Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left

“Fascists,” “Brownshirts,” “jackbooted stormtroopers”… conservatives are all too frequently tarred with such insulting labels. It’s a way to cast conservative views as being somehow “beyond the political pale.” Not only are the slurs unfair, they are historically misplaced as well. fascists hail from the left. An international movement, fascism took on different forms in different countries, reflecting the vagaries of national culture and temperament. Hitler's Nazis were ardent socialists. They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, supported abortion and gun control, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. While fascism in Germany found its ultimate expression as genocidal, racist nationalism, in America, it assumed a “friendlier” form. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated many of the movement’s policies in the New Deal. If this observation sounds strange to modern ears, it’s only because most Americans have forgotten the policies and principles that truly define fascism.

reply to post by rockets red glare


As a Libertarian, I am amazed someone posted this on ATS. The vast majority of the posters here are so left wing they make the Democrat Party look like conservatives. Some of these people would blame their bowel movements on the conservatives, if they could. Your sure to get beaten down on this one, but I admire the effort.

Note: For those who don't know, Libertarians hate both parties equally

reply to post by LightinDarkness


Oh yes. it's gotten to the point I could start a thread talking about how I love the blue sky and I would get a warning!!! really! take a look at the thread I started about michael savage sueing CARE.

Originally posted by rockets red glare
Hitler's Nazis were ardent socialists. They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, supported abortion and gun control

You dragging Hitler into this is a well known logical fallacy examined here:
en.wikipedia.org...

If Hitler did it, it must be all wrong, right? How about, Hitler brushed his teeth and was an avid user of toilet paper? Should we eschew such evil practices?

"Spending vast sums on public education" is a magnificent idea, don't you think? No wonder German education and science are top notch. Now, the robust health care is also great, IMHO. As for "guaranteed jobs" during Hitler's reign, these came in the shape of building roads (autobahn) and bridges. Pretty crude but good for the nation.

In your anti-left frenzy, you almost manage to paint Hitler as a good fellow, actually.

Historically, there are MANY Jews among the left. Your point? Please clairfy, because according to your own twisted logic, you might just be suspected of being an anti-semite.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Sorry but, the shoe fits like a glove. Read the natzi gun control act of 1938 then read the democrats sponsered gun control act of 1968. facts are facts.

reply to post by rockets red glare



You are mistaking ing the Nazi's Democratic Socialism with fascism. The Nazis mixed socialism, fascism and several other things to come up with their govt.

Fascism has ALWAYS been considered a product of the far right. What liberals have you ever met that espoused racism, oppression and that the citizen serve the government?? Liberals are always lobbying for freedom, lower taxes, equality for all, which in fact brings me to another definition of fascism - that of espousing inequality for citizens under fascist rule.

Look around you at what our government is presently doing. They are taking away our freedoms bit by bit. We are continuing to see the middle class rapidly diminishing, which is another feature of fascism. I would remind you that this is a Republican administration. Not that Republicans vs. Democrats matters much at this point anyway, because we have a one party system - the Neocons, most of whom are Republican, but some of whom are Democrats, such as Pelosi, Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, and Diane Feinstein.

What liberals have you ever met that espoused racism, oppression and that the citizen serve the government??

90% of the liberals I know.

Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, George Soros .... do I need to list more?

Liberals are always lobbying for freedom

By taking away the right of the people to keep and bare arms? And by taking away the right to free speech under the guise of "hate crimes legislation"?

lower taxes

HAHAHA .... that goes right against the typical liberal mentality of a nanny state. Just how do the liberals fund all their "social reform" projects? Heres a hint, the answer is not by lowering taxes.

equality for all

The liberals only approve of free speech and equality under the laws only if they agree with the message or the action.

[edit on 31-12-2007 by ChrisF231]

Well one can safely assume that rockets red glare and anybody that subscribes to his/her logic has not not read a history book. Hitler and Stalin rest on the extreme opposite of the political spectrum. To start with Hitler was a right winger who hated Socialists(SP?) and trade unionists as much as he did communists . Under Albert Speer and others the use of private sector and slave labour drove the German war economy.

So the ignorance in the opening post is more likely to lead to fascism then anything else.....

Stalin was the same kind of animal but he underwent a differnt evolutionary path . While slave labour was in use the private sector wouldn't have existed as such the state would have owned and run the factory's that were a part of the war effort. Stalin and Communism come about in Russia due to the vast class differences that could never be over come by the majority of the population.

In the US one can still go from rags to riches which allows a person to overcome any perceived class differences this is the difference between the US today and Russia in 1917. Posting BS from a right wing American websites will not change historical fact. If you want sources to back up my assertions don't bother looking on Wikipedia instead spend a couple days at a library reading the relevant books.

reply to post by rockets red glare


You seem to be unaware of what the definition of fascism is. Your entire argument looks like this: "I hate liberals. I also hate Nazis. Therefore liberals are Nazis."

Yes, the Nazis called themselves "socialists". North Korea calls itself a "Democratic Republic" too. Nazis were about as far from socialist as Kim Jong Il is from being a democratically elected leader. You could have learned this by opening a book. One by actual historians or even contemporary writers.

Another Neocon, another BS Smear campaign against History.

HITLER AND THE NAZIS WAS GERMANYS RESPONSE TO THE EXPLOSION IN SOCIALISTS AND LIBERALS! THEY WERE THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY!

Sorry, maybe that will get through.

Of course it wasn't trully conservative, parts were, but it was much like todays GOP, claim conservative, but really Neocon. And hey, NAZIs Neocons, supported by the Republicans like GOP Senator Prescott Bush! Does no one look at this?

We need either someone like Bill Clinton who balanced the budget, exploded the economy to record highs while keeping inflation down, had 3 extra WTC buildings standing, had close to 4,000 extra US Troops, one less Civil War started by fake documents, or...

A Conservative! You know, something the GOP hasn't had in decades.

Originally posted by xpert11
To start with Hitler was a right winger who hated Socialists(SP?) and trade unionists as much as he did communists .

Hi, xpert, can you do us all a favor and tell us what the acronym NAZI meant? I can help you translate it into english for you if you need it. By the way, if you read mein kampf in its original german, you'll notice that Hitler actuallys spouts off against Marxism, not socialism as they are slightly different things. [Some translators inserted communism or socialism whenever they saw Marxism in his books].

I didn't see the OP mention Hitler directly - I could have missed it. Maybe the comparison of socialist states strikes a nerve. I don't understand when people call the United States a capitalist country; it's not any more. It hasn't been for awhile. Also, please note that the German racism at the time (it wasn't just a NAZI thing; people can be racist and not NAZI) was used for political gain, but wasn't used as "slave labor" until later in the war.

The germans had plenty of extra workers at the time and couldn't afford to have slave labor. Hitler and his government had to sponsor programs in order to give people jobs, such as the autobahn. It was the same philosophy that supported those ideas to solve unemployment as was used in the New Deal.





Solution: NAZI = Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei = National Socialist German Workers' Party
P.S. Hitler didn't start the party, but rather joined it.

Originally posted by radardog
I didn't see the OP mention Hitler directly - I could have missed it. Maybe the comparison of socialist states strikes a nerve.

Here is the part about the OP (in his opening statement) commenting on Hitler:

"Hitler's Nazis were ardent socialists." That was in the opening post. RRG used it to make an argument that Nazis were far left, calling themselves Socialists.

Radardog your reading to much into the name of the party which as you have already noted Hitler joined rather then started the Nazi party. North Korea is the shortened version of Democratic People's Republic of Korea . Now there is nothing Democratic about North Korea. Hitler was Socialist in name only.

Messerschmitt , Heinkel , Krupp and so on belong to the private sector so if Hitler had been a socialist he would have nationalized the likes of those company's. IMO that is a bigger sign of Hitler's true political leanings rather then just the employment programs that were common at the time.

The seeds of what was to come was laid very quickly after Hitler came to power the first concentration camps were opened and German re-armament become the countries economic focus which would have help to reduce unemployment . WW2 broke out before the implications of making armaments rather then exporting goods were felt.


Well I never said Socialism and Communism are the same thing. But I don't doubt that Hitler hatred both political ideology's. Hitler like the rest or majority of those who had returned from the from front let Germany's defeat get in the way of rational thinking . Hitler and the hoards treated the end of the WW1 and the Treaty Versailles as a betray which allowed Hitler and later his followers to funnel there hatred against the Jews , Communists e.t.c .

Hitler frame of mind may have meant that he may have hated Socialists for the simple reason they stood in his way . But I also thing that is very likely the failed artists and solider who had been gassed didn't different between Socialism and Communism . The extreme political left and right are pretty much same even if they have/had differnt motives that is why the middle or moderate ground is so important.

reply to post by forestlady


Ah you're right, he did say Hitler's Nazi's. I think it was directed towards the nazi party more than Hitler in his argument, but I could be wrong again.

