutti di comprare un' autovettura a basso costo.
3) In generale, grazie alla martellante propaganda del regime, il 
   lavoratore aveva perso quell'aria di "paria" che aveva avuto prima
   (e non e' escluso che questo abbia avuto una parte nella ripresa 
   dell' economia tedesca sotto Hitler).
Svantaggi
---------
1') Il lavoratore del 1937 non aveva la protezione di un sindacato. Fino 
    al 2 maggio 1933 la Germania aveva avuto i sindacati piu' potenti d'
    Europa. Questi, nonostante una svelta proclamazione di lealta' al 
    nuovo regime, non sopravvissero che pochi mesi all'ascesa di Hitler.
2') La DAF (Deutsche Arbeitsfront), che dal 1933 aveva sostituito i 
    sindacati, non aveva nessun potere di negoziare aumenti di stipendio
    presso i datori di lavoro. Per cui se intere categorie di lavoratori, 
    come gli operai per la costruzione di autostrade, erano pagati 
    pochissimo, non potevano in nessun modo ottenere un aumento. 
    L'iscrizione alla DAF, con le relative tasse, era ovviamente
    obbligatoria.
3') Il lavoratore del Terzo Reich era completamente alla merce' del 
    datore di lavoro. Non poteva nemmeno licenziarsi o cambiare lavoro
    senza il permesso di quest'ultimo. Lasciare il posto senza permesso
    era un reato da codice penale. Ogni lavoratore aveva un libretto 
    (Arbeitsbuch) tipo passaporto, in cui era segnato il genere di lavoro
    da lui svolto. Se otteneva il permesso di lasciare il posto, questo
    veniva segnato con un apposito timbro sul libretto. Solo allora
    poteva mettersi a cercare un altro lavoro senza essere ricercato 
    dalla polizia.
4') Le donne sposate, di fatto, non potevano piu' lavorare.
Quindi per quanto riguarda i servizi sociali e i benefici per i meno
abbienti (es. Winterhilfe), il nazismo puo' essere considerato quasi
un movimentio di stampo "socialista". Per quanto riguarda il mondo 
del lavoro, il nazismo rappresenta invece la vera antitesi del 
socialismo.
   Riguardo all'economia nazista le cose non sono cosi' semplici perche'
ancora oggi manca completamente uno studio dettagliato, ad esempio, dei 
controlli dei prezzi o dei tassi bancari nel Terzo Reich. L'unico studio
decente e imparziale dell' economa nazista finora pubblicato e' (secondo 
me) "Nazi Economics" di Avram Barkai, ma molto rimane ancora da fare.
Marco

 non c'e.
Ma c'e la differenza tra "Hayek e la ispirazione principale per la Thatcher (ma
aggiungo: forse solo nel campo economico) e Hayek e _una_ ispirazione per molti
libertari" e "non c'e tanta differenza tra la Thatcher e il libertarismo".
Se non mi credi: "Marx e una ispirazione per te, e era una ispirazione per Stalin",
allora "in pratica tanta differenza non c'e". Se ho capito la tua opinione questo non e
una conclusione molto valida.
