"In
relation to [animals], all people are Nazis; for the animals, it is
an eternal Treblinka." Isaac Bashevis Singer
Yesterday
I was told by Neil Wagstaff that Benjamin Mackenzie had alleged that
Hitler was a Socialist so I decided to produce something for the
blog First the Socialist bit ….. So I decide do write something. I
noticed that a few weeks ago somone on Neath Voice for Everyone had
made the claim that Hitler was a Socialist. So I have to comment. I
even remember a certain member of Swansea SWP making the Vegetarian
claim..........the real issue is that Benjamin does not know his
facts. I was also not at all surpried that Darren Nichols gave
publicity to this nonsence. At best I can assume that Darren does not
know his history or his philosophy and at best it makes me even more
sure of my doubts of his political acumen. Benjamin is
either someone who has not read political history well or is to to
quote Goebbels “If
you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be
believed.” I prefer to think the first option and hope it is
because of Benjamin`s immaturity and age.
"Socialism"
is a controverted term. It's one that some people run toward
and others run away from. So how do you decide whether the
NSDAP/ Nazi party was "socialist" when there's no
universally agreed upon definition. ?One reasonable course, it seems
to me, is to ask what governments that call themselves socialist look
like, and then ask whether Hitlerian Germany looked anything like
them.
The two main wings of the socialist movement come out of the split among socialists occasioned by the Russian Revolution. The pro-Bolsheviks and the anti-Bolsheviks alike continued to call themselves "socialists", although the former also called themselves "communists." (It was the USSR, not the USCR, after all).
Ruling parties from the Bolshevik tendency defined the sine qua non of socialism as state control of the forces of production, typically guided through state command, although in some cases (Hungary and Yugoslavia, for example) markets also played a role.
The two main wings of the socialist movement come out of the split among socialists occasioned by the Russian Revolution. The pro-Bolsheviks and the anti-Bolsheviks alike continued to call themselves "socialists", although the former also called themselves "communists." (It was the USSR, not the USCR, after all).
Ruling parties from the Bolshevik tendency defined the sine qua non of socialism as state control of the forces of production, typically guided through state command, although in some cases (Hungary and Yugoslavia, for example) markets also played a role.
Socialist
parties that broke with the Bolsheviks continued in some cases to
proclaim their commitment to collective ownership or control of the
forces of production for decades. (See, for example, the
British Labour Party's Clause IV, which wasn't voted down until the
1990s). In practice, though, all of these parties made their
peace with capitalism, settling for a regulated version of capitalism
with extensive social welfare provision and close identification with
the labour movement.
Now,
what about Hitler's Germany? You certainly did not find state
ownership of the forces of production. Those remained in
private hands (including foreign corporations like Ford, GM, and
IBM). Far from close identification with the Labour movement,
you found harsh repression of labor unions. Social welfare
provision did not advance markedly beyond that which dated back to
Bismarckian Germany. And while there was state regulation of
capitalism, it was the kind of wartime mobilization of capital that
is found in all sorts of regimes. Too, one must remember that the
first inmates of the first concentration camp, Dachau, were members
of Germany's leading socialist parties, the SPD and the KPD.
Socialism is based on a principle that all history can be described as that of class struggle. Fascism that history is a struggle between races. Hitler believe in race as a basic principle. research simce 1945 clearly shows that race is a myth. Ethnicity can largely be found to be described in terms of class and power The right believe in free movement of capital while the left supports free movement of Labour. The left sees collectivity as the means of social change and the right the individual. Marx thiught societal change leads to new ideas while the right believe that ideas change society. Change occurs for the socialist because of ano to contradictions and hence lead to rebellionmolies in society that lead to rebellion. Marx inverted the dialectic in Hegel and their are only a few right wing hegelians today. Its ironic that right wingers like Benjamin praise the free market and the price mechanism nothing could be more unconsciously collective abd powerful. The founder of western philosophy, Plato and indeed Socrates would habe been horrified by the price mechanismas i9t was irrational and uncomprehending of the true nature of humanity. Like many modern Right-wingers. Benjamin ignores or has never his classics. Could I suggest he has an attempt at Plato`s Republic or Aristotle`s Politics. hw would learn much from reading of the fates of Athenian democracy under demogogues and he might reflect on Farage and Trump as modern versions. I am afraid that the simple analysis of Socialism in the Burkean makes the mistake of not understnding the philisopical roots of modern political philosophy
Socialism is based on a principle that all history can be described as that of class struggle. Fascism that history is a struggle between races. Hitler believe in race as a basic principle. research simce 1945 clearly shows that race is a myth. Ethnicity can largely be found to be described in terms of class and power The right believe in free movement of capital while the left supports free movement of Labour. The left sees collectivity as the means of social change and the right the individual. Marx thiught societal change leads to new ideas while the right believe that ideas change society. Change occurs for the socialist because of ano to contradictions and hence lead to rebellionmolies in society that lead to rebellion. Marx inverted the dialectic in Hegel and their are only a few right wing hegelians today. Its ironic that right wingers like Benjamin praise the free market and the price mechanism nothing could be more unconsciously collective abd powerful. The founder of western philosophy, Plato and indeed Socrates would habe been horrified by the price mechanismas i9t was irrational and uncomprehending of the true nature of humanity. Like many modern Right-wingers. Benjamin ignores or has never his classics. Could I suggest he has an attempt at Plato`s Republic or Aristotle`s Politics. hw would learn much from reading of the fates of Athenian democracy under demogogues and he might reflect on Farage and Trump as modern versions. I am afraid that the simple analysis of Socialism in the Burkean makes the mistake of not understnding the philisopical roots of modern political philosophy
In sum, there is no good reason to regard the NSDAP's use of the terms"socialist" or "worker's party", or the anti-capitalist tone of some of the party's pronouncements, as anything other than cynically propagandistic. If it doesn't walk like a duck, quack like a duck, swim like a duck, or fly like a duck, then calling it a duck doesn't make it a duck. Benjamin should be careful read more and understand that he is mistaking totalitarianism for socialism. I offer this definition of Libertrian Socialism to help complete his education. Libertarian socialism (sometimes dubbed socialist libertarianism, or left-libertarianism is a group of anti-authoritarian political philosophies inside the socialist movement that rejects socialism as centralized state ownership and control of the economy,as well as the state itself.[6] It criticizes wage labour relationships within the workplace.nstead, it emphasizes workers' self-management of the workplace and decentralized structures of political organization It asserts that a society based on freedom and justice can be achieved through abolish in gauthoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.Libertarian socialists advocate for decentralized structures based on direct democracy and federal or confederated associations such as libertarian municipalism, citisens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils. of this is generally done within a general call for Libertarian and voluntary human relationships through the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of human life.. Your blog "the Burkean" should be renamed the BERKIAN.
Right wingers often fail to understand the psychology of collective thought as Left wingers often fail to understand the implications of individual psychological difference. False consciouness can effect both sides and without a clear reading of political philosophy the right winger fails to understand the true nature of the state and the left winger sometimes cannot see the differebce between the market and capitalism. However Benjamin`s feeble analtsis of totalitarian rule ciould also benefit from a reading of Gramsci...something else i suspect he has never done' His slavish worship of American Society would be improved by by a reading of Alexis-Charles-Henri Clérel de Tocqueville on Democracy in America.
I
expect that Benjamin will be keen to mention Hitlers vegetarianism
but I hate to dissapoint him
Before
we see the evidence that Hitler wasn't a vegetarian, it's important
to look at where the argument that he was comes
from, because it's an argument that's rarely made honestly. People
who insist that Hitler was a vegetarian usually just "heard it"
somewhere, and immediately assumed it was true. And yet, if you tell
them that Hitler wasn't actually a vegetarian, these same people who
instantly believed in Hitler's vegetarianism without
question, will
suddenly demand all manner of proof that he was not.
Why
do they require such a high standard of evidence that Hitler was not
a vegetarian, when they require no evidence at all that
he was? Apparently many
people want to believe that Hitler was a vegetarian.
Perhaps they're threatened by vegetarianism because it implies that
they're doing something wrong. But armed with the (mistaken)
idea that the infamous Hitler himself was a veggie, that allows them
to easily dismiss the whole concept of vegetarianism in one fell
swoop. "Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarianism
itself must be flawed!" Of course, that's a patently
retarded argument. But the point is, many people are eager to
believe it, which is why they require no proof at all when they hear
that Hitler was a veggitarian, and then suddenly demand reams of
supporting evidence when someone suggests he wasn't.
If
you think I'm exaggerating about the importance that anti-veggitariam
place on the idea that Hitler was a vegetarian, look at this
letter that someone wrote to award-winning author John Robbins, who
has written several books promoting a meatless way of eating:
“You people who say that we would all be more peaceful if we ate a vegetarian diet always seem to forget that Adolph Hitler was a vegetarian. That pretty well destroys your belief system, doesn't it? (FoodRevolution.org)
Thinking
people will realise that it wouldn't matter even if Hitler had been
a vegetarian. That is, it would not "pretty
well destroy [our] belief system". Bad people occasionally
make good choices. This shouldn't be so difficult to
understand. Had Hitler actually chosen to be a vegetarian, that
would simply have been one of the better choices he made. If
Hitler were fond of chess, that wouldn't invalidate chess. In
fact, one of the best players in the history of the game, Bobby
Fischer, was a raving anti-Semite, but nobody stops playing chess
because of that.
What
if Hitler had been fond of chess?
Would non-chess players taunt those who do play the game about that?
No, because people who don't play chess generally don't give a flying
flip about whether other people play it or not. They don't feel
threatened by someone being a chess-player. But once the issue
is vegetarianism, it's a different story. This should lay bare
the motivations of those who champion the idea that Hitler didn't eat
meat.
So
what constitutes being a vegetarian? Most would agree that
it's a deliberate decision to not eat meat, for whatever reason. By
that criteria Franklin was a vegetarian for a about a year, and for
the rest of the time he wasn't. For Hitler, there's no compelling
evidence that he stuck with a real veggie diet for any appreciable
length of time. Multiple sources document him as eating meat
throughout the 1930's. (See below.) Shortly before his death (in 1941
and 1942) he claimed to be vegetarian, and "Hitler
was a vegetarian!" proponents have latched all over this.
Because, Hitler wouldn't ever lie, or even
exaggerate, would he? I mean, this is Hitler we're
talking about, and who on Earth would ever
question Hitler's commitment to the truth? After
all, if you can't trust Hitler, then whom can you trust?
If you were going to pick one person in the whole world whose word
you would definitely accept unquestioningly, that person would be
Hitler, right? I mean, surely we can believe that every word
that ever came out of Hitler's mouth can safely be believed to be the
absolute truth without any doubt at all, right?
Rynn
Berry adds, "To be sure, Hitler professed to be a
vegetarian..., but
the primary sources that I have cited in my book show that while he
paid lip service to vegetarianism, he was not consistent in his
practice of the diet.
The
fact is, many people use the word "vegetarian" to describe
diets that aren't vegetarian at all, and Hitler's case is no
exception.
An article from May 30, 1937, 'At Home With The Fuhrer' says, "It
is well known that Hitler is a vegetarian and does not drink or
smoke. His lunch and dinner consist, therefore, for the most part of
soup, eggs, vegetables and mineral water, although he
occasionally relishes a slice of ham
and relieves the tediousness of his diet with such delicacies caviar
...So when Hitler says he's
a vegetarian, he's almost certainly using it in this context: He's a
"vegetarian" who eats meat. That's like someone saying,
"I'm not a murderer! I only do it once a month."
Still,
for those who insist that we take Hitler at his word literally about
his claiming to be a vegetarian in the 1940's, we have this gem
from The
Hitler Book, about
Hitler's daily routine in 1944: "After
midnight [Eva] would direct that there should be another light snack
of turtle soup, sandwiches, and sausages."
If
Hitler was really a vegetarian, he was a sausage-eating one.
Below
are some articles which give the details about Hitler's true diet.
book, Hitler:
The Life and Death of Adolph Hitler, Payne says that
Hitler's "vegetarianism" was a "legend" and a
"fiction" invented by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of
Propaganda. According to Payne:
"Hitler's
asceticism played an important part in the image he projected over
Germany. According to the widely believed legend, he neither smoked
nor drank, nor did he eat meat or have anything to do with women.
Only the first was true. He drank beer and diluted wine frequently,
had a special fondness for Bavarian sausages and kept a mistress, Eva
Braun… His asceticism was fiction invented by Goebbels to emphasize
his total dedication, his self-control, the distance that separated
him from other men. By this outward show of asceticism, he could
claim that he was dedicated to the service of his people. In fact he
was remarkably self-indulgent and possessed none of the instincts of
the ascetic.
While
it is true that Hitler's doctors put him on a vegetarian diet to cure
him of flatulence and a chronic stomach disorder, his
biographers such as Albert Speer, Robert Payne, John Toland, et al,
have attested to his liking for ham sausages and other cured
meats. Even Spencer says that Hitler was a vegetarian from
only one: "It would be true to say that up to he preferred a
vegetarian diet, but on some occasions would deviate from it."
