George Orwell - Review of "Mein Kampf" (1940) [I Like a Good Quote]

@val70 Well, in theory, National-Socialism is part of the socialist branch of politics. Just like fascism btw. At least if you still define socialism as a system where the mode of production is in the hands of the poppulation. However, the word "socialism" is often used for the progressive [i](or non-conservative)[/i] side of the spectrum. But in the definition I gave, there is nothing that is being said about conservative or progressive politics. It just has to do with "means of production" being held by "the people". But in contemporary politics, "socialism" is more used as a word for political systems that want to take the means of productions and put it in the hands of the people in search for "equality" and to advance liberal values on the social levels and criticising liberalism for it's embracement of "capitalism".

Now, Fascisms' [i](all it's variants)[/i] still bring the means of production under the state. And since "the state" is "the nation" and thus "the people"... it does nationalises the economy in favor of the goals of "the state". And thus can be argued to be "socialist", but they deff. do not seek out "equality" and they deff. don't want to advance/progress liberal ideas in the social field. And marxist-socialism, which believes in "class struggle" is a mortal enimity to the unity that fascism tries to create within the nation.

In Germanny, specificially... there is also another concept of Socialism. It was dusted off by Oswald Spengler in his piece: "Prussian Socialism" which was part of his "Decline of the West" [i](part 2)[/i]. He says:

[quote][i]“The coming of Caesarism breaks the dictature of money and its political weapon, democracy. After a long triumph of world-city economy and its interests over political creative force, the political side of life manifests itself after all as the stronger of the two. The sword is victorious over the money, the master-will subdues again the plunderer-will. If we call these money-powers 'Capitalism,' [b]then we may designate as Socialism the will to call into life a mighty politico-economic order that transcends all class interests, a system of lofty thoughtfulness and duty-sense that keeps the whole in fine condition for the decisive battle of its history, and this battle is also the battle of money and law.[/b] The private powers of the economy want free paths for their acquisition of great resources. No legislation must stand in their way. They want to make the laws themselves, in their interests, and to that end they make use of the tool they have made for themselves, democracy, the subsidized party. Law needs, in order to resist this onslaught, a high tradition and an ambition of strong families that finds its satisfaction not in the heaping-up of riches, but in the tasks of true rulership, above and beyond all money-advantage. A power can be overthrown only by another power, not by a principle, and no power that can confront money is left but this one. Money is overthrown and abolished only by blood. Life is alpha and omega, the cosmic stream in microcosmic form. It is the fact of facts within the world-as-history. Before the irresistible rhythm of the generation-sequence, everything built up by the waking-consciousness in its intellectual world vanishes at the last. Ever in History it is life and life only race-quality, the triumph of the will-to-power and not the victory of truths, discoveries, or money that signifies. World-history is the world court, and it has ever decided in favour of the stronger, fuller, and more self-assured life decreed to it, namely, the right to exist, regardless of whether its right would hold before a tribunal of waking-consciousness.”[/i]

- Oswald Spengler, [i]Prussian Socialism[/i][/quote]

He also says things like the idea that Socialism is part of Germans blood. He really likes blood for some reason 🤷‍♂️.

This might give an explanation to to Hitlers' view in "Mein Kampf":

[quote]The red color of our posters alone attracted them into our meeting-halls. The ordinary privileged-class was quite horrified to see us using the red of the Bolsheviks and regarded it as very curious scandal. The spirits among German-Nationalists kept whispering to one another their suspicion that basically, we were only a variation of Marxism, maybe even Marxists or some kind of Socialists in disguise. [b]These brains have still not grasped the difference between Socialism and Marxism.[/b] When they discovered that we omitted the standard greeting “ladies and gentlemen” and instead used “comrades” and that among ourselves we spoke only of “Party comrades”, many saw this as proof of the Marxist ghost.

