Ein Volk! Ein Reich! Ein Green Party!

A reader contributed these quotes from fascist numero uno, Adolf Hitler.

They illustrate my point that fascism is merely a form of socialism which substitutes state control of property for state ownership of property.

“I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the principle: benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual. But the state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property.”

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1931)

Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers.”

from a letter to Herman Rauschning, quoted in Why Does Socialism Continue to Appeal to Anyone?, by Robert Hessen

Why need we trouble to socialise banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”

from a letter to Herman Rauschning, quoted in Why Does Socialism Continue to Appeal to Anyone?, by Robert Hessen

The Green Party doesn’t advocate state owneship of private property, but they certainly advocate state control.

Green Party support for the Electoral Finance Act, which doesn’t confiscate wealth, but limits how it may be spent, is entirely consistent with fascist philosophy.

If Hitler were alive today would he join the Green Party?


Author: Admin

Related Articles

5 thoughts on “Ein Volk! Ein Reich! Ein Green Party!

  1. The 4 pole model is more illuminating, but the left=totalitarianism, right=anarchy model is more accurate than a linear scale which places both libertarians and fascists together on the far right.

  2. The last anon is suffering from the same fundamental problem, a dual pole paradigm, when in fact a more accurate model is 4 poled similar to the one presented at politicalcompass dot org.

  3. What a load of crap.

    The early Left-Right dichotomy referred to where Deputies sat in the post-revolution French National Assembly of 1789.

    Here, the radicals sat on the right, and the ultra-radicals sat on the left.

    The modern Left-Right paradigm was created by Stalin, who placed the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on the left, and as far away from the hated Nazis on the right as he could.

    What Stalin was at great pains to fudge was the fact that the full title of the Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party.

    In fact, the Nazis were authoritarian socialists out of the same nasty intellectual sewer as the Communists.

    An added bonus for the Communists was that this artificial separation of cookie cutter totalitarian ideologies allowed supporters of free markets and individual rights (the polar opposite of Communism in economic terms) to be mislabeled “fascists” and “Nazis.”

    A more accurate political spectrum would place Libertarianism (aka classical liberalism) on one pole and totalitarianism on the other. In so doing, we would see that Nazism and Communism are not on opposite poles, but clustered together on the totalitarian pole.

    As for Hitler joining the Greens, I say he already had a sex change and ascended to the highest office in the Labour Party

  4. The political spectrum is a bit more than the left right simplistic model you are trying to put forward here Trevor. Just as much as there is libertarian right there is also libertarian left. As well as authoritarian left and right too.

    Thatcher as an example was right wing neo-liberal, but also authoritarian.

    Hitler on the other hand could be considered a center right ultra authoritarian.

    Stalin a ultra left ultra authoritarian.

    You cannot simply reduce the political spectrum to a case of cartesian left or right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *