Porque o nazismo é de esquerda

[D. Juan de Áustria]

Why Are We Socialists?

Joseph Goebbels

We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.

Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and regaining German freedom. Socialism, therefore, is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total fighting brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a mere theory, a castle in the sky, a book. With it it is everything, the future, freedom, the fatherland!

The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism's nation-building strengths, thereby allowing its energies to go in anti-national directions. The sin of Marxism was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it in conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these facts leads us to a new sense of socialism, which sees its nature as nationalistic, state-building, liberating and constructive.

The bourgeois is about to leave the historical stage. In its place will come the class of productive workers, the working class, that has been up until today oppressed. It is beginning to fulfill its political mission. It is involved in a hard and bitter struggle for political power as it seeks to become part of the national organism. The battle began in the economic realm; it will finish in the political. It is not merely a matter of wages, not only a matter of the number of hours worked in a day — though we may never forget that these are an essential, perhaps even the most significant part of the socialist platform — but it is much more a matter of incorporating a powerful and responsible class in the state, perhaps even to make it the dominant force in the future politics of the fatherland. The bourgeoisie does not want to recognize the strength of the working class. Marxism has forced it into a straitjacket that will ruin it. While the working class gradually disintegrates in the Marxist front, bleeding itself dry, the bourgeoisie and Marxism have agreed on the general lines of capitalism, and see their task now to protect and defend it in various ways, often concealed.

We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces. We have no intention of begging for that right. Incorporating him in the state organism is not only a critical matter for him, but for the whole nation. The question is larger than the eight-hour day. It is a matter of forming a new state consciousness that includes every productive citizen. Since the political powers of the day are neither willing nor able to create such a situation, socialism must be fought for. It is a fighting slogan both inwardly and outwardly. It is aimed domestically at the bourgeois parties and Marxism at the same time, because both are sworn enemies of the coming workers' state. It is directed abroad at all powers that threaten our national existence and thereby the possibility of the coming socialist national state.

Socialism is possible only in a state that is united domestically and free internationally. The bourgeoisie and Marxism are responsible for failing to reach both goals, domestic unity and international freedom. No matter how national and social these two forces present themselves, they are the sworn enemies of a socialist national state.

We must therefore break both groups politically. The lines of German socialism are sharp, and our path is clear.

We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism!

We are against Marxism, but for true socialism!

We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature!

We are for the National Socialist German Workers Party!


Why a Workers' Party?

Work is not mankind's curse, but his blessing. A man becomes a man through labor. It elevates him, makes him great and aware, raises him above all other creatures. It is in the deepest sense creative, productive, and culture-producing. Without labor, no food. Without food, no life.

The idea that the dirtier one's hands get, the more degrading the work, is a Jewish, not a German, idea. As in every other area, the German first asks how, then what. It is less a question of the position I fill, and more a question of how well I do the duty that God has given me.

We call ourselves a workers' party because we want to rescue the word work from its current definition and give it back its original meaning. Anyone who creates value is a creator, that is, a worker. We refuse to distinguish kinds of work. Our only standard is whether the work serves the whole, or at least does not harm it, or if it is harmful. Work is service. If it works against the general welfare, then it is treason against the fatherland.

Marxist nonsense claimed to free labor, yet it degraded the work of its members and saw it as a curse and disgrace. It can hardly be our goal to abolish labor, but rather to give new meaning and content. The worker in a capitalist state — and that is his deepest misfortune — is no longer a living human being, a creator, a maker.

He has become a machine. A number, a cog in the machine without sense or understanding. He is alienated from what he produces. Labor is for him only a way to survive, not a path to higher blessings, not a joy, not something in which to take pride, or satisfaction, or encouragement, or a way to build character.

We are a workers' party because we see in the coming battle between finance and labor the beginning and the end of the structure of the twentieth century. We are on the side of labor and against finance. Money is the measuring rod of liberalism, work and accomplishment that of the socialist state. The liberal asks: What are you? The socialist asks: Who are you? Worlds lie between.

We do not want to make everyone the same. Nor do we want levels in the population, high and low, above and below. The aristocracy of the coming state will be determined not by possessions or money, but only on the quality of one's accomplishments. One earns merit through service. Men are distinguished by the results of their labor. That is the sure sign of the character and value of a person. The value of labor under socialism will be determined by its value to the state, to the whole community. Labor means creating value, not haggling over things. The soldier is a worker when he bears the sword to protect the national economy. The statesman also is a worker when he gives the nation a form and a will that help it to produce what it needs for life and freedom.

A furrowed brow is as much a sign of labor as a powerful fist. A white collar worker should not be ashamed to claim with pride that of which the manual laborer boasts: labor. The relations between these two groups determine their mutual fate. Neither can survive without the other, for both are members of an organism that they must together maintain if they are to defend and expand their right to exist.