He committed suicide in the bunker when he was 56 in 1945; that would
have given him 14 years as a vegetarian, but we have the testimony to
the contrary of the woman chef who was his personal cook in Hamburg
during the late 1930s - Dione Lucas. In her "Gourmet Cooking
School Cookbook," she records that his favorite dish - the one
that he customarily requested - was stuffed squab (pigeon). "I
do not mean to spoil your appetite for stuffed squab, but you might
be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Mr. Hitler,
who dined in the hotel often."
In
their efforts to discredit animal rights activists, supporters of
animal research periodically proclaim to the media that Adolf Hitler
was a vegetarian and that the Nazis did not engage in animal
research.The implication is that these 'revelations' suggest a
sinister similarity between Nazis and animal rights 'zealots' and
serve as a warning that animal advocates have an anti-human agenda.
But
the real story about Hitler and the Nazis is miles from the myth. One
legitimate response to such claims is that it doesn't matter whether
Hitler was a vegetarian; as Peter Singer said, "The fact that
Hitler had a nose doesn't mean we're going to cut our noses off."
Biographical
material about Hitler suggests a contradictoriness in reports about
his diet. He is often described as a vegetarian who nevertheless had
a special fondness for sausages and caviar, and sometimes ham. One of
his biographers, Robert Payne ("The Life and Death of Adolf
Hitler) took exception to the view of Hitler as an ascetic, and said
it was deliberately fostered by the Nazis to project an image of
Hitler as pure and dedicated.
Wrote
Payne: "Hitler's asceticism played an important part in the
image he projected over Germany. According to the widely believed
legend, he neither smoked nor drank, nor did he have anything to do
with women.
"Only the first was true. He drank beer and diluted wine frequently, had a special fondness for Bavarian sausages, and kept a mistress... "His asceticism was a fiction invented by (Nazi propagandist Joseph) Goebbels to emphasize his total dedication, his self-control, the distance that separated him from other men..." Biographer John Toland ("Adolf Hitler"), describes Hitler's early student diet as consisting of "milk, sausage, and bread."
Moreover,
Hitler never promoted vegetarianism as a public policy for either
health or moral reasons. His lack of policies and public support for
vegetarianism is significant in a leader who rigorously enforced
other health policies, such as anti-smoking and anti-pollution
legislation, and pregnancy and birthing measures for women.
The
rumor that the Nazis passed an anti-vivisection law is also filled
with contradictions. No such law was passed, although the Nazis
reported that such a law existed. The Nazis allegedly passed an
anti-vivisection bill in 1933.
" The Lancet," the prestigious medical journal, reviewed the Nazis' law in 1934 and warned anti-vivisectionists not to celebrate because the Nazis' law was no different, in effect, from the British law that had been passed in 1876, which restricted some animal research, but hardly eliminated it. An enormous amount of research on animals continued to be carried out by Nazi doctors.
The
evidence of Nazi experiments on animals is overwhelming. In "The
Dark Face of Science," author John Vyvyan summed it up
correctly:
"The experiments made on prisoners were many and diverse, but they had one thing in common: all were in continuation of or complementary to, experiments on animals. "In every instance, this antecedent scientific literature is mentioned in the evidence, and at Buchenvald and Auschwitz concentration camps, human and animal experiments were carried out simultaneously as parts of a single programme."
It
is important that the facts be known so that the myths about Hitler
and the Nazis cannot be used against the animal rights and vegetarian
movements.
Animal
rights advocates should not let these false claims appear in the
media unchallenged. The record must be set straight. Many have
claimed that the slaughter house influenced the development of the
concentration camps.
Several
writers, including Jewish Nobel
Prize laureate Isaac
Bashevis Singer,
and animal
rights groups
have drawn a comparison between the treatment
of animals and the Holocaust. The
comparison is regarded as controversial, and has been criticized by
organizations that campaign against antisemitism,
including the Anti-Defamation
League (ADL)
and the United
States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
A
character in one of Singer's stories described the treatment of
animals by humans as "an eternal Treblinka". Similarly,
the eponymous character in J.
M. Coetzee's Elizabeth
Costello compared
the Nazis' treatment of Jews to methods used by the meat
industry to
herd and slaughter cattle.The comparison began immediately after the
end of World
War II,
when Jewish writers recounted the lack of resistance by European
Jewish victims of the Holocaust, who were led to their death as
"sheep to slaughter" . When we say they are only animals we
open the ways to the Gas Chambers Read more Benjamin and dont lead the gullible up the mountain path..........even Bill Gates has said that the free market cannot deal with Climate Change..and that Socialism is the only way
"It
made me realise the slogan we'd been using, 'Never Again', was not
really about what others shouldn't do to us." Wise up Darren
Nichols and read more Benjamin!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment