It has long been argued that national and international socialism have more in common (*cough) than ought to please either one of them. Mentioning this obviously triggers lefties bigly and leads to the usual avalanche of made-up swear words raining down in a pseudo-political tourettery on anyone who’d challenge them on this point. Looks to me like they protest too much which in turn begs the question whether national and international socialism are indeed two sides of the same coin.
As is often the case with lefties, their rebuttals are A) intellectually lazy and B) morally dishonest. For A) they’re the results of an ahistorical and therefore quite utterly wrong analysis of socialism and B) the lie is perpetuated by wilful mass and “quality” media outlets for the self-serving benefit of lefty moral high-ground claiming and virtue signalling. Whatever their doing, they’re doing it for the “right” reasons, supposedly. Even if it’s filling their own coffers at the expense of everyone else.
Now the funny thing in all this is that lefties are always eager to admit that they are socialists – but so were the Nazis. What’s more, without the benefit of hindsight anybody living at the period would have thought that both were equally valid variants of socialism. Much like national socialists got called Nazi (short for National Sozialist), socialists got called Sozi (short for Sozialist). Apart from this, both Mussolini and Hitler claimed to be socialists. Only they didn’t believe in the world revolution – their intention was to start socialism in their own countries first and release it later into the rest of the world.
This makes the Nazis socialists by their own admission and in turn led to Sozis expunging their brethren from their socialist fold. It remained a war between ideological brothers for much of the duration of the 20th century, and the Hitler-Stalin-Pact is the case in point for this.
The international branch of socialism on the other hand wanted world revolution badly and believed in “sharing” their revolutionary ideas with other countries in some form of ideology export, much like Kaiser-Germany set off Lenin as some kind of ideological weapon in pre-socialist Russia to relieve their Western Front when it was no longer conceivable that they could win the Great War. The Lenin strategy became the blueprint for later attempts to spread socialism around the globe, or any other evil ideology indeed, to this day – in an attempt to destabilise the enemy behind his own lines.
Now the remarkable thing is how lefties managed to whitewash their ideology from the evil done in its name. This is down to a very simple and lazy rhetorical trick called “reframing” the narrative, in this case by omitting historical facts and evidence. For it is obvious that socialism hasn’t always been “of the Left”, as it were. But neither has it been of the right.
There was a socialism before Marx, Engels and Lenin, and in its inception, socialism was apolitical. That’s why Eastern commies truly worth their ideological salt insisted on being called “Marxist-Leninist”; Engels got edited out of the franchise because he was considered “still too idealist” (that’s Marxist-Leninist speak for “naive”) because he didn’t state upfront that the – if need be – armed revolutionary power struggle between the factions of “capital” and “labour” over the national value added was the only way of achieving socialist nirvana.
The socialism before Marx was almost within reach with the French Revolution. It promised, as we all know, liberté, égalité, fraternité. And again, it is very interesting to note what the Left did and does with this revolutionary programme by twisting it into a precursor of its own political program.
Liberté in French is much the same thing as liberty in English, but not quite the same thing. Because it could be argued that the subtle difference between being “free from” and being “free to” isn’t always there with continental intellectuals and/or revolutionaries. For it’s not the same thing being free from, e.g. oppression, and being free to, e.g. being autonomous, independent and sovereign.
Egalité in the French revolutionary context means equality before The Law. Supposedly, there is one law that applies to all of humanity in equal measure: people may be different, but their rights are not.
But laws, as we all know, aren’t inalienable rights at all under the Napoleonic code which inspired the non-common-law jurisdictions. The continental way of thinking is for rights to be seen as privileges granted by a benign tyrant, or indeed the state, which can easily be revoked at any given moment and without much further ado: an act of parliament would suffice. This could of course be easily achieved at any opportune moment when it becomes expedient for the powers to withhold certain rights such as free speech, free movement and the freedom of assembly and/or association. Tyranny by democratic means? You bet, even Hitler won an election.
The idea that humans are endowed with certain, inalienable rights is not part of the French, or indeed any continental non-common-law programme – and more’s their pity. Because henceforth, liberty and free will proved to be concepts the Left always logged heads with when it intended to establish their heaven, or indeed hell on earth. The Left had to go to great lengths in pointless efforts to fit the facts of life to their ideological fiction, just look what they’ve done to Cuba, Venezuela and Korea.
But what even the lefties of the French revolution never meant with egalité was equality of outcome, through arbitrary employment quotas, antimeritocratic taxation and an overall “me, me, me”, “everybody is a winner” mentality. A complete and violent, and ultimately self-destructive, eradication of all differences that make life rich and meaningful under the yoke of levelling down everybody to the smallest common denominator was never a goal of the French Revolution. But then, the Left’s goal never was the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people neither.
At this point we must of course realise the vast overlap between the battle cries of the French First Republic and our current political situation.
But what about fraternité, fraternity or – semantically awkward, but more to the point – the idea that we live in a brotherhood of men and women? (Thought I’d spare you the “sisterhood” term, for obvious reasons, ladies.) This part of the programme was always looked down upon by lefties as some sort of major embarrassment. And this alone says so much more about them than they should ever hope it should.
The term “brotherhood” betrays its roots in Judeo-Christianity plainly and clearly to anyone who had the first glimpse of Scripture. “For thou are your brother’s keeper”, it says plainly and simply. This religious root incensed later socialists who wanted to abolish all religion (which also is a common feature of national and international socialism). And there is no doubt in my mind that the obviously religious connotations of fraternité were also obvious to most, if not all, French citizens at the time of the French Revolution, even if the resulting state was laicist, in doing away with church privileges.
Now this moral imperative, to do for your fellow creatures the same that you would wish them to do for yourself, is voluntary. It is the root of chivalry, courtesy and of course charity. Charity again has a long tradition that goes all the way back to Leviticus, where it was first stated 3,500 years ago that everyone is supposed to give a tenth of his income to care for the needy. Later, it became customary at special festivals (such as purim, a minor Jewish holiday), to give half of what one had in an act called zedaka, or decency. This is also a way of saying that you can’t take away more than half of what a person owns. Again: this was a moral law one could quite easily opt out of had one unexpectedly fallen on hard times, and it only became enforced under Roman occupation, and not for the sake of the needy, neither.
During the Middle Ages, charity was the only way of remedying social emergencies such as care for the destitute, the old and infirm – think widows and orphans and all that. People gave, one must assume, generously but above all: freely and directly. They would provide the funds for convents and hospitals that would care for their community with minimal, and very often no, state intervention at all. There was no sponging off charitable trusts by a bureaucracy of socialcleptocrats then – by middlemen who felt entitled to be kept in the comforts they were used to at the expense of the people they were supposed to care for; moral busybodies who ought to be kept out of charitable institutions if, or rather when they do more harm than good.
So, this is the social and historical context of the term fraternité, brotherhood. A heritage that embarrasses and even outrages Lefties today because it implies that the noblest act of charity must be performed voluntarily to be spiritually valid. Charity must be voluntary since we are supposed to enjoy the fruits of our labour. And because any appropriation of things or monies that were not given voluntarily is theft. But apart from this, there also is a law which say “thou shalt not covet” any of your neighbour’s assets (house, wife, oxen). The easiest way around this tedious theological pickle was to abolish religion altogether and socialists of all stripes went for it because they are such lazy buggers.
The Left did this by twisting the meaning of the word “property”. In Marxism-Leninism, “property” became something that had been forcibly taken away or withheld by someone who could get away with this sort of thing because he (or she) was very powerful. Think the old power struggle between capital and labour about the ownership of the value-added. This power struggle becomes more acute when the sums get larger, as they do once you move from the micro to the macro economical level.
Marx’s rhetorical trick was to politicise any weaponize the term property: one man’s riches became another man’s poverty. And instead of taking them away, owning things became paramount to theft: a dirty, vicious thing to do. What the rich man owned, he only owned it because he had taken it away from someone else, national and international socialists argued alike.
Accordingly, on their warped terms it was only right and proper to disenfranchise people from their property, and along these lines also from all rights that went along with it.
This expropriation doesn’t stop at material property but also extends itself to intellectual property, even to personal ideas and emotions. Socialism is thus not only the root of the re-distribution and entitlement ideology we’re faced with today but also the cause of all lefty censorship efforts such as “thought crime”, “hate crime” and the stifling atmosphere of political correctness that gives the lie to Labour’s “hostile environment” – as something lefties have quite eagerly created themselves because the expropriation of thoughts and opinions is inherent to their ideology.
it is eagerly promoted by people who are quite well off themselves because it keeps their less fortunate fellow human beings from obtaining a position that could possibly, or even remotely, endanger their privileged place at the feeding trough. That Lefties should not see themselves as thieves and bullies really says it all about them.
This is the base trick all that socialism amounts to and the rest is purely coincidental and just flows from there: not only are we not supposed to own property, or indeed our own mind, we must also accept that someone higher up in the lefty chain of command decides for us what we may be entitled to keep and receive. That’s their side of the bargain.
That’s the deal because a disenfranchised populace is of course much easier to rule, and socialists are lazy buggers, we all know that. The disingenuous suggestion that they should mean well with people is their legitimisation for state sponsored theft and oppression when nothing could be further from the truth – at least to judge from socialism’s one-hundred-year track record.
The legitimisation is the same in both branches of socialism, only the attributes shift: the evil mill owner of international socialism becomes the greedy Jew of national socialism – but they’d both have to be done away with come the revolution, anyway. And while international socialists pillage and plunder the populace through exorbitant taxation, national socialists conquer other countries by hook or by crook, through world wars or supranational (= accountable to only themselves) treaty organisation such as the UN or the EU.
What both have in common is a self-appointed pseudo-elite that is violent or at least ruthless enough to get themselves into power and keep themselves there so they can quite comfortably live of the land as it were for as long as they can get away with successfully claiming their faux-moral high ground in taking away someone’s fiscal or intellectual property – voilà, socialism in all its pestilent glory.
Both branches did away with the inalienable right to own property quite easily because both were anti-religious – only in national socialism, it wasn’t the own race that was abused and exploited, it was the other nations. But whether it was the Manchester capitalist who “denied workers their fair share” or the Slavic untermensch who stood between the “Aryan race” and its lebensraum was neither here nor there: an ideologically consistent pseudo-legitimisation for acts of theft and barbary under the tenets of socialism was easily attainable in both cases; this does not by the way make the Holocaust an act of appropriation as it was an effort of extermination first and foremost.
This parlous state of affairs also illustrates that not only must one law be equally valid for all, but all laws must be equally valid too. Because if you break only one, the whole edifice erected on its foundations soon collapses like a house of cards.
So, when Lefties call national socialism the socialism for morons it is really they who are the idiots here because they fell for the lie in not thinking through socialism in the political context of its evolution over time. And ahistorical thinking, as every good Marxist-Leninist knows, is no thinking at all. Lefties are of course too chronically self-unaware to notice this because they are acutely mollycoddled and pampered by their MSM echo chambers – more fools them because times may be changing. What’s wrong about socialism is equally wrong in national and international socialism alike. The Left secretly know this to be the case and that’s why they’re so enraged when someone mentions it to them.
The lie that lefties are somewhat benign re-distributors of a wealth that has been taken away or withheld from people and is now given back to them is perpetuated by compliant state media and politicians who live quite handsomely on the back of that lie. Meanwhile, the conundrum they claim to remedy remains not only unresolved but deteriorates over time because of a generally counterproductive benefit, medical and care system.
This trend has now reached a point when it becomes intentionally destructive to society and must stop. We’re obviously not paying the state to protect us from war and misery, but for the state to wage war on us.
© Guardian Council 2018