We call ourselves a workers' party because we want to free labor from the chains of capitalism and Marxism. In battling for Germany's future, we freely admit to it, and accept the odium from the liberal bourgeoisie that results. We know that we will succeed in bringing new blessings out of their curses.

God gave the nations territory to grow grain. The seed becomes grain and the grain becomes bread. The middleman of it all is labor.

He who despises labor but accepts its benefits is a hypocrite.

That is the deepest meaning of our movement: it gives things back their original significance, unconcerned that today they may be in danger of sinking into the swamp of a collapsing worldview.

He who creates value works, and is a worker. A movement that wants to free labor is a workers' party.

Therefore we National Socialists call ourselves a worker's party.

When our victorious flags fly before us, we sing:

"We are the army of the swastika,
Raise high the red flags!
We want to clear the way to freedom
For German Labor!"

Joseph Goebbels, "Those Damned Nazis", 1932.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/haken32.htm

[Pug]

Ontem mesmo o lider da juventude do partido movimento pela França de P. de Villiers explicava que o partido de direita francesa considerava-se nacionalista e social....nacional e social....nacional e social...

Hum! Não sei, mas essa expressão lembra-me algo.

A rejeição do filho continua


E ele afirmava com todas as letras que se considerava de direita...pelo meio dizia existir demasiada islamização da França...depois disse nacionalista e social....e lembrou ainda o excesso de islão

e ainda lembrou que o partido é nacionalista e social...

[Hugo]

É o Liquid Snake voltando no braço do Ocelot

[Samael]

A tese do nazismo enquanto uma doutrina de esquerda foi lançada há algumas décadas por alguns historiadores e sociólogos liberais na Europa. Ficou, entretanto, restrito a esse pequeno grupo, sem nunca ter tomado nenhuma grande consideração pela comunidade internacional.

Esse discurso possui algumas inconsistências:

Primeiro, porque o nazismo nunca representou um movimento classista. As classes operárias alemãs esquerdistas se concentravam em torno do Partido Social Democrata, sob o comando de Liebknecht e de Rosa Luxemburgo. A ideologia nacional-socialista era totalmente contra o ideário socialista e/ou social democrata. O grupo nazi possuia uma gama de adeptos ínfima entre a classe operária, sendo que sua influência só cresceu após a derrota na primeira grande guerra.

Segundo, o nazismo centrava sua filosofia numa "tradição heróica e eugênica" do povo germânico. As doutrinas de esquerda, essencialmente, se centram no materialismo (descartando esse darwinismo social racista) e são internacionalistas. A filosofia nazi se coloca como representante clara de uma unidade nacional repudiada pela esquerda.

Terceiro, pela própria forma de organização do Estado nacional-socialista: classista e de base hierárquica bem definida. Com exceção de algumas medidas populistas, o Estado em nada beneficiou a luta sindical dos trabalhadores alemães. As elites permaneceram, mas sem nenhuma instuição monárquica.

Quarto, porque eles ajudaram a abafar a revolução socialista que parecia desabrochar na Alemanha, como acabara de surgir na Rússia. Com Liebcknetz e Luxemburgo executados, e com uma população irritada com o fracasso da primeira guerra, foi fácil toamr o poder a partir de um discurso enfático que valorizava o "nacionalismo alemão".

Obviamente, se chegarem a falar que a verdadeira direita é a liberal, aí teremos um impasse: visto que qualquer esquerdista poderia dizer também que a verdadeira esquerda é aquela social-democrata.

Normalmente, alcunha-se o nazismo como direitista pelo simples fato de ter mantido no poder as mesmas classes dominantes do pré-primeira guerra, abrindo ainda espaço para uma minoria de loucos nacionalistas. Além de ter atacado abertamente a existência de qualquer oposição interna a seu ideário.

[Samael]

Ontem mesmo o lider da juventude do partido movimento pela França de P. de Villiers explicava que o partido de direita francesa considerava-se nacionalista e social....nacional e social....nacional e social...

Hum! Não sei, mas essa expressão lembra-me algo.

A rejeição do filho continua


E ele afirmava com todas as letras que se considerava de direita...pelo meio dizia existir demasiada islamização da França...depois disse nacionalista e social....e lembrou ainda o excesso de islão

e ainda lembrou que o partido é nacionalista e social...

No fundo, eu não sei o porquê de tanta cisma. Sexta feira mesmo fui ter uma boa conversa com um professor especialista em História Comtemporânea que eu muito admiro acerca desse revisionismo direitista querendo "empurrar" o nazismo e o fascismo para a esquerda.

Ele inclusive, me fez lembrar uma corrente semelhante, de igual "desimportância", que tentava empurrar Stalin para a direita e vangloriar Lenin como um Deus infalível.

Besteira. Devíamos estar preocupados é em evitar novas ameaças totalitárias (e digo isto mesmo quando as tais se disfarçam de democracias!).