[b]How often we shook with laughter at these simpleminded, scared privileged-class rabbits with their clever guesswork about our origin, our intentions, and our aim. We chose the color red for our posters after careful and thorough consideration. It was in order to provoke the political Left wing, to drive them into fury, and to lure their members into our meetings. If nothing else we could at least break their people away and gain a chance to talk to them.[/b]

- Adolf Hitler, [i]Mein Kampf part 2, Chapter 7: The Struggle with the red front[/i][/quote]

Frankly, I like to leave the discussion on Socialism to Orwell himself. To judge what went wrong before and during world war two I like to put forward that without researching what singular individuals at time were thinking is very dangerous indeed. The idea of recreating a construct to fit one's own ideas of what history should be like is to be avoided like leprosy. I'm used to talking in parabel and visual aid, and for that I'm sorry. No, have a look what Konrad Adenauer thought of Germany before the war. He put the blame on indeed socialism but then those that creep onto the scene on the right. The mere populists I like to call them. That's why Adenauer never quite permitted a left wing to have any great dominance inside his own christian-democrate party. His solution was the creation of a new right that would balance the power towards the middle. It leaves me with thoughts of Helmut Schmidt. Not only was he a serving soldier and was he at the trials for the military anti-Hitler plotters but he's also mainly the German politician that forced the issue of installing nuclear weapons in Germany in the eighties to offset the Russians who were indeed still Soviets then. History is sometimes a bit more difficult to explain, but I'm trying now only to give some pointers on politics inside Germany during the last century. Plenty stuff to read about it, and then are valuable documents like the Count Ciano diaries. No, not everything needs to put on the shoulders of Socialism. Sorry!

@val70 I'm not sure, but I think you missed what I said completely, or I'm not following you.

Try thinking of faux socialists like Orwell put down in Animal Farm. That was not only valid for Stalin. Nazism and the Fascism that Italy ended up with were not socialists. Politics inside Germany went sour after the collaps of the Weimar Rebublik. Have a look what Orwell wrote about that for one. The center of politics needs to hold. In some instance one say that in Spain it survived to put the first real democratic government together after Franco. Just like in Portugal the military took over but then afterwards were themselves fighting forces inside it to keep the country from the extreme left or right. One can say that in Spain, Portugal and Greece ultimately a socialist sealed the real return to democracy.

@val70 I honestly think, that a number of people identify as being "socialist". And because they identify as being "socialist", all other forms of socialism become some form of "faux-socialism". However, "socialism" is an incredibly big group that contains all kinds of diffrent ideologies that all have the same goal: "to put the means of production in the hands of the poppulation instead of of the hands of the individual". The prescpritions can go from left anarchism, to marxism, to marxist-lennism, to stalinism, to syndicalism, ... all the way to the far right prescriptions. That's why writers during the interbellum in Germanny used labels that were more specific then just "socialism", because "socialism" as a category doesn't tell you a lot about what is being talked about. The only moments people recognise what it is, is if they belong to a clique that adopted a socialist narrative as a group. And then the word "socialist" means something really specific for them. And thus they austrosize every other form as being "not-socialist", and thus they can claim the label for themselves and revel in this idea that they are the pure and real socialists. Which... well, in political thought, is kinda ridiculous and creates all kinds of issues when you start developing a train of thought. Because what do you do with all the other socialist variants?

I agree that politics inside Germanny went sour. But it didn't happen at the collapse of the Weimarr Republic. The big catalyst for what was to come were issues before the 1st world war that plagued Germannies identity building AND the loss of the 1st world war and how Germanny was treated by the victors. That's the real issue in Germanny. But then, you also forget another story, the story about a left wing in crisis. And this crisis has been going on since the late 19th century.

The leftwing that largely attached itself to a marxist narrative that in it's most simplistic versions goes a bit like this:

-> Capitalism holds the seeds of his own destruction because of internal contradictions
-> These will lead to economic crisis in economically developed nations
-> This will lead to an awakening in the masses that get pressured by the crisis
-> This will lead to revolution
-> This will lead to socialism [i](at least some version)[/i]
-> After a long period, will lead to the disolvement of the state and thus we reach "communism"

... and this will happen because "humanity" as a whole will pull together. We will all be one and love our neighbours.

