/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20667976]

>In the Great War, individualism was embodied by the Entente – above all by its driving force, England – and socialism by the German Reich. Of course, this was not always so readily apparent, but it is indisputable that the German Reich had the better organization; i.e., it had at its disposal the more seamless integration of the individual into the needs of the collective as a whole, and England, despite its far more numerous resources, could ultimately only maintain itself by way of imitating, with its characteristic tenacity, every aspect of the German model.

>However, we by no means see the essence of German Socialism within Marxism – this by- product of materialism and industrialism is instead only its caricature. Socialism is therefore not conditioned by how many or how few Marxist organizations there are, but rather socialism – i.e., collective work, communal will – is German essence, German spirit, par excellence. It is based upon the conception of work as a moral duty! This outlook runs like a common thread through the whole of German and, in more recent times, Prussian history. This is not surprising. Our Volk had things immeasurably worse than did others. While the Franks and Anglo-Saxons were on the whole able to settle upon the colonized soil of the old Roman Empire, our ancestors – with the exception of a few regions – had to painstakingly wrest their Lebensraum piece by piece from the seas, forests, and moorlands. The only way such labor could have succeeded was through hard, tough, collective work, and so socialism and the German spirit as a result outright became one. Perhaps we are going a little too far with this assertion. Doubtless it does not apply to every single German tribe and territory, but it does at least apply to all those where they were active as settlers. Oswald Spengler speaks of Prussians in this context (Prussianism and Socialism), and sees the old Order-spirit alive within them, while in Englishmen the Viking-spirit of the Normans has prevailed since the time of Cromwell.

>Modern industrialism – which was instituted here with the turbulence of a mountain torrent after the German Reich’s reestablishment, part of a feverish endeavour to rapidly enter the world economy at the eleventh hour – was indeed able to obscure this basic feature of German nature, but was not able to eliminate it.

[Anonymous No.20667990]

>>20667976
>England had its revolution in 1642, France had its in 1789. Both resulted in the elimination of the feudal constitution and in the ascendancy of the bourgeoisie to participation in political power, which until then had been reserved almost exclusively for the nobility and the Church. The political goals of the new social estate [Standes] now coming to the fore culminated in the restriction, as far as was possible, of the state’s field of activity, which hindered its economic ambitions. In Germany things were inherently different. There had been no strong state authority for centuries, and before the regional principalities could reach their fullest development there were already a plethora of powerful city-states in which the bourgeoisie were able to express themselves politically. This is one reason why there was no revolution here equivalent to those in England and France – the Peasants’ War was an uprising of a different kind. The second reason is to be found in the fact that, after the Reformation, Germany became a European theatre of war.

>On taking a closer look at the motives behind the great French Revolution, we find ourselves agreeing with Werner Sombart, who (in Merchants and Heroes) identifies its much-vaunted, lofty goals of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” as being true and genuine merchant values. After all, in spite of all the window-dressing, its true objective was simply the demolition of the medieval social order and of those constraints which had become inconvenient. In place of that order’s Western worldview of collective work – socialism – there came instead a striving after the greatest possible and most reckless development of the personality – individualism. Individualism forms the foundation of capitalism, and is the driving force behind that spirit which we have classed as ‘Jewish’ and which lives and works within the Anglo-Saxon. There is little room in its thinking and feeling for the state according to our convictions. The state may be there to protect the citizenry; about their life-style and activities it does not concern itself any further. The English state is therefore only a society of private individuals.

[Anonymous No.20668015]

So the German called this outlook as Manchester Liberalism. While it managed to establish itself amongst every social stratum in England (including the working-class itself), it never succeeded at doing so in Germany. On the contrary, it was precisely those strata which in other countries are opponents of strong state power who reconciled themselves with the state relatively quickly. Instead the state’s opponents became, contrary to their true interests, the masses of industrial workers led astray by Marxism, a quality primarily attributable to the influence of Jewry. Even though there may have been a lot to find fault with in the German Reich under Wilhelm II (particularly its cultural shallowness and decline), one thing remains undisputed – that it was the only country in which socialism had virtually established itself through the authority of the state.

[Anonymous No.20668041]

>>20668015
This cost along side Hitlers personal convictions of a Volk state. In 1941, in the Reichstag, Hitler gave a speech about the National Socialist ideology was quoted as saying;

“We chose a path between two extremes. The one extreme was holding our people. It was the liberal individualist extreme which made the individual not only the center of interest but also the center of all action. On the other hand our people were tempted by the theory of universal humanity which alone was the guide to individuals. We on the other hand saw the people as a community of body and soul formed in the will by Providence. We are put into this community and with it alone we can form our existence. We have consciously subordinated all consideration to this goal, I have shaped all interest according to it and all action. Thus the national socialist world of thought arose which has overcome individualism. The common interest regulates and orders if necessary curtails but also commands”

Following all of this, the only thing I can conclude with is that Fascism is a variation of Socialism in its theoretical origins and core ideology. Typically most deflect the fact that the Nazis were socialist many bring up the purge of Strasserism. However, if you read the works of Gregor Strasser it’s almost identical to the party platform itself, or simply shared convictions commonly held in the NSDAP. According to Peter Stachura's biography of Gregor Strasser, he'd had meetings with Hitler sometime in late 1933/early 1934 with discussions about him joining the new government. Alfred Rosenberg’s Memoirs also supports this, even material by David Irving. Interesting stuff.

[Anonymous No.20668103]

>>20668041
>In 1941, in the Reichstag, Hitler gave a speech
Hitler hated the reichstag, instead he usually gave his speeches in the operahouse, dont remember its name tho

[Anonymous No.20668135]

>>20667976
>how the uprising of November 1918 was interpreted within Social-Democracy: “Fight against capitalism and for its overthrow,” was the motto. And what was the outcome? Just another political upheaval – an irony of world history – to the benefit of that very capitalism which the Marxists – and they alone – allegedly combat so fiercely, and whose absolute rule they directly helped to establish.
But how could this have happened? It happened because the socialism proclaimed by Social- Democracy was not real. It was born out of envy instead of coming from the heart; instead of love it preached hate. For only love can build things up, and this false socialism thus inevitably had to degenerate into orgies of hatred and destruction.

[Anonymous No.20668228]

Hitler lost to the Soviet Union and Germany broken up. Fascism will never will in a war against socialism. (Spain was a mess of anarchists and social-democrats)