Originally posted by xpert11
Radardog your reading to much into the name of the party which as you have already noted Hitler joined rather then started the Nazi party. North Korea is the shortened version of Democratic People's Republic of Korea . Now there is nothing Democratic about North Korea. Hitler was Socialist in name only.

You can belong to the type of camp where they say "He said he was a Christian, but he wasn't really a christian." different argument, but same line of reasoning. He called himself a socialist, joined the socialist party, and implemented socialist program. But he wasn't a real socialist.

Even Encarta has the facts right about the NAZI controlled economy:

Wages were determined by the ministry of national economy. Government officials, called trustees of labor and appointed by the minister of national economy, handled all questions relating to wages and hours and conditions of work. The trade associations of business owners and industrialists of the Weimar Republic were transformed into organs of state control. Membership by employers was compulsory. Supervision of these associations was vested in the ministry of national economy, which had the power to recognize trade organizations as the sole representatives of their respective branches of industry, organize new associations, dissolve or merge existing ones, and appoint and recall the leaders of all the associations. Through the exercise of these powers and also as specifically empowered by law, the ministry of economy greatly expanded existing cartels and cartelized entire industries. The banks were similarly “coordinated.” Private property rights were preserved, and previously nationalized enterprises were “reprivatized”—that is, returned to private ownership but all owners were subject to rigid state controls.

Link: encarta.msn.com...

That's all capitalistic or "right wing" actions right? hah. haha. Sorry.

No, it actually sounds somewhat like our wage controls and business regulations.

What a load of tripe Trade Unions didnt exist in Nazi Germany . The right wing wet dream came true. privatization certainly isnt a part of socialism and the private sector always comes under a degree of regulation no matter what government is in charge.

By your faulty logic I could claim to be a Christian despite the fact I am an Atheist . It wouldn't matter that I hold the view that a higher power doesn't exist because I claim to be a Christian that is what I am.

The question is how much regulation the private sector should face but that is another topic .

As for price controls give me a break they were a part of the wider economic thinking at the time just like markets are a part of our thinking today. Nobody has called Nixon a Socialist.

Trade unions were abolished, as was collective bargaining

source

You cant rely on Google history to be accurate . As you can see Google can also differ or not be entirely clear .

By your faulty logic I could claim to be a Christian despite the fact I am an Atheist . It wouldn't matter that I hold the view that a higher power doesn't exist because I claim to be a Christian that is what I am.

The question is how much regulation the private sector should face but that is another topic .

I never claimed you were a Christian. I just suggested that you were using the same line of reasoning. Trade unions were abolished, except for the government supported union. Keep reading history; yes they abolished unions except for the government's.

"Concretely, the “new order” involved abolishing trade unions and cooperatives, confiscating their financial and other assets, eliminating collective bargaining between workers and their employers, prohibiting strikes and lockouts, and requiring membership by law of all German workers in the state-controlled Deutsche Arbeitsfront (German Labor Front), or DAF"

Encarta again. I'm not using google to find my sources. I can quote directly from first hand sources, or Encarta. Whichever way you want to be shown that the Hitler didn't implement socialist policies is tripe.

Read a lecture about socialist economics here: william-king.www.drexel.edu...

"In a "market socialist" society, enterprises would be owned by the government, but independently run by appointed managers. The managers would be instructed to direct the enterprises in such a way as to maximize profits, at market prices, as (in theory) the directors of capitalist enterprises do."

That almost sounds exactly what Encarta said the NAZIS did. Almost!

Read the party platform here:

www.fordham.edu...

"13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young."


And that doesn't sound like socialism?!??!!???

Are you serious?

[edit on 2-1-2008 by radardog]

reply to post by radardog


Once again, people seem very confused about what socialism is. The standard definition around here seems to be "whatever I say it is" - pretty standard for any "ism" on the internet, I guess.

The very core of socialism is the idea that the public should own / control / have a say in industries vital to the welfare of the population at large. Historical Marxism applied this to agriculture and industry, but most modern models restrict it to necessary infrastructure - transportation, water, and energy. The key there is public control. By definition, a socialist nation but follow a democratic, and at best populist model.

It's possible for a non-democratic nation to institute socialist-seeming ideas. However without the backing of the populace, these ideas are in fact not socialist, and are rarely implemented in a socialist way. See Robert Mugabe's "reforms" in Kongo. He makes the decisions and enforces them with the military. Compare this to Hugo Chavez, who puts absolutely everything to popular vote and allows the people to enforce. One is a dictator. the other is a socialist.

Such is the case with the Nazis. Their ideas were not instituted by the people of Germany, but by the Nazi party, enforced by state police and military. Further, these "reforms" were hardly as socialist in reality as they seem on paper, as the implementation of them was quite different from what one would infer.

For instance, the Nazi idea of anti-trust laws was to bring the trusts into the government and claim the problem was fixed, rather than actually break up the trusts, as seen in actual socialist policies, such as instituted under both Roosevelt presidencies in the United States.

The state's idea of "mother and child health care" only applied to German and Austrian mothers and children who could prove their pedigree, who were married to a man serving in the Nazi party or German military, and came tagged with a number of restrictions - marital infidelity or the use of birth control would be grounds for denial of care, and in many cases could make a woman an outright criminal. it was a branch of the Nazi "marry and breed" policy towards women.

Similar to Stalinism, Nazism was a very far cry from "socialism" despite using the appellation. It's sort of like how the Democratic party claims to be liberal here in the states, when in fact it's pretty damn conservative.

I have already dealt with your faulty logic so I will see what you have served up. Market Socialism relies on the State running enterprises and has already been established that the Nazis still allowed the private sector to function.

If Germany under the Nazis was the kind of socialism where the workers control the direction of the private enterprise why didn't this come to light during the Subsequent Nuremberg trials ?

Under the Nazis the German military rather then social measures took priority this is hardly a sign of socialism.

Clearly Germany was in hands of a group of capitalists who help the country to re arm and profited from the war. Any profits that were taken from would have been returned in the form future orders much like you see in the US defence sector. Any of the wealth gathered was redistributed to a minor few that is hardly socialism has you are painting . Sure it was a forerunner to the corporate socialism that we in the US today but by that standard the USA is most socialistic country in the world.

I will deal with all 23 points that appear at the top of the page .
1) The occupation Austria was a part of Hitler blend of racial ideology rather then socialism.
2) Completely unrelated .
3) A product of right wing denials and dislike of the Republic and democracy.
4) A desire to avenge Germany's WW1 defeat and spread racial ideology.
5) All part of the Nazis racist ideology .
6) See above.
7) Just another method of controlling the people/state .
8) Well Nazis wanted to exterminate the Jews .
9) Well how else will the factory's be manned to support the party aims and the war effort ?
10) Unearned income I assume that is like inheritance see above for my explanation of why state would have taken profits.

So out of the first ten only number ten can be said to have anything to do with Socialism. But even then it would lean towards corporate Socialism described above. So for relevancy I have to give a 0/10 so far.

11) Never happened .
12 ) Already been dealt with.
13) A decent thing to do and not related to fascism .
14) Well not a lot happened on this front unlike in post civil war China.
15) Well stealing bread might have got you hung in the days before the like of Public education.
16) Nuremberg laws e.t.c
17) The party brainwashing youth.
18) As above and someone had to replace the scientists that were driven out of the country .
19) Well that's common decency rather then socialism. Towards at of the war boys were sent to fight the advancing Red army .
20) Fighting men have to be fit.

So three of the above things could be connected to socialism but since public education and the welfare state exist in democratic countries so there connection with fascism is BS.

21) Build upon existing forces.
22) Provide destruction of Germany .
23) I was just following orders wasn't accepted as a defence at the Nuremberg trials .

Of the points that have been expanded upon two things are worth noting that aren't covered above. A materialistic society suggests that value was put how much money was spend on obtaining material objects rather then stressing the importance of social measures. Aside from the lack of demand not having mercenary's means that the state bore full responsibility for its military action.

reply to post by rockets red glare

“Fascists,” “Brown shirts,” “jack booted storm troopers”… conservatives are all too frequently tarred with such insulting labels. It’s a way to cast conservative views as being somehow “beyond the political pale.” Not only are the slurs unfair, they are historically misplaced as well. fascists hail from the left.

The National Socialist Workers Party was founded in 1920 by a man whose name escapes me. In 1922, A. Hitler and associates managed to take over the unsuccessful party. The main reason behind the takeover was to avoid the German election laws applicable to newly formed parties. The laws required the founders of a party to file papers. The associates of Hitler did not want to be known publicly. By paying the debts of the moribund party, Hitler acquired a vehicle for his own pathological politics. I don’t know when the acronym NAZI was first used.

Germany was not a socialist state. The Government did not confiscate heavy industry as it did in the USSR or later in China. But all too many people confuse “socialism” with “communism” both of which are objects of a constant stream of invective and scorn from the Right. Greedy people live in fear America might go socialist when enough people get tired of them.

Socialism as we have it in America began in 1869 under Count von Bismark in Prussia. He was first to introduce old age pensions (part of our social security) and first to introduce workers compensation for on the job injuries and first to introduce universal access to health care. Interestingly enough, Theodore Roosevelt attempted to do the same in the US during his presidency but he did not succeed as we all must surely know. See similar remark in The Walking Fox below.

An international movement, fascism took on different forms in different countries, reflecting the vagaries of national culture and temperament. Hitler's Nazis were ardent socialists. They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, supported abortion and gun control, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. While fascism in Germany found its ultimate expression as genocidal, racist nationalism, in America, it assumed a “friendlier” form. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated many of the movement’s policies in the New Deal. If this observation sounds strange to modern ears, it’s only because most Americans have forgotten the policies and principles that truly define fascism.

I do not believe much if anything recited above is factual. It sounds like a polemic from Ann Coulter. If you believe it, fine. Oh, perhaps you can tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Mr Xpert11 posted this remark

Well one can safely assume that anybody that subscribes to his/her logic has not read a history book. Hitler and Stalin rest on the extreme opposite of the political spectrum. To start with Hitler was a right winger who hated Socialists and trade unionists as much as he did communists. Under Albert Speer and others the use of private sector and slave labor drove the German war economy.

It has been alleged that large German manufacturers like Krupp, BMW and Messerschmidt financed Hitler. That line of inquiry after World War 2 was not followed up. John J. McCloy was our High Commissioner in Germany. Hmm? We do know Albert Speer - an architect gone awry - was sentenced to only 10 years for his low visibility but crucial role played in Germany's war effort.

On his release from prison, Speer wrote a self-serving book that was a best seller and died a rich man. In part the hesitancy to connect Hitler to the corporations was the simple fact that General Motors owned Opel which made cars and trucks for Germany. Henry Ford owned Ford of Germany which made cars and trucks for Germany. (As also in Russia). Curtis-Wright had a subsidiary in Germany that made aircraft parts and engines. IBM had a German subsidiary that prepared a punch-card (state of the art then) data base for the Nazis showing where every Jew in Germany lived and banked.

Until Hitler’s rise to near total power in 1933 - partly by serendipity - Germany was highly regarded for its leadership in the intellectual world, in the arts and sciences and for the high quality of its manufactured goods.

I said serendipity because Germany had a parliamentary system of governance in 1932. The very old war hero Field Marshal von Hindenberg was the president or head of state of Germany. Hitler had managed to become the prime minister (chancellor) or head of government. Shortly after Hitler was named Chancellor, von Hindenberg died. Serendipity.

The German economy had been destroyed under the post-war reparations forced on the fledgling Weimar Republic. Every person in Germany had lost his or her savings of a lifetime in hyper-inflation of the currency. Unemployment exceeded 40%. The national currency was worthless. People were reduced to barter with precious metals - those who had such - or anything of value for food. Desperation ruled.

On von Hindenberg’s death, Hitler persuaded (forced?) the Reichstag - parliament - to COMBINE the head of state with the head of government and to denominate the new office as “Fuhrer.” You know the rest.

Posting BS from a right wing American websites will not change historical fact. If you want sources to back up my assertions don't bother looking on Wikipedia instead spend a couple days at a library reading the relevant books.

In the last 2 elections I noticed a lot of such propaganda on many boards. The ATS tried to limit it. That’s hard to do. It seems though that almost all of such stuff comes from the Right Wing of America; I labeled them as "Board Distractors" because they contribute nothing. Obfuscation. Heat not light.

The Walking Fox posted this

You seem to be unaware of what the definition of fascism is. Your entire argument looks like this: "I hate liberals. I also hate Nazis. Therefore liberals are Nazis." Nazis were about as far from socialist as Kim Jong Il is from being a democratically elected leader. You could have learned this by opening a book. One by actual historians or even contemporary writers . . socialist policies, such as instituted under both Roosevelt presidencies in the United States.

This may be the opening shot in a year-long campaign of dis-information, half-truths and outright fabrication sponsored by the Right Wing.

By the bye, we know the Nazi Government paid the privately owned railroads one pfennig per kilometer per person for hauling Jews to the death camps. We have the body count and the billings. That is how we “know” how many were murdered. The Nazi Government kept accurate records.

To me the Germany of 1933-1945 was an anomaly. Or, it begs for an answer to the question , “How can good people do bad things?” And it reminds of the adage, “There but for the Grace of God go I.”

[edit on 1/3/2008 by donwhite]