By Daniel Hannan
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for
Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the
Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he
wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased,
Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver “der echte Sozialismus”: real
socialism.
Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He
understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that
propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it
would operate within the unit of the Volk.
So total is the cultural victory of the modern Left that
the merely to recount this fact is jarring. But few at the time would have
found it especially contentious. As George Watson put it in The Lost Literature
of Socialism:
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.
The clue is in the name. Subsequent generations of
Leftists have tried to explain away the awkward nomenclature of the National
Socialist German Workers’ Party as either a cynical PR stunt or an embarrassing
coincidence. In fact, the name meant what it said.
Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly
worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had
admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young
man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. “I have put into
practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun,” he boasted,
adding that “the whole of National Socialism” was “based on Marx”.
Marx’s error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class
war instead of national unity – to set workers against industrialists instead
of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order. His aim, he told his
economic adviser, Otto Wagener, was to “convert the German Volk to socialism
without simply killing off the old individualists” – by which he meant the
bankers and factory owners who could, he thought, serve socialism better by
generating revenue for the state. “What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed
to accomplish,” he told Wagener, “we shall be in a position to achieve.”
Leftist readers may by now be seething. Whenever I touch
on this subject, it elicits an almost berserk reaction from people who think of
themselves as progressives and see anti-fascism as part of their ideology.
Well, chaps, maybe now you know how we conservatives feel when you loosely
associate Nazism with “the Right”.
To be absolutely clear, I don’t believe that modern
Leftists have subliminal Nazi leanings, or that their loathing of Hitler is in
any way feigned. That’s not my argument. What I want to do, by holding up the
mirror, is to take on the equally false idea that there is an ideological
continuum between free-marketers and fascists.
The idea that Nazism is a more extreme form of
conservatism has insinuated its way into popular culture. You hear it, not only
when spotty students yell “fascist” at Tories, but when pundits talk of
revolutionary anti-capitalist parties, such as the BNP and Golden Dawn, as “far
Right”.
What is it based on, this connection? Little beyond a
jejune sense that Left-wing means compassionate and Right-wing means nasty and
fascists are nasty. When written down like that, the notion sounds idiotic, but
think of the groups around the world that the BBC, for example, calls
“Right-wing”: the Taliban, who want communal ownership of goods; the Iranian
revolutionaries, who abolished the monarchy, seized industries and destroyed
the middle class; Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who pined for Stalinism. The “Nazis-were-far-Right”
shtick is a symptom of the wider notion that “Right-wing” is a synonym for
“baddie”.
One of my constituents once complained to the Beeb about
a report on the repression of Mexico's indigenous peoples, in which the
government was labelled Right-wing. The governing party, he pointed out, was a
member of the Socialist International and, again, the give-away was in its
name: Institutional Revolutionary Party. The BBC’s response was priceless. Yes,
it accepted that the party was socialist, “but what our correspondent was
trying to get across was that it is authoritarian”.
In fact, authoritarianism was the common feature of
socialists of both National and Leninist varieties, who rushed to stick each
other in prison camps or before firing squads. Each faction loathed the other
as heretical, but both scorned free-market individualists as beyond redemption.
Their battle was all the fiercer, as Hayek pointed out in 1944, because it was
a battle between brothers.
Authoritarianism – or, to give it a less loaded name, the
belief that state compulsion is justified in pursuit of a higher goal, such as
scientific progress or greater equality – was traditionally a characteristic of
the social democrats as much as of the revolutionaries.
Jonah Goldberg has chronicled the phenomenon at length in
his magnum opus, Liberal Fascism. Lots of people take offence at his title,
evidently without reading the book since, in the first few pages, Jonah reveals
that the phrase is not his own. He is quoting that impeccable progressive H.G.
Wells who, in 1932, told the Young Liberals that they must become “liberal
fascists” and “enlightened Nazis”.
In those days, most prominent Leftists intellectuals,
including Wells, Jack London, Havelock Ellis and the Webbs, tended to favour eugenics,
convinced that only religious hang-ups were holding back the development of a
healthier species. The unapologetic way in which they spelt out the
consequences have, like Hitler’s actual words, been largely edited from our
discourse. Here, for example, is George Bernard Shaw in 1933:
Extermination must be put on a scientific basis if it is ever to be carried out humanely and apologetically as well as thoroughly… If we desire a certain type of civilisation and culture we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it.
Eugenics, of course, topples easily into racism. Engels
himself wrote of the “racial trash” – the groups who would necessarily be
supplanted as scientific socialism came into its own. Season this outlook with
a sprinkling of anti-capitalism and you often got Leftist anti-Semitism –
something else we have edited from our memory, but which once went without
saying. “How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-Semite?” Hitler had asked
his party members in 1920.
Are contemporary Leftist critics of Israel secretly
anti-Semitic? No, not in the vast majority of cases. Are modern socialists
inwardly yearning to put global warming sceptics in prison camps? Nope. Do
Keynesians want the whole apparatus of corporatism, expressed by Mussolini as
“everything in the state, nothing outside the state”? Again, no. There are
idiots who discredit every cause, of course, but most people on the Left are
sincere in their stated commitment to human rights, personal dignity and
pluralism.
My beef with many (not all) Leftists is a simpler one. By
refusing to return the compliment, by assuming a moral superiority, they make
political dialogue almost impossible. Using the soubriquet “Right-wing” to mean
“something undesirable” is a small but important example.
Next time you hear Leftists use the word fascist as a
general insult, gently point out the difference between what they like to
imagine the NSDAP stood for and what it actually proclaimed.
No comments:
Post a Comment