But at the end of the 19th century, we already had a bunch of crisis, and yet the prophecy didn't come true. Which lead left-wing theorists to search for a new narrative, a new idea. Too name 2 of them:

1. The idea of George Sorrel, who believed that this idea of a "global strike" as in "humanity pulling together" will just not happen. It's a myth according to Sorrel who was an anarcho-syndicalist. So he offered the idea that left wingers should ditch the idea of this global romantic idea and look at the strength of a national myth. A smaller kind of revolution on national levels, because these myths seem to have some kind of power. Of course, sorrel got ditched and ostrezised by the left wing community, because the idea is reactionairy. And the left wing community was right. But he would become an inspiration for fascism.

2. The idea of Lennin, who believed that a economy doesn't need to be developed to have a revolution. He also didn't believe in the rebellion of "the people", so he advanced an idea of a vanguard. A small clique of intelectuals that would advance the revolution all by themselves. And this vanguard idea, well, it was also adopted by fascism.

And if you go look at the first world war itself, it pushed the left wing in an ever deeper crisis. Because social-democrats and marxist-socialist all believed that the proletariat as a global-class, would not fight eachother at all. That this national interest of the aristocracy that was important in the conflict of 1914-1918 was not in the favor of the proletarian class. But when the drums started pounding, people from all classes raced to the fronts to fight for their nation. They murdered their own class members, for a flag and national sentiments. Which well... kinda pushed left-wing variants of socialism in a deeper crisis. And that's a big part of why a right-wing variant appeared and was midly too moderate sucessfull not only under conservatives in that country but also under segments of left-wing socialists and social-democrats that lost faith in their ideals.

@Kwek00 My version of socialim is the only true one 🤣

Seriously though, nazism falls outside the big tent in all aspects apart from its name.

Socialism is about equality. Yes, socialist do what control of the forces and means of production by the people. Nazis just want it controlled by the state and the Fuhrer. Socialism also pre dates Marx.

@val70 Are you familiar with Stanley Payne and his “A History of Fascism?”

@Human1000 Yes, I'm familiar with Stanley Payne and his sort of views are. Plenty of others that counterdict the revisionism. Just know that at the time that was studying my degree I had weeks long discussions on this. The views on either side are fairy insurmountable. There's no pure form of fascism, and that's the short hand for my own views.

@val70 In my reading it seems to not really be a coherent political philosophy and needs to be understood as a reaction to “modernity.” The Portuguese fascist, forgot his name, sure seems like Trump, though. Mussolini seems half opportunist.

@Human1000 Ah yes, rather have Habermas and American pragmatism myself. Personally, I hate the idea of a perfect contruct à la Kant. Even in theology.

@val70 Having gone through Trump, I no longer put faith in the inherent optimism of Habermas. America, of all places...

@Human1000 Richard Rorty is a good one to read. Perfect antidote. He isolated the hermeunic part from the reach for truth. But philosophy is still a work in progress. Luckily!

@val70 Indeed, if only people listened to the philosophers! Isaiah Berlin, too.

@Burnley123 As I wrote, it really depends on your definition of socialism.

But the only reason why people are getting triggered here is because they are on the left wing. I never said annything about fascism or national-socialism being on the left wing. People shouldn't feel personally attacked because they identify themselves as a left-wing socialist.

@Human1000 Aren't these people listening to philosophers then? Even the far-right has a pretty big pool of writers too choose from. To name a few, in the European Right: Carl Schmitt, Oswald Spengler, Martin Heidegger and Nietzsche are all incorperated in their new projects. Not to mention certain aspects of Gramscis' ideas on hegemony has been a corner stone in the project that started in the 70s in France.

@Kwek00 the usual suspects!