A guide to the political meanings of "left" and "right."

The proposition that the N.S.D.A.P., the Fascists, other organizations with related ideology, and racism, are "right-wing" political movements - is empirically false and resides on the use of contradictory statements, it is fundamentally inconsistent with recorded history.

Left and Right
An accurate and precise definition is first necessary...

The traditional meaning of the terms "Left" and "Right" come from the seating arrangement in the post-Napoleanic French Parliament. Those who favored a strong central govt sat on the Left side of the chamber and those who favored anarchy sat on the Right. The correct usage in modern times is to associate Statism in any form (communist, socialist, fascist, tyranny, dictartorship, oligarchy, et al, ad nauseam) with the Left and to assiociate any form of Individualism (capitalism, etc.) with the Right. 1
Socialism is a planned economy.

Left-wing is synonymous for the socialist political movement; socialist ideology is the belief that individual life in society should be organized, the placement of the collective above the individual, - essentially this means that individual activities are directed in a planned economy :- individuals are not allowed to engage in economic activity purely according to their personal desires, "not allowed" means there must always be some form of government control - the form of government control is largely unspecified, but normally, as most socialists would agree, this would involve control over the means of production and the distribution of wealth. Sometimes "a planned economy" is phrased in vaguer, more emotional, and more enticing terms as "society should be run for the common good" - a statement which, when unravelled as follows, is precisely the same as "the state over the individual."

"Society should be run" - Margaret Thatcher the former British Prime Minister, correctly stated "there is no such thing as society." Society is a word that refers to a large number of individuals. "A large number of individuals should be run" - their economic activities should be forcefully directed (I exclude such social laws as enacted by government as e.g. forbidding murder, when they say "society should be run" socialists are always referring to the direction of economic activity.) "According to the common good" - as is inevitable according to the nature of power, "the common good" is in the final say defined by the wielders of power, even if they often acquiesce to the desires of "a majority," this is still because "they want to" not because "they must." Or, if "a majority" does indeed wield the political power, it is simply the case that "the majority" are the government and again, "the common good" is defined by government - in this case, probably against the interests of the minority. Government is the collection of individuals who wield military force - all political power rests ultimately upon the use or threat of violence.

By a "free society" one necessarily applies freedom to all individuals which forbids acts of tyranny by one individual against another.

In a "free society" all economic interactions are the result of negotiation without coercion - the definition of co-operation.

Right-wing is a political movement. It is more what socialism is not rather than a consistent ideology - if it can be described as an ideology, then only in the loosest manner - that human existence is a "good" (from which it flows that liberty is a good.) Or it may be described as pragmatism, and socialism conversely defined as ideology and dogma. But more than all these I feel, that right-wing is all that results from a non-socialist mindset, the sharpest definition of socialism is in terms of psychology rather than political ideology, the reasons for which I have delineated here.

Right-wing politics are individualist.

Individualism is, according to a dictionary definition...

that theory which opposes interference of the state in the affairs of individuals (opposite to socialism or collectivism); the theory that looks to the rights of individuals, not to the advantage of an abstraction such as the state 2
Right-wing are those who advocate the protection of individual liberty in the form of individual rights, who oppose government intrusion, and who favor as small a government as is necessary, the only necessary role of government being to protect the rights of the individual. They are against grand government schemes, against the government direction of society, against a planned economy. For confirmation, one need only look to the eighteenth and nineteenth century writings of the fathers of the political right - John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, John Stewart Mill, Thomas Jefferson, Ralph Waldo Emerson, James Madison, Herbert Spencer, Henry David Thoreau, David Hume, Jean Baptiste Say, Frédéric Bastiat, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Felicite Robert de Lamennais, Alexis de Tocqueville, Richard Cobden et al, who most socialists will agree are the founders of the right-wing.

Capitalism
Capitalism is when trade, production, and investment are entrusted to private individuals - it is the absence of state involvement in the economy. Capitalism is an economic system not a political ideology, it is not concerned with power, unlike socialism it does not place value-judgements upon an economic outcome. Capitalism is right-wing individualism, an economic system which allows for the most personal liberty. In agreement with the subjective theory of value, and praxeology (Adam Smith,) capitalist systems have consistently produced the greatest prosperity.

Socialism
All political movements must be concerned first with the obtaining (and maintenance) of power and second with the disposal of power - each aspect may involve substantially different, even contradictory, words and actions.

All political movements consist of; manifest policy (propaganda to obtain power,) real aims (ideology,) and outcomes.

All political movements are necessarily historical otherwise they "are" non-existent. When describing the nature of a political movement one cannot ignore the historical context, to describe a political movement devoid of people and history is nonsensical.

I entirely agree with George Orwell that the socialist real aim is power, as much power as is possible - the ownership of individuals. Economic action amounts to the greatest portion of human activity. A planned economy - the direction of economic activity - intrudes to the greatest extent upon the life of the individual. To maintain a totalitarian system against the overwhelming human instincts for freedom, one must eventually employ brutality.

Socialist manifest claims include the elevation of the political power of the proletariat and their release from "oppression at the hands of their capitalist masters" by forming "the government of the proletariat," a benevolent government representing proletariat interests - socialists claim that it is these manifesto policies which represent the essence of socialism. In my view they are only the door to power - although they are genuine socialist policies in that they could not be enacted without a planned economy, and collectivist: the group "proletariat" over the individual. It is the bribery of the proletariat with promises of stolen wealth and power which encourages support for socialism, either to gain votes in democratic elections and/or to create the violence necessary to erode the power of the government - which it is hoped will create the conditions for a successful coup.

Socialist outcomes depend upon personality and environmental factors. The socialist impulse may be checked by other, more liberal personal instincts, or by society and the solidity of their power and the means at their disposal. Russian Bolsheviks immediately opted for absolute power and used terror to that end, thereby dumping their manifest claims. Democratic socialist movements, limited by a constitutional democracy under military protection, and perhaps limited by democratic sentiments, remain dependent upon proletariat support for votes and for political donations (from the unions) - and so their outcome consists of fulfilling their manifesto as much as the strength of the economy, of constitutional rights, and of the opposition will allow. The Axis Powers produced something in-between - they used terror, but they also compromised their power through fulfilling some of their promises to the proletariat.

A socialist movement unchecked by constitutional democracy will always produce a totalitarian tyranny, this has been empirically verified throughout the 20th century and has been modelled by theory - the Hayek Certainty Principle (his book, the Road to Serfdom) is in my view as solid as anything that is to be found in Physics - it seems strange that this is one of a few certainties; socialism produces tyranny, whilst life is freedom-oriented.

Fascist
Fascist was the name adopted by a group of Italians in 1919 for their political organization - the Italian Fascist Party (P.F.I.) Led by Benito Mussolini, they ruled Italy from 1922 through to 1943.

The founding members consisted almost exclusively of prominent figures from the far-left - syndicalists who wanted to replace the constitutional democracy with a government of labor unions.

Fascist derives from the word fascio or fasces. A fasce is a bundle of rods used in the time of the Roman empire, carried by bodyguards of Roman politicians as a symbol of their political authority - a classic socialist metaphor that one may break an individual stick but the bundle remains strong. Italian far-left organizations had used the term as far back as 1890.

Fascist is not a political ideology or an international movement, just as Bolshevik was merely the name adopted by Russian socialists and was not a philosophy, and Maoist by Chinese socialists. Fascist does not have any meaning outside of an Italian context. The political ideology of the Fascists (in manifest policy, real aims, and outcomes) was socialism. No two instances of socialist rule share identical policies however.

Mussolini was the son of a poor blacksmith, his father was strongly left-wing.

Following a spell of vagrancy, Mussolini found a job as a bricklayer and union organizer in the city of Lausanne. Quickly achieving fame as an agitator among the Italian migratory laborers, he was referred to by a local Italian-language newspaper as "the great duce [leader] of the Italian socialists."... 30
Upon his return to Italy, young Benito was an undistinguished member of the Socialist Party. He began to edit his own little paper, La Lotta di Classe (The Class Struggle), ferociously anti-capitalist, anti-militarist, and anti-Catholic. He took seriously Marx's dictum that the working class has no country, and vigorously opposed the Italian military intervention in Libya. Jailed several times for involvement in strikes and anti-war protests, he became something of a leftist hero. Before turning 30, Mussolini was elected to the National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party, and made editor of its daily paper, Avanti! The paper's circulation and Mussolini's personal popularity grew by leaps and bounds.
Mussolini's election to the Executive was part of the capture of control of the Socialist Party by the hard-line Marxist left, with the expulsion from the Party of those deputies (members of parliament) considered too conciliatory to the bourgeoisie. The shift in Socialist Party control was greeted with delight by Lenin and other revolutionaries throughout the world... 30
In 1913, while still editor of Avanti!, he began to publish and edit his own journal, Utopia, a forum for controversial discussion among leftwing socialists. Like many such socialist journals founded in hope, it aimed to create a highly-educated cadre of revolutionaries, purged of dogmatic illusions, ready to seize the moment. Two of those who collaborated with Mussolini on Utopia would go on to help found the Italian Communist Party and one to help found the German Communist Party. (3) Others, with Mussolini, would found the Fascist movement.
The First World War began in August 1914 without Italian involvement. Should Italy join Britain and France against Germany and Austria, or stay out of the war? (4) All the top leaders and intellectuals of the Socialist Party, Mussolini among them, were opposed to Italian participation.
In October and November 1914, Mussolini switched to a pro-war position. He resigned as editor of Avanti!, joined with pro-war leftists outside the Socialist Party, and launched a new pro-war socialist paper, Il Popolo d'Italia (People of Italy). (5) To the Socialist Party leadership, this was a great betrayal, a sell-out to the whoremasters of the bourgeoisie, and Mussolini was expelled from the Party... 30
Italy entered the war in May 1915, and Mussolini enlisted. In 1917 he was seriously wounded and hospitalized, emerging from the war the most popular of the pro-war socialists, a leader without a movement. Post-war Italy was hag-ridden by civil strife and political violence. Sensing a revolutionary situation in the wake of Russia's Bolshevik coup, the left organized strikes, factory occupations, riots, and political killings. Socialists often beat up and sometimes killed soldiers returning home, just because they had fought in the war. Assaulting political opponents and wrecking their property became an everyday occurrence. 30
It should be noted that opposing war has never formed a part of socialist ideology, the actions of Mussolini show how divided Italian socialists were upon the issue of participation, as were all European socialists with regard to the issue of German militarism - war was perfectly acceptable when it promoted the advance of socialist political power. Marx and Engels supported wars and verbally despised any state of peace, Vladimir Lenin expanded the Russian Bolshevik empire by sending the Red Army into thirteen countries, and the 20th century would be scarred with wars started and supported by socialists.

A typical pronouncement by Mussolini during his time in the P.S.I. ...

The Socialist party reaffirms its eternal faith in the future of the Workers' International, destined to bloom again, greater and stronger, from the blood and conflagration of peoples. It is in the name of the International and of Socialism that we invite you, proletarians of Italy, to uphold your unshakeable opposition to war 3
He professed Marxist economic-political philosophy and was a close friend of the Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin.

Mussolini's political beliefs did not undergo any meaningful alteration following his departure from the P.S.I., as the following attests...

The Fascist Rise to Power
Italy in 1919 was in a state of chaotic mob violence. Two years previously, the Bolsheviks and other socialist groups had encouraged the Russian peasants to go on a rampage, arbitrarily seizing property and making Russia ungovernable, events which ended in the Bolshevik coup and the end of democracy in Russia - events which would be mirrored by the Fascists. (Quotations thanks to John Ray.)

In the summer of 1919 crowds, indignant about recent price increases, invaded the shops, looted goods and insisted on price reductions. Mussolini and his fasci proclaimed their solidarity with the rioters. The "Popolo d'Italia" suggested that it would set a good example if some profiteers were strung up on lamp-posts and some hoarders smothered under the potatoes and the sides of bacon they were hiding 4
The Popolo d'Italia was still owned by Mussolini, and now dedicated to the Fascists.

In 1920...

Mussolini was still following a distinctly radical line. he asserted that his programme was similar to that of the Socialists, that Fascism was helping their cause, that it would carry through the agrarian revolution, the only one that was possible in Italy. He even welcomed the occupation of the factories 5
This was followed by open street battles between the various socialist factions trying to seize control, between the Fascists, the P.S.I., and particularly the Italian Communist Party (P.C.I.) The P.C.I. were, like practically all communist parties of the time, members of the Bolshevik Comintern - funded and directed by the Bolsheviks, and committed to bringing their nations into the U.S.S.R. When the P.S.I. split from the Comintern in 1921, taking three quarters of its original membership, the P.C.I. was formed from the remainder. Events in Italy echoed those in Russia when the Bolsheviks had bitterly persecuted their Socialist Revolutionary and (Marxist) Menshevik rivals. The Fascists - like the Bolsheviks had done - gradually seized control of the cities. In 1921 and 1922 they made an adept and crucial political manoeuvre, they issued conciliatory messages toward the Italian right-wing - the capitalists, the pro-democracy camp, the bourgeois and the monarchists - promising to restore peace to Italy and not to abolish private property - and they managed to do this whilst maintaining the support of the proletariat. It is hard to imagine, given the sudden change and the history and constitutional elements of the Fascists, that the Italian right-wing perceived the shift to a centralist ideology to be particularly sincere. Nevertheless, given the current state of violence, given they carried the support of the proletariat, and given that the alternative was a civil war and the living hell that was Russia before, during, and after the Bolshevik coup, pragmatism ensured a broad base of support for Mussolini. Events ended in 1922 by a show of force, a Fascist march on Rome, in the face of which King Victor Emmanuel requested that Mussolini and the Fascists form a new government.

Fascist Manifest Policy
1) A Totalitarian State in Opposition to Individualism
Mussolini:

Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State
If the 19th century has been the century of the individual, it may be conjectured that this is the century of the State
The Fascist conception of life, stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State.
The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature's plans.
To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself.... Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual.
2) Fundamental Opposition to Capitalism
Liberalism in the time of Mussolini signified free-market economics, capitalism, individual rights and small government, (sometimes this is called 'classical liberalism,') the subsequent adoption of the term by the American left is at least unhelpful if not dishonest.

Mussolini:

Laissez faire is out of date
Fascism now and always believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say in actions influenced by no economic motive
Fascism repudiates the conception of "economic" happiness
Fascism has taken up an attitude of complete opposition to the doctrines of Liberalism, both in the political field and in the field of economics
If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government.
It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual.
3) State Socialism
The commitments of the Fascist manifesto of 1919 consisted almost entirely of policies that many socialists of today would, providing they were ignorant of the Fascist context, describe as a mixture of left-wing and far-left. These included nationalization, the creation of a welfare state, worker's representatives included in the running of businesses, state seizure of profits, a progressive tax on capital, and attacks on the Church. The relevant parts:

For the social problems: We demand:
a) The quick enactment of a law of the State that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers.
b) A minimum wage.
c) The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions.
d) To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants.
f) A necessary modification of the insurance laws to invalidate the minimum retirement age; we propose to lower it from 65 to 55 years of age.

For the military problem: We demand:...
b) The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories.

For the financial problem: We demand:
a) A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth.
b) The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor.
c) The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein. 6
Fascist Outcomes
1) Totalitarianism
Fascist government comprised the eradication of the rule of law, individual rights, and democracy replaced by a police-state. Fascist power was cemented by massive indoctrination and censorship of dissent. These were practically the same policies as those of the Bolshevik regime under Lenin, in terms of quality if not the extent to which they were enforced (the Bolsheviks enforced to a far greater extent.)

2) and 3) Mussolini's Socialist State
The replacement of capitalism with a planned economy in the form of the 'Corporate State.'

How Mussolini replaced private property...

In 1926 Italian businesses were legally enjoined to enter a relevant syndicate, which comprised of a delegation from the original owners of the businesses, a delegation from the workers, and a state representative, and which were formed into 22 state-run organizations called corporations.

In Mussolini's Italy, businesses were grouped by the government into legally recognized "syndicates" such as the "National Fascist Confederation of Commerce," the "National Fascist Confederation of Credit and Insurance," and so on. All of these "fascist confederations" were "coordinated" by a network of government planning agencies called "corporations," one for each industry. One large "National Council of Corporations" served as a national overseer of the individual "corporations" and had the power to "issue regulations of a compulsory character." 7
Mussolini presided over the National Council of Corporations. In this manner the Fascist state obtained control of the means of production and the distribution of wealth, and they proceeded to directly set prices and wages, force production away from consumer goods into military hardware, determine the allocation of raw materials among the industries, and take decisions regarding the building and expansion of factories. The legislation effectively abolished private property (ownership is control,) for the original private owners retained only a paper title. It may be said that Mussolini did not completely eradicate private ownership, but then neither did Lenin or Stalin.

Mussolini preferred to exercise control through the various government organizations such as the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction, and used the National Council of Corporations to present a more popular although perhaps clumsier facade. Through the Instituto Mobiliare and the aforementioned I.R.I. the government nationalized the private banking system, and used this acquisition to assume the role of providing credit and investment. The Fascists also expropriated all the shares previously held by the banks in agriculture, industry and real estate, thereby increasing still further the government control over the economy.

The original owners were left in control of the day-to-day operations, running the businesses according to the government dictates. Although they were allowed to keep some of the profits, the level was set by the government. Effectively they were employees of the state and shop-floor managers, no difference is there to be found with the position of those who were set in charge of the factories by the Bolshevik regime. Another method used to obtain control was by bringing the owners of very large industrial businesses into the government as ministers or civil servants. The government then enacted legislation which favored the business controlled by the government member, damaging particularly small and competing businesses, which resulted in strong government ownership over that sector of production. In agriculture the government again took ownership, deciding which crops were to be sown and in what quantities, and breaking up larger farms.

Another keystone of Italian corporatism was the idea that the government's interventions in the economy should not be conducted on an ad hoc basis, but should be "coordinated" by some kind of central planning board. Government intervention in Italy was "too diverse, varied, contrasting. There has been disorganic . . . intervention, case by case, as the need arises," Mussolini complained in 1935. Fascism would correct this by directing the economy toward "certain fixed objectives" and would "introduce order in the economic field." Corporatist planning, according to Mussolini adviser Fausto Pitigliani, would give government intervention in the Italian economy a certain "unity of aim," as defined by the government planners. 7
Mussolini still further increased his grip by autarky; providing massive subsidies and engaging a 'protectionist' policy whereby Italian production was shielded from foreign competition by large import tariffs (it should be noted in this regard that the subsidies helped exports) - the same policy as advocated today by socialist anti-globalization activists and trade unions. This made production dependent upon Fascist support - and therefore accepting toward Fascist control. Of course the end result of this was higher prices for goods, lower prosperity. In 1934 Mussolini stated:

Three-quarters of the Italian economic system has been subsidized by government. 7
The Fascists were a high-tax and high (deficit) spending government, and instituted state employment programmes on a scale that resulted in the largest official public sector of any European country outside of the U.S.S.R. The public works programme included the construction of: orphanages, schools, universities, hospitals, canals, roads, railway stations and bridges. Other work included the reclaiming of land, planting of forests...

Mussolini created the Italian welfare state (another form of government bribery,) funded by the profits of the nominally private sector economy. Welfare programmes included: unemployment benefit (Cassa Integrazione Guadagni,) child benefit, maternity insurance, birth loans and marriage loans, public health care and education.

Mussolini also kept his promise to introduce an eight hour working day.

Mussolini did not however carry out the manifesto attacks on the Church, apart from a law of 1931 which required police consent for every "evangelical" service. Mussolini was not pro-Catholic as some claim, in fact he created and participated in public pagan rituals based upon Italian pre-Christian religion.

After obtaining power and solidifying their hold (primarily through violence,) the power disputes among the Italian socialists were effectively resolved. Members of the P.S.I. and P.C.I. subsequently joined the Fascist government, as well as people like D'Arragona the leader of the Italian labor unions. The P.C.I. even greeted the Fascists as their "fascist brothers" (fratelli in camicia nera.) It should be noted in this regard that, subsequent to the fall of Fascist rule, former Fascists were welcomed into the P.C.I.

In 1924 the Fascist government formally recognized Soviet Russia.

In 1930 a Fascist-U.S.S.R. economic co-operation treaty was signed.

In 1933 Mussolini signed a pact of friendship and non-aggression with the U.S.S.R.

The Exit From Fascist Rule
To cut a long story short, the Fascists allied with the N.S.D.A.P. during World War Two, they subsequently lost their colonies in North and East Africa, Mussolini was dismissed by the Fascist High Council and arrested on the orders of King Victor Emmanuel on July 25 1943, the Germans invaded Northern Italy and rescued Mussolini, the Allies invaded Southern Italy and pushed North to eventual victory in April 1945, Mussolini was executed by Italian Communists on 25 April 1945.

Some remaining Fascists formed a new party, the Italian Social Movement.

A Popular Conception of the Fascists
All the history is at odds with the popular view, which is that the Fascists were... capitalist and right-wing?!

A classic example is provided by the popular internet encyclopaedia Wikipedia (Wikipedia consists of user-contributed entries and editing, as such all articles are liable to change,) their entry for fascism includes:

the right-wing authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 8
"Right-wing authoritarian" is oxymoronic.

Even more bizarre is the Wiki definition of Fascism as...

a capitalist system. This was a new capitalist system, however, one in which the state seized control 8
In other words, socialism. Wiki continue...

[Fascism] involves Corporatism, Corporativism, or the Corporative State, all terms that refer to state action to partner with key business leaders 8
'Partnership' is a huge misrepresentation of what actually had occurred. Absorption of "key business leaders" into the state was a process of opposite direction to the Bolshevik Commissariat but one which resulted in exactly the same outcome - a government minister/civil servant in control of a sector of production. The remaining vast majority of capitalist entrepreneurs lost ownership of their businesses, and were left with roles involving little more than paid administrative servility.

The guilds subsumed both labor unions and management, but were heavily weighted in favor of the corporations and their owners 8
The guilds actually favored government, and they resulted in absolute government control.

Fascist Italy did not nationalize any industries or capitalist entities. 8
The Fascists directly nationalized the banks and the munitions factories.

The movement was supported by small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats, and the middle classes, who had all felt threatened by the rise in power of the Socialists. 8
So the Fascist support was capitalist and bourgeois, oh really? Why are there no numbers Wiki! Ah, but in the very next sentence we learn...

Fascism also met with great success in rural areas, especially among farmers, peasants, and in the city, the lumpenproletariat. 8
Lumpen refers to the dispossessed, the lumpenproletariat were the poorest section of the proletariat. So, in other words, Mussolini's support was broad-based, yet Wiki seem unable to state this in simple terms.

The one characteristic of Mussolini's internal socialist policies after the gaining of power, which separated the Fascists from certain other socialist movements, is the rejection of Marxist class-struggle. Although Mussolini was verbally hostile toward the bourgeoisie (and never the proletariat) and remained so throughout his rule - e.g. the "three punches to the stomach of the bourgeoisie" (tre cazzotti allo stomaco) in the 1930s, he envisioned a socialism based on co-operation between proletariat and bourgeois. This leads Wiki to a real gem of an inaccuracy...

The fascist concept of corporatism and particularly its theories of class collaboration and economic and social relations are very similar to the model laid out by Pope Leo XIII's 1892 encyclical Rerum Novarum. This encyclical addressed politics as it had been transformed by the Industrial Revolution, and other changes in society that had occurred during the nineteenth century. The document criticized capitalism, complaining of the exploitation of the masses in industry. However, it also sharply criticized the socialist concept of class struggle 8
When Henri De Man's Italian translation of Au-dela du marxisme emerged, Mussolini was excited and wrote to the author that his criticism "destroyed any scientific element left in Marxism". Mussolini was appreciative of the idea that a corporative organization and a new relationship between labour and capital would eliminate "the clash of economic interests" and thereby neutralize "the germ of class warfare.'" Renegade socialist thinkers, Robert Michels, Sergio Panunzio, Ottavio Dinale, Agostino Lanzillo, Angelo Oliviero Olivetti, Michele Bianchi, and Edmondo Rossoni, turning against their former left-wing ideas, played a part in this attempt to find a "third way" that rejected both capitalism and socialism. 8
Perhaps the author should have read the Wiki entry on socialism, where it is written:

The earliest modern socialist groups were the so-called utopian socialists, who shared characteristics such as focusing on general welfare rather than individualism, on co-operation rather than competition, and on producers of wealth rather than on political leaders and structures. They did not think in terms of class struggle, but argued that the wealthy should join with the poor in building a new society. 9
Indeed! 'Class struggle' together with Marxism appeared toward the end of the development of socialist theory. The claim that 'class co-operation' in opposition to the 'capitalist exploitation of the proletariat' is not socialist is entirely unsupported by evidence. In fact both forms may be included under the definition of socialism - that the activity of the individual should be directed and society organized. And so, yet again, the Wiki author is inconsistent and inaccurate in a manner which favors socialism and in a manner which is characteristically socialist - say anything as long as it is pro-socialist.

Now to the crux of the matter...

Fascism, in many respects, is an ideology of negativism:... anti-socialist, anti-Communist, anti-democratic 8
a key distinguishing feature of fascism is that it uses a mass movement to attack the organizations of the working class: parties of the left and trade unions 8
finding ways to unite Labor and Capital, to Labor's ultimate detriment 8
Piece by piece...

Fascism, in many respects, is an ideology of negativism:... anti-socialist, anti-Communist 8
Now this quite clearly refers to the battles involving the Fascists, P.S.I., and P.C.I. during 1919-1922. This was a struggle for political power between competing socialist sections, not a battle over ideology, scenes like these have occurred throughout socialist history. The Fascist implemented policies were socialist, how can the Fascists then be anti-socialist! In order to gain power, the Bolsheviks attacked the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks from 1918 onward. Wiki defines the Bolsheviks as socialist. Very few socialists would claim that Lenin was not socialist. The prominent question - is what precisely are Wiki using as their definition? It certainly is not the political definition. Wiki are employing a circular argument; "Why were the Fascists not socialist?" "Because they attacked socialist organizations." "Why did the Fascists attack socialist organizations?" "Because the Fascists were not socialist."

Fascism, in many respects, is an ideology of negativism:...anti-democratic 8
Marx, most of the quack-philosophers responsible for creating socialism, the Bolsheviks, and the bulk of socialist movements throughout world history were anti-democratic.

a key distinguishing feature of fascism is that it uses a mass movement to attack the organizations of the working class:... trade unions 8
Under Lenin the Bolsheviks conducted what was called the militarization of industry. Trotsky was the principal architect. Key policies to cement Bolshevik control included; the banning and breaking up of trade union meetings, arrest of trade union members, persecution of strikers with all of the following punishments: confiscation of ration cards, lockouts, deportation to concentration camps, and execution. The concentration camps were genuine death camps, some had mortality rates of 75%-99% per annum, in instances where prisoners were not dying fast enough through starvation, hypothermia and disease, alternate methods were employed. In one instance poisoned gas was used. In another the prisoners with their hands tied behind their backs and with heavy rocks tied to their feet were thrown into the river Volga. The women would do anything to escape death, and became prostitutes for the camp guards. Wiki authors describe Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks as socialist.

In the following argument the (Fascism) Wiki article is even internally inconsistent:

Before the First World War, syndicalism had stood for a militant doctrine of working-class revolution. It distinguished itself from Marxism because it insisted that the best route for the working class to liberate itself was the trade union rather than the party. The Italian Socialist Party ejected the syndicalists in 1908 8
The "Italian Socialist Party" which the Wiki article describes as socialist!

The policy of attacking trade unions is entirely consistent with socialism. We must now return to what was written in the beginning section and the constituent elements of a political movement: manifest policy, aims, and outcomes.

In the democratic state where socialists are aiming for power, trade unions are stated by socialists to be a good and necessary fact. This is both dishonest manifest policy and because of socialist aims also a hidden truth. To achieve aims - to achieve power - the manifest policy must obtain the support of the proletariat and stated support for trade unions does this. The support however is dishonestly ephemeral. Sincerity lies in the fact that the trade unions are indeed good for the socialists!; trade unionism is a power base outside of the democratic government, and can be used to erode government authority (this is actually what occurs in most cases.)

According to manifest policy, the socialist organization is the representation of proletariat interests. Once the socialists obtain power they have, according to manifest policy, "formed the government of the proletariat" and therefore not only are trade unions manifestly unnecessary, they raise the hidden question of whether the government are really "the government of the proletariat" and more importantly provide an alternate power to the socialist regime, which contradict socialist aims - which are for absolute power, expressed in the political statement as "the activity of the individual should be directed and society organized according to the desires of the state."

Wiki define socialism by the shallow manifest policy, in other words they define the essence of socialism according to socialist propaganda as to what socialism will result in - "power to the proletariat, a government acting in proletariat interests" - and not by the heart of socialism which is control over the individual. What is most sinful for an encyclopaedia, is that they define a historical political ideology without reference to history - and that history is one where, in every single case where a socialist government has come to power, "the proletariat" have suffered. In terms of the number killed or incarcerated, socialism was the greatest oppressor of the proletariat of any political system that has ever existed. In terms of freedom and of prosperity, the proletariat have always suffered under socialism.

In fact one of the best examples of the cynical nature of socialism is this private letter from Marx (a socialist according to Wiki) to Adolf Cluss:

There are no bigger donkeys than these workers.... Look at our "craftsmen"; Sad that world history should be be made with such people 10
Marx' dishonesty revealed in a letter to Friedrich Engels...

It is possible that I could disgrace myself. But there's always a bit of Dialectic to help out. I have naturally expressed my statements so that I am also right if the opposite thing happens. 11
If any doubt remains with regard to the propagandist nature of the Wiki article, one need only be reminded that Wiki defines the Fascist government as "right-wing populism" because it resulted in "Labor's ultimate detriment" - unquestioningly accepting the socialist manifest claim; that socialism results in benefit to the proletariat and that right-wing governments are detrimental - which is historically incorrect. In terms of both freedom and wealth, as I prove here and countless others have done elsewhere, the proletariat are overwhelmingly better off under capitalism.

An attitude that any socialist government which did not produce beneficial results - and none of them ever did - was not "real socialism" is sometimes taken to an extreme level. I have heard on more than one occasion the claim that there has never been "real socialism." Even if one were to accept this proposition, it could not alter in one iota the actions of an individual concerned with improving the human condition, for such a one can only work with what is given. If the past governments consisting of individuals who called their selves socialists resulted in consistently abominable results, the only sane and rational position is to oppose the elevation of people who call their selves socialists, even "real socialists," to future governments. As to their claim - it is both unprovable and meaningless.

Fascist Actions Toward the Proletariat
Mussolini did indeed attack the power of the trade unions through forbidding strike actions - but he did not enforce this with the ruthlessness of the Bolsheviks. As part of the Bolshevik militarization of the factories, not just strike action but also absenteeism and even not working sufficiently hard was considered a crime befitting of a beating, confiscation of ration cards, deportation to the camps, and execution. The Fascists forbade the factory managers from treating their workers severely, to the extent of banning lockouts. Although the proletariat suffered financially under Mussolini, along with the rest of the population (per capita consumption in 1939 was below the level of 1929,) the Fascists were favorably prejudiced toward the proletariat and effected substantial redistribution through the welfare state, whilst cutting working hours. The Bolsheviks increased working hours and reduced wages to a bread ration lower than the amount necessary for survival. Under the Fascists the workers were allowed to voice their dissent and complaints through the official channels, under Lenin any dissent resulted in deportation or execution. And here we come to the awful, painful truth - according to Wiki and the socialist definition of socialism, of beneficial treatment of the proletariat and release from oppression, the Fascists were more left-wing than the Bolsheviks. In regard to the actuality of socialism - the state above the individual - the Fascists were less left-wing. This leads onto another awful truth; in their 21 year rule the Fascists killed approximately 10,000 in internal repression. In the years 1918-1922, under the control of Lenin, the Bolsheviks killed at the very minimum 50,000 per year. If one includes the famine that resulted from their economic policies, this figure is above one million per year. The Fascists, as far as socialist dictatorships are concerned, were relatively benign. Mussolini's socialist instincts were tempered by desire to avoid confrontation, to compromise, and to gain broadly popular support.

There are a few remaining but important misconceptions with regard to the Fascists, for which I will quote the words of John Ray:

He [Mussolini] was a most emphatic Italian nationalist but it is perhaps important here to distinguish patriotism, nationalism and racism. These do to some extent tend to slide into one-another but there are differences too. Most notable in the present case is the contrast between Hitler's persecution of the Jews and Mussolini's reluctance to have any part in that. Under Hitler's prodding, Mussolini did eventually put antisemitism on his agenda and did in 1938 pass generally unpopular antisemitic laws but it was no part of his own original program. He had never expressed any antisemitism prior to his alliance with Hitler. In fact, Italian Jews had been prominent as leaders in some of the early Fasci di combattimento (Fascist bands) and the antisemitic laws were largely ignored by Italians -- so much so that one of the safest places in Europe for Jews to be during the second world war was undoubtedly Fascist Italy. Jews were in fact routinely protected by both Fascist and non-Fascist Italians (including the clergy) and many Jews to this day have grateful memories of wartime Italy. At a time when Jews had very few friends anywhere in the world, they had friends in Fascist Italy (Steinberg, 1990; Herzer, 1989). Contrast this with the way in which Eastern Europeans and even the French actively co-operated with Hitler's round-up of Jews. It should also be noted that, unlike Hitler, Mussolini did not set up any concentration camps for the Jews.
Who was it who at one stage dismissed Hitler as a "barbarian, a criminal and a pederast"? Was it Stalin? Was it some other Communist? Was it Winston Churchill? Was it some other conservative? Was it one of the Social Democrats? No. It was none other than Mussolini, who later became Hitler's ally in World War II.
In Mein Kampf, Hitler expressed great admiration for Mussolini and did in the early days regard Mussolini as his teacher so at least part of Hitler's National Socialism is traceable to Mussolini's innovations. As noted, however, Mussolini did NOT reciprocate Hitler's regard and correctly divined and loathed Hitler's murderous personality from the beginning (Andriola, 1997). Hitler's mania about the Jews was also one reason why Mussolini derided Nazism as a doctrine of barbarians. Few modern-day Leftists would argue with that judgement. Mussolini remained neutral in 1939 and 1940 and only joined in Hitler's war when France had collapsed, Hitler already bestrode Europe and his overtures to Britain had been rejected. In such circumstances it seemed wise to be on the winning side. That was Mussolini's one big mistake and it was, of course, ultimately a fatal one. True to his pragmatism, in both wars Mussolini simply tried to side with the winner. 12
The Myth of Socialist Opposition
Socialists claim there was a global socialist opposition to the Fascists - this is simply untrue, except for those who were aligned with the aims of the Comintern, socialist attitudes were generally welcoming. For one example - George Bernard Shaw, the popular British playwright, was a committed Marxist and a member of the Executive Committee of the Fabian society [the society created by Britain's most famous Marxists - Beatrice and Sidney Webb,] he edited and contributed to the "Fabian Essays in Socialism." In 1927 he praised Mussolini with the following remark...

socialists should be delighted to find at last a socialist who speaks and thinks as responsible rulers do. 7
Destruction of Language; 'Fascist' as Epithet
Initially the word 'fascist' was used exclusively in the context of Italian politics. In the early decades of the 20th century it was used only in reference to the Fascist party of Mussolini, and in a descriptive not an insulting fashion.

Evolution 1)
The Fascists were opposed to joining the U.S.S.R. and this is the key reason for their disputes with the P.C.I. Consequently up to the end of World War Two, all socialist organizations that refused Bolshevik control were labelled as 'fascist' (sometimes this accorded with their own preference.) This was true in one particularly important case - the National Socialist German Worker's Party.

Evolution 2)
Due to the animosity shared between the two factions, the term began to be used as a general invective. Pravda, the organ of the Bolshevik Party, described one of Stalin's purges of the Party at the time as an attempt...

to smoke out the bugs' nests of the Trotskyite-fascists. 13
And in the 1960s the Russian Bolsheviks and Chinese Maoists frequently labelled the other as 'fascists.'

Evolution 3)
During the 1930s the Comintern spread the official Bolshevik propaganda line - 'fascists' are right-wing capitalists - in order to erode Fascist and N.S.D.A.P. support among the proletariat, in order to gain support for the Comintern. Even some socialists at the time thought this comparison was ridiculous. Due to the frequent association of 'fascism' with the N.S.D.A.P., following the end of World War Two and the realization of the horrific nature of the Holocaust, non-Comintern socialists began calling the N.S.D.A.P. 'right-wing.'

Evolution 4)
'Fascism' moved from being used to 'describe' and simultaneously denounce the 'right-wing' N.S.D.A.P. and Axis alliance, to being a word which signified right-wing in general and is used, to this present day, against real right-wing politicians - capitalists - whilst carrying also the significance of its association with the N.S.D.A.P. - a mass-murdering totalitarianism.

And so it was that left-wing activists in 2004 called a moderately right-wing democratic politician, President George Bush, a 'fascist,' intending to mean extreme-right, falsely defined as totalitarian, really referring to the policy of an extreme-left organization, by the name of a relatively moderate left-wing dictatorship. As George Orwell stated a few years after the end of World War Two:

the word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'
Orwell wrote eloquently and convincingly about the socialist destruction of language in his book 1984.

'Fascism' is a bogey-word - a word with no fixed definition, a word that does not refer to anything in the real world, a word which only carries with it an emotion - in this case of enmity. Socialism is a big lie that must be maintained by a tiresome, never ending series of smaller lies and contradictions. By the employment of bogey-words, one may engender the desired emotional attitude without requiring empirical justification, and without risking exposure for dishonesty and inconsistency.

I have even heard socialists use the word 'fascist' to describe inanimate objects.

Other 'Fascist' Parties
The British Union of Fascists were led by Oswald Mosley, and allied with the N.S.D.A.P. during World War Two. Mosley was formerly a member of the mainstream socialist party of Britain - Labour. His 1938 "Tomorrow We Live - British Union [of Fascists] Policy" details why the Fascists oppose capitalism and how they would replace it with "The People's State - A Classless System." Following the end of World War II Mosley recommended "European Socialism" and close integration of Britain into a European Super-State under the slogan "Europe a Nation" as a "Europe of equal peoples" in opposition to the "power of the dollar" to obtain "independence from America" through "a near equality of strength" - the same policy pursued by socialists in Britain and across Europe today - confrontation with America the nation posing greatest threat to socialism. It is quite common to hear modern British socialists echo the following sentiments of Mosley:

It has been to me a tragedy that my own country was for years the main impediment to the making of Europe. We have passed beyond the days when British policy tried to straddle the world between America, Europe and the Commonwealth, with an end as inevitable as it was ignoble of falling between three stools. 18
It is true that neither France nor any other of our divided nations can play the role of Europe in the world until the power of Europe is available; consequently we are all doomed to relative impotence until Europe is made. On the other hand, to turn Europe from a collection of small American satellites into one large transatlantic satellite would make things worse rather than better. At present, it is open to France or to any other European country to offer some resistance to that process, thus preserving some national and European identity. 18
In the area of economics, Mosley recommended all the socialist favorites:

it is in the region of wages and prices that we really require the continual economic leadership of government 18
we shall be obliged in the end to secure the payment of the same rate for the job throughout comparable industries 18
a central authority within an economy largely insulated from the world costing system and the fluctuations of external market prices 18
[Wage and price control can control] profit and investment... [which will] secure some redistribution of reward. 18
it is the control of imports and not the control of exchanges that is the key 18
[we oppose] an inclination of capital to move into the more primitive parts of Europe to exploit cheap labour 18
the clear line of solution is to approach as rapidly as possible the principle of the same rate for the same job throughout Europe, and for state capital investment to provide basic facilities in the backward areas, which will enable their development with fair and equal labour conditions 18
the experience of the cotton industry of Lancashire and the woollen industry of Yorkshire is evidence of what can occur when advanced countries export machinery to countries where finance can exploit labour with lower wages to compete disastrously against them. The uncontrolled competition developed by a greedy and anarchic capitalism within the Empire from India and Hong Kong, and without from China and Japan, was responsible for the ruin of Britain's main industries 18
we are in the phase of rationalised industry which is eminently suited to the exploitation of cheap African and Asian labour, and it will inevitably occur if nothing is done about it 18
millions of Africans have been drawn from the soil to the factories and are eventually thrown into unemployment because their exploitation is no longer profitable 18
I am no enemy of trade unionism, never have been and never will be. On the contrary, I can see an even bigger part for it in the modern world 18
Indeed the B.U.F. list of recommended reading includes works by socialists Noam Chomsky and [recently removed] George Monbiot. 19

The more recent and more active British National Party are often labelled 'extreme-right-wing' or 'fascist' and associated with extremist race-related views (justifiably in my view.) Some excerpts from their website:

Large enterprises, that is those with over 100 employees, will be converted to worker cooperatives. 20
The third sector of the economy will consist of government-operated businesses. Here there will be no uniformity, due to the wide variety of businesses, except that all the officers of these industries will be educated and trained in the government's Academy of Economics 20
The government will own those industries that tend toward monopoly or which are critical to the fate of the nation - utilities and energy, mass transportation, telephone, post office, weapons, and most importantly, banking and finance. 20
The government will also protect the national economy with various tariffs and trade barriers, so that we can become self-sufficient and end our dependence upon foreign trade for our prosperity. 20
We see a strong, healthy agriculture sector as vital to the country. Britain's farming industry will be encouraged to produce a much greater part of the nation's need in food products. Priority will be switched from quantity to quality, as we move from competing in a global economy to maximum self-sufficiency for Britain. 20
The motivation of the typical worker is very different from that of the typical plutocrat. If politically well-led by an honest and self-sacrificing leadership, the former sees himself as part of the nation, whereas the latter sees himself as something special -- distinct from and superior to the masses and thus deserving of all the prerogatives and privileges that his wealth bestows upon him. if the plutocrat did not see himself as above and beyond, then he could not psychologically rationalise why he should have an easy life with so much and the ordinary man should have a hard life with so little. Thus, generally speaking, the more one has, the weaker grow his psychological ties to his people and the nation, and the less he can be trusted to do the right thing for the whole. 20
[British politicians display] spineless subservience to the USA 20
an economic system based on capitalism damages race and culture and civilisation itself 20
Capitalism is not conducive to the maintenance of civilisation. On the contrary, it is entirely destructive and regressive, and totally incompatible with the progressive state which we in the BNP are striving to build. 20
Final Thoughts on Wiki and Fascism
I intended to use Wiki as an example of the generally dishonest portrayal of the conflict between right and left, and I think it has more than served the purpose. The article is marred by a great deal of statements which are factually incorrect, an unquestioning adoption of socialist propaganda, an almost complete ignorance of the differences between capitalism and socialism, a willingness to be self-contradictory in the "say anything" spirit with a result which portrays socialism in an uncompromisingly beneficial light, one which is historically unsound. Their entry on socialism suffers from the same faults. There is a strong, and in my view justified, claim made here that Wiki exhibit a left-wing bias in regard to their entry on of the left-wing academic Noam Chomsky.

I am convinced that the 'Fascism' entry was written by a socialist, the most revealing evidence is that it contains a complete misrepresentation of the view of Friedrich Hayek who was the definitive right-wing author of the 20th century and whose ground-breaking work "the Road to Serfdom" published in the 1940s influenced conservatives for generations to follow.

Hannah Arendt and Friedrich Hayek argue that the differences between fascism and totalitarian forms of socialism are more superficial than actual, since those self-proclaimed "socialist" governments did not live up to their claims of serving the people and respecting democratic principles. 8
Actually Hayek defined socialism as a planned economy, and argued that tyranny was the inevitable outcome of socialism. He decided that fascist policy was socialism due to the fascist control over the economy, and reasoned it was because of the socialist aspect that fascist rule resulted in tyranny.

The sad reality is that the Wiki representation and attitude is prevalent throughout Western state education and "news" media. I do not think Wiki are deliberately untruthful, primarily because socialists own an unusual and mitigating conception of truth.

A Prelude to Hitler
Before discussing the N.S.D.A.P. directly, I which to draw attention to relationships between socialism and nationalism and racism.

Racism and Insincerity
Emotion is often more of an affectation (for surely it is conditioned by culture) than a sincere reaction, emotion mostly produces precisely the converse of honest discussion, and emotion often proceeds from concealed issues.

There has been much over-sensitivity and over-reaction to the topic of racism in recent times :- the spectacle of the wolf disguised as sheep perpetrating witch hunts to chase fleeting shadows or even less, grotesque outpourings and insincere, narcissistic old-moralizers posturing - in turns self-flagellatory and indignant, indignation being the cheapest refuge and vantage-point - who may as well be saddled with acid for the extent of their grasp upon matters of concern, whilst the herd go along with the frenzy out of fear that a more measured approach might attract attention; "Comrade, your enthusiasm appears to be lacking! Politburo questions your commitment to the cause. A tribunal and gallows await outside." All the while a studied lazy indifference prevails toward a monster lurking not far beneath the surface, and whose forms can readily be discerned. This insincerity is illustrated precisely by the prevalence of an overwhelming keenness to be seen to be "anti-racist," whilst scarcely any attention is paid toward; what it is we actually mean by racism; whether our accusations are merited; whether the punishment fits the crime; and whether the punishment is a pragmatic response. The reader may be inclined to think that I am over-stressing this point, but I invite the reader to consider whether - in full view of the amount of attention directed toward racism - the fact that a debate over these questions has not occurred is not a cause for alarm. Today's atmosphere is unlikely to produce a rational, and therefore effective, approach to collectivist prejudices. One consequence of this tendency to "see racism" everywhere, which is really a propensity to "see race" everywhere, is that matters of cultural significance have been mistaken for racial issues and thereby been placed by the Guardians of Social Morality out of bounds for discussion (a fact which most clearly illuminates their own prejudices and that from which they spring.) It is hardly surprising that this has impeded severely upon the teaching of history.

Racism and non-racism cannot be perceived devoid of context. A jibe about skin coloration need not be heartfelt any more than a jibe about height or hair color - mirth and tongue-in-cheek mockery out of these differences may be made precisely because the differences matter so little to the individuals involved, who if it had been otherwise would be no more inclined toward "racist" jibing than making remarks upon each other's character. It seems to me that joking about inconsequential differences forms a strong part of friendship ritual, and is even a form of admiration. In an alternative context, verbally similar comments may proceed from a very different sentiment. The key questions is, whether one believes the differences go beyond skin-deep or not - clearly this question is relevant to those who regard skin-color as the holliest of hollies as much as those shallow souls who regard as inferior all whose coloration is significantly different from their own.

There is no evidence which proves or even strongly suggests the existence of a 'race,' that could convince one that 'race' is anything other than a nineteenth century superstition. It is culture which overwhelmingly elevates human nature above the animal, not genetics.

"Racial equality" is an absurd concept. If there were indeed such an entity as race, by definition there would be different races, which by definition cannot be equal.

The rational approach is to treat individuals as individuals - how they act, their capabilities.

A definition of racism is then :- an irrational treatment of and an irrational emotional reaction toward individuals based upon a belief in race, resulting from a perception of physiological contrast. I exclude from my definition of racism - a person who believes in the existence of race, that believes therefore in certain regards the aspects of one race are superior to another, but who nonetheless treat individuals based upon their actions (which is necessarily the rational approach, given that race, were it to be found, would be a statistical effect.) I exclude such a person firstly because they are so rare, secondly because their response is rational (although I believe their perception is wrong) and does not contribute toward the evils produced by racism.

Racism is collectivism. Individualism - human rights above the power of the collective - recognizes that human value is only to be found in the individual, and denies any superiority to an individual by membership of a collective regardless of whether it is defined by class or race or sexuality or any other category. A capitalist, or classical liberal viewpoint, is naturally inclined against racial prejudice.

Historically, racism formed a large part of socialism right from the beginning, and persists to this very day, particularly in the form of anti-Semitism which was and remains an integral part of socialist theory. I strongly recommend the reader now take a detour and read my essay here, which I believe, puts this question beyond doubt - much of this information is vital to an understanding of the N.S.D.A.P. The reader should be aware that it is upon the linked essay that I rest my claim to a socialism-racism link, for I have not had much time to look at other forms of socialist racism, however...

Nineteenth century socialists did not limit their racism to anti-Semitism - indeed it would be surprising if this were otherwise.

Marx stated...

It is now quite plain to me - as the shape of his head and the way his hair grows also testify - that he is descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses' flight from Egypt (unless his mother or paternal grandmother interbred with a nigger). Now, this blend of Jewishness and Germanness, on the one hand, and basic negroid stock, on the other, must inevitably give rise to a peculiar product. The fellow's importunity is also nigger-like. 14
The Scandinavians and the Germans have in this way found that they cannot base their respective national claims on the feudal laws of royal succession. They have had the even stronger experience that they, the Germans and the Scandinavians -- who both belong to one overall race -- will only pave the way for their hereditary enemy, the Slavs, if they fight with one-another rather than uniting 15
The most interesting acquaintanceship I have struck up here is that of Colonel Lapinski. He is without doubt the cleverest Pole - besides being an homme d'action [man of action] - that I have ever met. His sympathies are all on the German side, though in manners and speech he is also a Frenchman. He cares nothing for the struggle of nationalities and only knows the racial struggle. He hates all Orientals, among whom he numbers Russians, Turks, Greeks, Armenians, etc., with equal impartiality.... His aim now is to raise a German legion in London, even if only 200 strong, so that he can confront the Russians in Poland with the black, red and gold flag, partly to 'exasperate' the Parisians, partly to see whether there is any possibility whatsoever of bringing the Germans in Germany back to their senses. What's lacking is money. Efforts are being made down here to exploit all the German societies, etc., to this end. You must be the best judge of whether anything can be done in this line in Manchester. The cause itself would seem to be above reproach. 32
Thomas Carlyle was, perhaps alongside Robert Owen, the most prominent socialist in the United Kingdom during the nineteenth century, he opposed free-market economics and industrial society, and even set up communes (which failed.) His work was admired by Engels. In 1849 he wrote an essay entitled "Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question" published in Fraser's magazine, wherein he opposed the emancipation of slaves in the West Indies, in sentiments eerily similar to the signs held above the entrances to concentration camps: "work will set you free." His reasoning was that Negro desires could be entirely satisfied through munching on pumpkins and that therefore there would be no supply of labor, and that Negroes not fully occupied by labor, which he described as the only good in itself, formed a reprehensible outcome.

Sitting yonder, with their beautiful muzzles up to the ears in pumpkins, imbibing sweet pulps and juices; the grinder and incisor teeth ready for every new work, and the pumpkins cheap as grass in those rich climates; while the sugar crops rot round them, uncut, because labor cannot be hired
The strongest criticism of Carlyle's view came from the businessman, Parliamentarian, capitalist economist, classical liberal philosopher and logician John Stuart Mill. Mill tore Carlyle's opinion apart in this counter essay, much of which is worth reproducing for our purposes, for it embodies the spirit of the times, and is a great response by a very great mind. One may learn a great deal by observing how Mill keeps his eye firmly fixed on Carlyle's selection and use of language, by which Carlyle would attempt to enforce prejudicial rules of the game and grounds for discussion...

TO THE EDITOR OF FRASER'S MAGAZINE

SIR,- Your last month's number contains a speech against the "rights of Negroes," the doctrines and spirit of which ought not to pass without remonstrance. The author issues his opinions, or rather ordinances, under imposing auspices no less than those of the "immortal gods." "The Powers," "the Destinies," announce, through him, not only what will be, but what shall be done; what they "have decided upon, passed their eternal act of parliament for." This is speaking "as one having authority;" but authority from whom! If by the quality of the message we may judge of those who sent it, not from any powers to whom just or good men acknowledge allegiance. This so-called "eternal act of parliament" is no new law, but the old law of the strongest - a law against which the great teachers of mankind have in all ages protested - it is the law of force and cunning; the law that whoever is more powerful than an other, is "born lord" of that other, the other being born his "servant," who must be "compelled to work" for him by "beneficent whip," if "other methods avail not." I see nothing divine in this injunction. If "the gods" will this, it is the first duty of human beings to resist such gods. Omnipotent these "gods" are not, for powers which demand human tyranny and injustice cannot accomplish their purpose unless human beings cooperate. The history of human improvement is the record of a struggle by which inch after inch of ground has been wrung from these maleficent powers, and more and more of human life rescued from the iniquitous dominion of the law of might. Much, very much of this work still remains to do; but the progress made in it is the best and greatest achievement yet performed by mankind, and it was hardly to be expected at this period of the world that we should be enjoined, by way of a great reform in human affair, to begin undoing it.
The age, it appears, is ill with a most pernicious disease, which infects all its proceedings, and of which the conduct of this country in regard to the negroes is a prominent symptom - the disease of philanthropy. "Sunk in deep froth-oceans of benevolence, fraternity, emancipation-principle, Christian philanthropy, and other most amiable-looking, but most baseless, and, in the end, baleful and all-bewildering jargon," the product of "hearts left destitute of any earnest guidance, and disbelieving that there ever was any, Christian or heathen," the "human species" is "reduced to believe in rose-pink sentimentalism alone." On this alleged condition of the human species I shall have something to say presently. But I must first set my anti-philanthropic opponent right on a matter of fact. He entirely misunderstands the great national revolt of the conscience of this country against slavery and the slave-trade if he supposes it to have been an affair of sentiment. It depended no more on humane feelings than any cause which so irresistibly appealed to them must necessarily do: Its first victories were gained while the lash yet ruled uncontested in the barrack-yard, and the rod in schools, and while men were still hanged by dozens for stealing to the value of forty shillings. It triumphed because it was the cause of justice; and, in the estimation of the great majority of its supporters, of religion. Its originators and leaders were persons of a stern sense of moral obligation, who, in the spirit of the religion of their time, seldom spoke much of benevolence and philanthropy, but often of duty, crime, and sin. For nearly two centuries had negroes, many thousands annually, been seized by force or treachery and carried off to the West Indies to be worked to death, literally to death; for it was the received maxim, the acknowledged dictate of good economy, to wear them out quickly and import more. In this fact every other possible cruelty, tyranny, and wanton oppression was by implication included. And the motive on the part of the slave-owners was the love of gold; or, to speak more truly, of vulgar and puerile ostentation. I have yet to learn that anything more detestable than this has been done by human beings towards human beings in any part of the earth. It is a mockery to talk of comparing it with Ireland. And this went on, not, like Irish beggary, because England had not the skill to prevent it - not merely by the sufferance, but by the laws of the English nation. At last, however, there were found men, in growing number, who determined not to rest until the iniquity was extirpated; who made the destruction of it as much the business and end of their lives, as ordinary men make their private interests; who would not be content with softening its hideous features, and making it less intolerable to the sight, but would stop at nothing short of its utter and irrevocable extinction. I am so far from seeing anything contemptible in this resolution, that, in my sober opinion, the persons who formed and executed it deserve to be numbered among those, not numerous in any age, who have led noble lives according to their lights, and laid on mankind a debt of permanent gratitude.
After fifty years of toil and sacrifice, the object was accomplished, and the negroes, freed from the despotism of their fellow-beings, were left to themselves, and to the chances which the arrangements of existing society provide for these who have no resource but their labor. These chances proved favorable to them, and, for the last ten years, they afford the unusual spectacle of a laboring class whose labor bears so high a price that they can exist in comfort on the wages of a comparatively small quantity of work. This, to the ex-slave-owners, is an inconvenience; but I have not yet heard that any of them has been reduced to beg his bread, or even to dig for it, as the negro, however scandalously he enjoys himself, still must: a carriage or some other luxury the less, is in most cases, I believe, the limit of their privations - no very bad measure of retributive justice; those who have had tyrannical power taken away from them, may think themselves fortunate if they come so well off; at all events, it is an embarrassment out of which the nation is not called on to help them; if they cannot continue to realize their large incomes without more laborers, let them find them, and bring them from where they can best be procured, only not by force. Not so thinks your anti-philanthropic contributor. That negroes should exist, and enjoy existence, on so little work, is a scandal, in his eyes, worse than their former slavery. It must be put a stop to at any price. He does not "wish to see" them slaves again "if it can be avoided;" but "decidedly" they "will have to be servants," "servants to the whites," "compelled to labor," and "not to go idle another minute." "Black Quashee," "up to the ears in pumpkins," and "working about half an hour a day," is to him the abomination of abominations. I have so serious a quarrel with him about principles, that I have no time to spare for his facts; but let me remark, how easily he takes for granted those which fit his case. Because he reads in some blue-book of a strike for wages in Demerara, such as he may read of any day in Manchester, he draws a picture of negro inactivity, copied from the wildest prophecies of the slavery party before emancipation. If the negroes worked no more than "half an hour a day," would the sugar crops, in all except notoriously bad seasons, be so considerable, so little diminished from what they were in the time of slavery, as is proved by the custom-house returns? But it is not the facts of the question, so much as the moralities of it, that I care to dispute with your contributor.
This pet theory of your contributor about work, we all know well enough, though some persons might not be prepared for so bold an application of it. Let me say a few words on this "gospel of work" - which, to my mind, as justly deserves the name of a cant as any of those which he has opposed, while the truth it contains is immeasurably further from being the whole truth than that contained in the words Benevolence, Fraternity, or any other of his catalogue of contemptibilities. To give it a rational meaning, it must first be known what he means by work. Does work mean everything which people do? No; or he would not reproach people with doing no work. Does it mean laborious exertion? No; for many a day spent in killing game, includes more muscular fatigue than a day's ploughing. Does it mean useful exertion? But your contributor always scoffs at the idea of utility. Does he mean that all persons ought to earn their living? But some earn their living by doing nothing, and some by doing mischief; and the negroes, whom he despises, still do earn by labor the "pumpkins" they consume and the finery they wear.
Work, I imagine, is not a good in itself. There is nothing laudable in work for work's sake. To work voluntarily for a worthy object is laudable; but what constitutes a worthy object? On this matter, the oracle of which your contributor is the prophet has never yet been prevailed on to declare itself. He revolves in an eternal circle round the idea of work, as if turning up the earth, or driving a shuttle or a quill, were ends in themselves, and the ends of human existence. Yet, even in the case of the most sublime service to humanity, it is not because it is work that it is worthy; the worth lies in the service itself, and in the will to render it - the noble feelings of which it is the fruit; and if the nobleness of will is proved by other evidence than work, as for instance by danger or sacrifice, there is the same worthiness. While we talk only of work, and not of its object, we are far from the root of the matter; or, if it may be called the root, it is a root without flower or fruit.
In the present case, it seems, a noble object means "spices." - "The gods wish, besides pumpkins, that spices and valuable products be grown in their West Indies" - the "noble elements of cinnamon, sugar, coffee, pepper black and gray," "things far nobler than pumpkins." Why so? Is what supports life inferior in dignity to what merely gratifies the sense of taste? Is it the verdict of the "immortal gods" that pepper is noble, freedom (even freedom from the lash) contemptible? But spices lead "towards commerces, arts, polities, and social developments." Perhaps so; but of what sort? When they must be produced by slaves, the "polities and social developments" they lead to are such as the world, I hope, will not choose to be cursed with much longer.
The worth of work does not surely consist in its leading to other work, and so on to work upon work without end. On the contrary, the multiplication of work, for purposes not worth caring about, is one of the evils of our present condition. When justice and reason shall be the rule of human affairs, one of the first things to which we may expect them to be applied is the question, How many of the so-called luxuries, conveniences, refinements, and ornaments of life, are worth the labor which must be undergone as the condition of producing them? The beautifying of existence is as worthy and useful an object as the sustaining of it; but only a vitiated taste can see any such result in those fopperies of so-called civilization, which myriads of hands are now occupied and lives wasted in providing. In opposition to the "gospel of work," I would assert the gospel of leisure, and maintain that human beings cannot rise to the finer attributes of their nature compatibly with a life filled with labor...
Your contributor's notions of justice and proprietary right are of another kind than these. According to him, the whole West Indies belong to the whites: the negroes have no claim there, to either land or food, but by their sufferance. "It was not Black Quashee, or those he represents, that made those West India islands what they are." I submit, that those who furnished the thews and sinews really had something to do with the matter. "Under the soil of Jamaica the bones of many thousand British men" - "brave Colonel Fortescue, brave Colonel Sedgwick, brave Colonel Brayne," and divers others, "had to be laid." How many hundred thousand African men laid their bones there, after having had their lives pressed out by slow or fierce torture? They could have better done without Colonel Fortescue, than Colonel Fortescue could have done without them. But he was the stronger, and could "compel;" what they did and suffered therefore goes for nothing. Not only they did not, but it seems they could not, have cultivated those islands. "Never by art of his" (the negro) "could one pumpkin have grown there to solace any human throat." They grow pumpkins, however, and more than pumpkins, in a very similar country, their native Africa. We are told to look at Haiti: what does your contributor know of Haiti? "Little or no sugar growing, black Peter exterminating black Paul, and where a garden of the Hesperides might be, nothing but a tropical dog-kennel and pestiferous jungle." Are we to listen to arguments grounded on hear-says like these? In what is black Haiti worse than white Mexico? If the truth were known, how much worse is it than white Spain?
But the great ethical doctrine of the discourse, than which a doctrine more damnable, I should think, never was propounded by a professed moral reformer, is, that one kind of human beings are born servants to another kind. "You will have to be servants," he tells the negroes, "to those that are born wiser than you, that are born lords of you - servants to the whites, if they are (as what mortal can doubt that they are?) born wiser than you." I do not hold him to the absurd letter of his dictum; it belongs to the mannerism in which he is enthralled like a child in swaddling clothes. By "born wiser," I will suppose him to mean, born more capable of wisdom: a proposition which, he says, no mortal can doubt, but which, I will make bold to say, that a full moiety of all thinking persons, who have attended to the subject, either doubt or positively deny. Among the things for which your contributor professes entire disrespect, is the analytical examination of human nature. It is by analytical examination that we have learned whatever we know of the laws of external nature; and if he had not disdained to apply the same mode of investigation to the laws of the formation of character, he would have escaped the vulgar error of imputing every difference which he finds among human beings to an original difference of nature. As well might it be said, that of two trees, sprung from the same stock one cannot be taller than another but from greater vigor in the original seedling. Is nothing to be attributed to soil, nothing to climate, nothing to difference of exposure - has no storm swept over the one and not the other, no lightning scathed it, no beast browsed on it, no insects preyed on it, no passing stranger stript [sic] off its leaves or its bark? If the trees grew near together, may not the one which, by whatever accident, grew up first, have retarded the other's development by its shade? Human beings are subject to an infinitely greater variety of accidents and external influences than trees, and have infinitely more operation in impairing the growth of one another; since those who begin by being strongest, have almost always hitherto used their strength to keep the others weak. What the original differences are among human beings, I know no more than your contributor, and no less; it is one of the questions not yet satisfactorily answered in the natural history of the species. This, however, is well known - that spontaneous improvement, beyond a very low grade - improvement by internal development, without aid from other individuals or peoples - is one of the rarest phenomena in history; and whenever known to have occurred, was the result of an extraordinary combination of advantages; in addition doubtless to many accidents of which all trace is now lost. No argument against the capacity of negroes for improvement, could be drawn from their not being one of these rare exceptions. It is curious, withal, that the earliest known civilization was, we have the strongest reason to believe, a negro civilization. The original Egyptians are inferred, from the evidence of their sculptures, to have been a negro race: it was from negroes, therefore, that the Greeks learnt their first lessons in civilization; and to the records and traditions of these negroes did the Greek philosophers to the very end of their career resort (I do not say with much fruit) as a treasury of mysterious wisdom. But I again renounce all advantage from facts: were the whites born ever so superior in intelligence to the blacks, and competent by nature to instruct and advise them, it would not be the less monstrous to assert that they had therefore a right either to subdue them by force, or circumvent them by superior skill; to throw upon them the toils and hardships of life, reserving for themselves, under the misapplied name of work, its agreeable excitements.
Were I to point out, even in the briefest terms, every vulnerable point in your contributor's discourse, I should produce a longer dissertation than his. One instance more must suffice. If labor is wanted, it is a very obvious idea to import laborers and if negroes are best suited to the climate, to import negroes. This is a mode of adjusting the balance between work and laborers, quite in accordance with received principles; it is neither before nor behind the existing moralities of the world; and since it would accomplish the object of making the negroes work more, your contributor, at least, it might have been supposed, would have approved of it. On the contrary, this prospect is to him the most dismal of all; for either "the new Africans, after laboring a little," will "take to pumpkins like the others," or if so many of them come that they will be obliged to work for their living, there will be "a black Ireland." The labor market admits of three possible conditions, and not, as this would imply, of only two. Either, first, the laborers can live almost without working, which is said to be the case in Demerara; or, secondly, which is the common case, they can live by working, but must work in order to live; or, thirdly, they cannot by working get a sufficient living, which is the case in Ireland. Your contributor sees only the extreme cases, but no possibility of the medium. If Africans are imported, he thinks there must either be so few of them, that they will not need to work, or so many, that although they work, they will not be able to live.
The two would clash again two decades later, when Carlyle defended the harsh suppression of a "revolt" in Jamaica and Mill again took an opposing view. This time Mill was joined in his criticism by John Bright, a self-made capitalist entrepreneur and cotton manufacturer. Bright's outlook was consistently pro-capitalism and classical liberal in his support of individual rights and small government; he was a Puritan and deeply influenced by the Bible and works of John Milton, he opposed compulsory taxation in support of the Church, he opposed the protectionist Corn Laws and encouraged the proletariat and middle classes to unite for free-trade to lower the cost of food, he opposed placing a limit upon factory working hours, he opposed the Crimean War, he advocated the introduction of democracy and representative government to India against the colonial policy of the time, he campaigned for universal suffrage and secret ballots, he supported the Union in the American civil war, he supported the admittance of Nonconformists into Universities, he supported greater access to education through government funding. Bright became a Member of Parliament for the (classical) Liberals, and was President of the Board of Trade.

During the nineteenth century it was the classical liberals, the capitalists and not the socialists, who took the anti-racism and particularly the anti-slavery position.

Labor under the government of Lenin's Bolsheviks was slavery - failure to work resulted in physical punishment, even execution. Lenin saw no worth in the individual.

Legislative support for the American civil rights movement, including opposition to segregation, was overwhelmingly forthcoming from the traditionally conservative Republican Party.

In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes. 16
Although the key Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced under Democrat President John F. Kennedy, in the House of Representatives it received 80% support among Republicans and 61% support among Democrats, whilst in the Senate it was opposed by 18 Democrats and only one Republican.

"Anti-racism" which was non-existent in the socialist movement at any time prior to the end of World War Two has become something of a mantra. This sudden adoption clearly was another outcome of the demise of the N.S.D.A.P. whereby it became essential for socialist propaganda to deny racism. Following the claim that the N.S.D.A.P. were right-wing it naturally followed that socialists would tar members of the right as racist, and to go further by claiming that racism is a right-wing movement. Not only is there no evidence of racism in right-wing movements but there is also no support for it in right-wing political theory. Although many socialists will claim that racism is right-wing, none ever explain why they think this to be true. Again, it is simply another mantra. Perhaps the most egregiously false accusation made in recent years was by socialist "anti-war" protestors, who claimed that the U.S. effort to remove Saddam Hussein, one of the worst tyrants of the past century, and to replace the Ba'ath dictatorship with democracy and human rights, was a "racist war." In what way was it racist? They do not say.

In any group of people as large as the global right-wing there will, of course, be individual racists - such is human nature in this great and diverse world. But in the case of the political right, it is the exception that proves the rule. As an example, I personally read approximately 100 right-wing blogs - internet political news and views diaries provided by private individuals, preaching to the converted. Mostly they are anonymous. These are not professional media publications. No one is going to be sacked for making a racist remark, and if it were true that racism is right-wing, they would certainly not fear losing readership. I have read these right-wing blogs every day for almost a year and a half - that is a huge volume of material. I have not read one single racist comment.

There is something very different in the socialist conception of anti-racism, it consists in a large part of a policy that promotes the enforcement of an average of "equal" outcomes among sectors of the population, categorized by skin-color. An individual is not to be evaluated by their talents, but identified according to their skin color and then treated accordingly to fill a quota for their "race." The right-wing approach is color-blind, socialist anti-racism is - racist. In America this is called positive discrimination. And opponents to this discrimination are labelled racist. Another visibly racist aspect of socialist "anti-racism" is to accept and even excuse lower standards of social behaviour among individuals of whatever skin-color they deem need protecting from racism - and to accuse of racism those who demand the same standards of individual responsibility be adopted regardless of one's skin color. In America this has led to accusations that reform of state welfare is racist. The greatest detrimental effect upon the cultures of those of African descent in America has been produced by the welfare state since the 1960s and the resulting lack of self-reliance, which has been justified and encouraged through the idea of victim-hood promoted by the American race-relations industry, particularly the N.A.A.C.P. Tightening of welfare rules to force welfare claimants into work has resulted in lifting significant numbers of black children above the U.S. poverty line, but this seems to be of little concern to left-wing anti-racists. Nor do they pay much attention to those members of the "race" under their "protection" who disagree with their policies - Bill Crosby for example, who stated that the reason for black children performing relatively poorly at school was because of the example set at home and the level of support given by parents to their children. A recent survey of young black Americans showed that two-thirds (recalling from memory) thought problems in black American cultures stemmed from lack of self-reliance and individual responsibility, not from white racism. In the United Kingdom, some of the attitudes expressed by members of the race-relations industry, created by the socialist Labour government, are quite horrifying. One recent example followed a violent attack by a group of Sikhs upon a play that was created by a Sikh and included scenes of rape and murder taking place inside a Sikh temple. The play was forced to close and Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, the author, was forced into hiding after receiving death threats. An illegal and violent censorship, which would have been denounced had the perpetrators been white, was described by Fiona Mactaggart the Labour Minister for Racial Equality as a good sign...

That people feel this passionately about theatres is a good sign for our cultural life. It is a sign of a lively flourishing cultural life.
Another example is a documentary made by Darcus Howe exposing racism between Britons of African and Asian descent - many violent attacks, and certain areas of some cities forbidden to persons of the "wrong" color. Howe has been a tireless campaigner on the issue of racism through some very violent times, and has probably done more than any other single person to highlight and counteract the problems of racism in the U.K. in the late twentieth century. A [whose name I forget] former member of the Orwellian Commission for Racial Equality and now a member of the governing entity of the Labour Party, the National Executive, described Howe's film as "dangerous" and "irresponsible" and stated that it should not be broadcast. It was most gratifying to see Howe respond:

Try and stop me.
As Orwell put it:

All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.
The excuse given by socialists for "preferential" treatment of "races" under their "protection" is that, in the case of America and the U.K., they claim overwhelming white racism against minorities makes such a counterweight necessary. Not only do I not believe this depiction is at all accurate, I do not believe this is the motivation. I think that significant numbers of left-wing "anti-racists" genuinely view people of certain skin colors as less capable. This is evident in left-wing reactions to a certain two black Americans - Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, the current and former Secretaries of State for the Republican administration. Ted Rall, the very left-wing cartoonist published in the very left-wing New York Times and Washington Post, created the cartoon described below...

In a panel titled, "Sent to inner-city racial re-education camp," Rall depicts Condoleezza Rice confronting a black man wearing a t-shirt that reads, "You're not white, stupid." The man says, "Now hand over your hair straightener." Ms. Rice protests, "I was Bush's beard! His house nigga!" 17
The cartoon can be viewed here.

John Sylvester, a left-wing Wisonsin radio host, called Powell an "Uncle Tom" and Rice an "Aunt Jemima."

Or perhaps in the views of the anti-globalization lobby toward citizens in Africa, South and Central America, and parts of Asia - demanding government intervention to prevent these citizens from making "bad decisions" thereby being "exploited" by calculating multi-national corporations - and often a more general view that these citizens need government to direct their economic activity. Government control in reality prevents citizens from buying cheap goods and from working for higher wages under better working conditions.

Or perhaps in the view that certain peoples do not desire freedom and are not capable of living in a democracy, as was often claimed toward the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. One particularly strong example was an email sent to an Iraqi blogger by a member of the "anti-war" movement which repeatedly called the Iraqi blogger a "poor child" for not understanding that [paraphrasing] the aim of the U.S. invasion was some C.I.A.-led plan to dominate and exploit Iraqis.

In summary, I think that the left-wing "anti-racist" attitude both overplays the extent of racism and treats racism with undue flippancy. The attitude needed to tackle prejudice is the patient, determined, hard-working and intelligent approach of Mill and Howe, not casually flinging around accusations of racism at anyone we don't like whilst paying scant attention to our own attitudes, and perhaps our own prejudices. Nor are most racists evil, more often irrational and uneducated.

Nationalism
How can one praise and glorify a nation as a whole?--Even among the Greeks, it was the INDIVIDUALS that counted. Friedrich Nietzsche
There are many forms of nationalism. Nationalism may take the form of a belief that the nation-state is a better form of government, such as may be held by an individualist purely out of self-interest.

There is the gloating form of national pride, which states that some or all achievements of one nation are greater than others, sometimes this may be justified by fact, sometimes not.

But the form of nationalism with which I am concerned is, pretty much equivalent to racism - the irrational belief in the inherent superiority of the people of one nation and their right to invade and oppress others - that is, to treat persons of other nations as worthless by this fact, and this is what I will take to mean as nationalism, the form of nationalism adopted by the Fascists and by the N.S.D.A.P.

Again, following the end of World War Two it was claimed that nationalism is a right-wing belief, again one must ask precisely what nationalism has to do with individual rights, small government, and capitalism? Again, the socialists have no answer except the circular; "the Fascists and N.S.D.A.P. were right-wing because they were nationalist"; "nationalism is right-wing because it was adopted by the..."

Again, we find that historically, nationalism formed a strong part of socialism, and the origins are clear in the two authors of the Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx stated:

In the Russian vocabulary there is no such word as honour 21
In Vienna, Croats, Pandours, Czechs, Serezhans and similar rabble throttled German liberty 22
Friedrich Engels stated...

The Germans have long since shown that in all spheres of science they are equal, and in most of them superior, to other civilised nations. Only one branch of science, political economy, had no German name among its foremost scholars. 23
justice and other moral considerations may be damaged here and there; but what does that matter to such facts of world-historic significance?... Following that, Bohemia and Moravia passed definitely to Germany and the Slovak regions remained with Hungary. And this historically absolutely non-existent "nation" puts forward claims to independence?... Of course, matters of this kind cannot be accomplished without many a tender national blossom being forcibly broken. But in history nothing is achieved without power and implacable ruthlessness... To the sentimental phrases about brotherhood which we are being offered here on behalf of the most counter-revolutionary nations of Europe, we reply that hatred of Russians was and still is the primary revolutionary passion among Germans; that since the revolution hatred of Czechs and Croats has been added, and that only by the most determined use of terror against these Slav peoples can we, jointly with the Poles and Magyars, safeguard the revolution... Then there will be a struggle, an "unrelenting life-and-death struggle" against those Slavs who betray the revolution; an annihilating fight and most determined terrorism -- not in the interests of Germany, but in the interests of the revolution! 24
Among all the nations and sub-nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and are still capable of life -- the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm... This remnant of a nation [the Slavs] that was, as Hegel says, suppressed and held in bondage in the course of history, this human trash, becomes every time -- and remains so until their complete obliteration or loss of national identity -- the fanatical carriers of counter-revolution, just as their whole existence in general is itself a protest against a great historical revolution... Such, in Austria, are the pan-Slavist Southern Slavs, who are nothing but the human trash of peoples, resulting from an extremely confused thousand years of development... The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is progress. 25
By the same right under which France took Flanders, Lorraine and Alsace, and will sooner or later take Belgium -- by that same right Germany takes over Schleswig; it is the right of civilization as against barbarism, of progress as against stability. Even if the agreements were in Denmark's favor -- which is very doubtful-this right carries more weight than all the agreements, for it is the right of historical evolution 26
True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East? 27
So, the two most famous socialists of all time thought that hatred of Russians, Czechs, and Croats promoted the socialist cause; that Croats, Pandours, Czechs, and Serezhans were rabble; that Slavs were human trash that deserved to be exterminated; and that the superiority of German civilization allowed a right to conquer Alsace, Lorraine, Holland and Belgium. Yet the nationalism of the National Socialist German Worker's Party is claimed to be right-wing?

There have been more and greater lies told in the name of socialism than in the history of any other political movement.

Perhaps the most nationalistic socialists before the Germans were the Russians, in their brutal invasion and subjugation by the Red Army and the Cheka (the secret police,) of nations which had successfully resisted the Tsarist empire or recently managed to secede - Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Dagestan, Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Chechnya, Estonia - all were conquered by Lenin's Bolsheviks in purely aggressive wars for territorial expansion. In fact, according to one private report I have heard, the one aspect of communism Russians today most often say they miss is an empire.

From the start of the nineteenth century, right up to Hitler, the only people to advocate genocide all called their selves socialists - Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx, Eugen Dühring, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Beatrice Webb, H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Vladimir Lenin. There were no capitalists, conservatives, or libertarians involved.

Isaac Steinberg, the People's Commissar for Justice, asked Lenin...

What is the point of a "People's Commissariat for Justice"? It would be more honest to have a People's Commissariat for Social Extermination. People would understand more clearly.
Lenin's response...

Excellent idea. That's exactly how I see it. Unfortunately, it wouldn't do to call it that! 33
Nationalist/racist persecution (all the following occurred under socialist rule) - Russians persecuted every nationality brought into the U.S.S.R., Pol Pot persecuted Vietnamese, Vietnamese persecuted Chinese and Hmong, Chinese persecuted Koreans and Japanese, Tito persecuted Serbs, Ceausescu persecuted Albanians and Greeks, Albanians persecuted Romanians, North Koreans persecuted Chinese and Japanese.

Marx stated...

May the devil take these peoples movements, especially when they are "peaceful" 28
Those dogs of democrats and liberal riff-raff will see that we're the only chaps who haven't been stultified by the ghastly period of peace. 29
National and International Socialism
Although the majority of socialist movements were nationalist in character, the terms 'national socialism' and 'international socialism' have hardly any connection with nationalism.

In Karl Marx' time, international socialism meant international revolution - a bloody revolution, according to Marx - the aim was to spread socialism everywhere.

In today's socialism, international socialism means 'working-class brotherhood' by commonality of shared political ideas - this deeply prejudiced idea is also most absurd when one contemplates cultural differences, in any case the 'proletariat' in many of the poorest nations have a far greater cultural affinity with Western bourgeois. Proletariat of rich Western nations are, largely, the dysfunctional and anti-social elements left behind by the great increase in wealth-mobility; envious despite their wealth, self-pitying, somnambulant, pessimistic and aggressive, supported in this by a welfare state, perpetuated by passing their outlook onto their offspring; much different from the energetic, social, optimistic, open-minded and enterprising proletariat of many nations with genuine poverty.

Between 1918 and circa 1950 the terms 'international socialism' and 'national socialism' respectively referred to those who supported the Comintern and those who opposed the Comintern with an independent - hence national - socialist government. Conflicts occurred particularly in Germany, Italy, and Spain. The difference between 'international' and 'national' socialism or 'fascism' was a difference in practical politics not a dispute over ideology - it was a competition for power.

Around 1950 'national' socialism effectively disappeared, largely because the Cold War had kicked into full swing, the Bolshevik Politburo were more concerned with creating as many socialist governments as possible and as soon as possible, dropping demands for direct control in favor of U.S.S.R.-aligned or U.S.S.R.-friendly regimes. This was most effective, especially in poorer countries, where the supply of arms and cash was an 'offer that could not be refused.' Of course the Bolsheviks still employed their agents and 'military advisors' in order to ensure the correct outcome.

It is of interesting note that, whilst officially despising the 'national socialists' as - right-wing and evil - many socialists are keen to defend the Vietnamese communists as "more nationalist than communist" through their refusal to bow to strong Russian control - the same as the N.S.D.A.P. and Fascists! All of a sudden, national socialism has become 'good'! Socialists may claim that nonetheless the Vietnamese Communists received great support from the U.S.S.R., whilst the N.S.D.A.P. and Bolsheviks remained in confrontation after the power dispute within Germany had been conclusively settled, which they claim was a result of a polar difference in ideology. The problem with this theory is that, the claim of perpetual confrontation is historically false.

The N.S.D.A.P. - The Socialist Worker's Party of Germany
I am heavily indebted to the research and writings of John Ray, from which much of the material for this essay comes, particularly in this last section.

I think, it is preferable to look first at ideology, for this explains in part the rise to power and some subsequent actions.

What kind of a man was Hitler?

Hitler in his own words [public]...

We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions
Basically, National Socialism and Marxism are the same.
We want no other god than Germany
The higher interests involved in the life of the whole, must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual.
Hitler's words in private conversations...

The whole of National Socialism is based on Marx
[without racism the N.S.D.A.P.] would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground
I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow
The words of Joseph Goebbels...

The sin of bourgeois patriotism was to confound a certain economic form with the national. It connected two things that are entirely different. Forms of the economy, however firm they may seem, are changeable. The national is eternal.
I can love Germany and hate capitalism. Not only can I, I must. Only the annihilation of a system of exploitation carries with it the core of the rebirth of our people. We are nationalists because as Germans, we love Germany. Because we love Germany, we want to preserve it and fight against those who would destroy it. If a Communist shouts "Down with nationalism!", he means the hypocritical bourgeois patriotism that sees the economy only as a system of slavery. If we make clear to the man of the left that nationalism and capitalism, that is the affirmation of the Fatherland and the misuse of its resources, have nothing to do with each other, indeed that they go together like fire and water, then even as a socialist he will come to affirm the nation, which he will want to conquer. That is our real task as National Socialists. We were the first to recognize the connections, and the first to begin the struggle. Because we are socialists we have felt the deepest blessings of the nation, and because we are nationalists we want to promote socialist justice in a new Germany. A young fatherland will rise when the socialist front is firm. Socialism will become reality when the Fatherland is free. Why Are We Socialists? We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state. Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and the regaining of German freedom. Socialism therefore is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy.
The bourgeois is about to leave the historical stage. In its place will come the class of productive workers, the working class, that has been up until today oppressed. It is beginning to fulfill its political mission. It is involved in a hard and bitter struggle for political power as it seeks to become part of the national organism. The battle began in the economic realm; it will finish in the political. It is not merely a matter of pay, not only a matter of the number of hours worked in a day-though we may never forget that these are an essential, perhaps even the most significant part of the socialist platform-but it is much more a matter of incorporating a powerful and responsible class in the state, perhaps even to make it the dominant force in the future politics of the Fatherland
We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces. We have no intention of begging for that right. Incorporating him in the state organism is not only a critical matter for him, but for the whole nation.
We are a workers' party because we see in the coming battle between finance and labor the beginning and the end of the structure of the twentieth century. We are on the side of labor and against finance. Money is the measuring rod of liberalism, work and accomplishment that of the socialist state. The liberal asks: What are you? The socialist asks: Who are you? Worlds lie between.
The value of labor under socialism will be determined by its value to the state, to the whole community. Labor means creating value, not haggling over things.
What we demand is new, decisive, and radical, revolutionary in the truest sense of the word.
Pay should be according to accomplishment. That means more pay for German workers!
The people's community must not be a mere phrase, but a revolutionary achievement following from the radical carrying out of the basic life needs of the working class.
A war against exploitation, freedom for the workers! The elimination of all economic-capitalist influences on national policy. 31
The National Socialist movement has one single master: Marxism
Socialism is the concept of the world of the future which can only be realized in the socialist state.
We are socialists and mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system.
To be a socialist, is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole
Joseph Goebbels in his private diary...

better go down with Bolshevism than live in eternal capitalist servitude
Ernst Huber, a spokesperson for the N.S.D.A.P.:

The concept of personal liberties of the individual as opposed to the authority of the state had to disappear; it is not to be reconciled with the principle of the nationalistic Reich
There are no personal liberties of the individual which fall outside of the realm of the state and which must be respected by the state... The constitution of the nationalistic Reich is therefore not based upon a system of inborn and inalienable rights of the individual.
The N.S.D.A.P. author Friedrich Sieburg:

There are to be no more private Germans, each is to attain significance only by his service to the state, and to find complete self-fulfillment in his service.
Robert Ley, a member of the N.S.D.A.P.:

The only person who is still a private individual in Germany, is somebody who is asleep.
Policies in the N.S.D.A.P. manifesto of 1920, written by Adolph Hitler...

7 We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood...
10 The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all. Therefore we demand:
11 That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
12 Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13 We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
14 We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
15 We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions...
17 We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
18 We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.
19 We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.
20 In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.
21 The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centres, by prohibiting juvenile labour, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.
24 We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race. The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the principle: COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD 34
As mentioned earlier, my essay on anti-Semitism proves conclusively that N.S.D.A.P. anti-Semitism came directly from nineteenth century socialists.

N.S.D.A.P. Outcomes
The N.S.D.A.P. ruled Germany from the year 1933 through to 1945 - like the Bolsheviks, with the tyranny of a totalitarian police-state.

From 20 January 1934, all businesses employing more than twenty persons were required to join the N.