Why Socialists Make Great Dictators

Letter from the Editor

There can be no doubt that Socialists make the best dictators! A brief look through history reveals that virtually all of the best-known tyrants in the modern world got their starts as Socialists.

Let’s start with the archetypical dictator, Adolph Hitler. Despite the misrepresentation of Hitler as a conservative by the press and academia, Hitler was the revolutionary leader of the National Socialist Worker’s Party, the Nazis. Anything but a conservative!

The most amazing thing about Hitler (apart from the amazing success of the lie characterizing him as a conservative) is the fact that he spelled the whole thing out in Mien Kampf, which, by the way, is a surprisingly readable stream-of-consciousness, dictated to two of his lieutenants. In it he describes the beginning of his political life…

“I went through an ill-lit dining room in which not a soul was sitting, opened the

door to the back room, and the ‘session’ was before me. In the dim light of a

broken-down gas lamp four young people sat at a table, among them the author

of the little pamphlet, who at once greeted me most joyfully and bade me

welcome as a new member of the German Worker’s Party.

Sounds like the beginning a pretty decent thriller doesn’t it! In Volume One, Chapter VIII, entitled “The Beginning of My Political Activity”, Hitler refers to his return to Munich in 1919 amid the chaotic conditions he describes as a “revolution” and “liberation”, and sets out his evolution from the German Worker’s Party into the Social Revolutionary Party, and finally into the National Socialist or Nazi Party.

How then can one explain the fact that Hitler has been associated in the public mind with the conservatives and not the liberals and socialists? It’s a fascinating question, and one that deserves to be studied in more detail than we have time for here. The first and possibly superficial answer might be found in the principle of the ”Big Lie” attributed to the Nazis themselves, i.e. if you tell the Big Lie often enough, people through repeated exposure, will take each repetition to be a confirmation of the Lie, and therefore believe it!

In considering the effectiveness of the Big Lie we were shocked to see a not ill-informed commentator, Glen Beck of Fox News, explaining the political spectrum by showing a swinging pendulum…swinging between Socialism and Fascism. How could Glen Beck, ordinarily fairly conservative, not know that the Fascists were also Socialists? Shows the frightening power of the Lie, repeated often enough to be accepted as fact.

But there must be more to it. Several other factors may be at work. On the most simplistic level, it may seem that since Hitler fought the Russians, and we know the Russians were Communists, hence socialists, then therefore Hitler must be the opposite, i.e. a conservative. Let’s call it the logical fallacy of “polarity”. This reasoning however overlooks the basic truth that the most ferocious conflicts are often between members of closely related parties, be it the fratricidal war of Sunni vs. Shiite, Confederate vs. Union, or Christian iconoclasts vs. Christian iconists, and the like. Many groups, unfortunately, eat their own. Certainly this rule applies to Socialists, witness the repeated Communist and Fascist purges which wiped out major portions of their own ranks. We know Trotsky was killed with an ice axe.

Indeed, if you broadly compare the political trajectories of Hitler’s Nazis and Lenin’s Communists, you will find many more similarities than differences. For example, both were revolutionaries, and, while the Russian Communist revolution is well recognized, Hitler’s own version, including the beer hall putsch, the Reichstag fire, and his Blackshirt brawlers, was no less incendiary.

In fact, the basic strategies of both Hitler and Lenin can be boiled down to a simple formula: first identify yourself as a representative of an aggrieved public by promising social benefits, next isolate and demonize a victim class whose assets can be taken to satisfy the promises of social benefits, and finally confiscate the wealth of the victim class. In Hitler’s case the Jews and the banking system were targeted, while Lenin attacked and confiscated the wealth of the Czars themselves, the prosperous kulaks or peasant farmers, and the bourgeoisie or independent business owners

What then is the difference between Hitler’s Fascists and Lenin’s Communists? The principal difference seems to be marketing. Hitler, functioning in the atmosphere of resentment against the oppressive reparations imposed by foreign nations following World War I appealed to the nationalistic fervor of the German people against their enemies, as in “Deutchland uber allies” , while Lenin appealed to the international aspects of class warfare as in the “Commintern.”

What then about the challenging assertion that virtually every tyrant in the modern world got his start as a Socialist.? Following the template of Hitler and Lenin, most of the despots are well-known Socialists, including many of the sub-species Communist persuasion. These would include the most murderous line-up of Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, and President Kim of North Korea. Without laborious documentation, beyond the scope of this letter, it can be noted that millions and probably tens of millions died in the nightmare scenarios of Stalin’s gulags, Mao’s reeducation camps, Pol Pot’s killing fields, and Kim’s prisons.

A second group of modern despots will be recognized to have arisen from Socialist programs including Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Juan Peron. While the crimes of this group against humanity are dwarfed in scale by their better known counterparts, that is probably of small consolation to those suffering deprivation in Castro’s Cuba, and those forced out of Argentina and Venzuela.

A third group of dictators would not be immediately recognized as Socialists, nevertheless a look at their backgrounds verifies their Socialist roots. Prominent among this group would be Benito Mussolini. Mussolini is of course known as a Fascist, a name deriving from the fascia, or group of sticks, that together is stronger then the individual pieces, a symbol dating back to ancient Rome. In his own words,

“The Socialist party reaffirms its eternal faith in the future of the Worker’s

Inernatinal, destined to bloom again, greater and stronger, from the blood and conflagration of peoples.

It is in the name of the International and Socialism that we invite you, proletarians of Italy, to uphold your

unshakable opposition to war.” Article published by Mussolini in the Socialist Party organ “Avanti” of September

22, 1914.

The irony of Mussolini’s anti-war sentiments contrasted with his later “Pact of Steel” and “Pact of Blood” with Hitler, should not be overlooked. As with Socialists in general, the words really don’t matter. It’s all about saying whatever is necessary to gain power, and whenever power is achieved…lookout!

Another name on the list of Socialists might surprise, Saddam Hussein, who joined the Ba’ath Socialist Party and then consolidated his power by killing hundreds of his rivals. Asked by a European interviewer about reports that Hussein had killed opponents Saddam replied “Of course, what do you expect if they oppose the regime? “ Rounding out a list of Socialists turned dictators would be Anvar Hoxha of Albania, Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia, Nicholae Ceausescu of Romania, Muammar Gaddafi of Lybia, Achmed Sukarno of Indonesia and others.

Are there any of the household-name dictators who were not Socialists? Only one, it would appear, General Francisco Franco, a military man who led the fight against the Communists in Spain with the aid of the National Socialist Nazis who tried out the tactics they would use in World War II, notably the carpet-bombing in Guernica. In fairness it should be noted that there have been other military dictators, no less deadly, who played less prominent roles in modern history such as Augusto Pinochet of Chile, and Alfredo Stroessner of Paraguay, who also came to power fighting Communists regimes in their countries.

After reviewing the extraordinary, monumental, and unique level of violence occurring under the prominent Socialist leaders of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, one must certainly ask why? Is there some underlying relationship between Socialism and violence. While the answer must take into account many factors, one obvious truth should not be ignored: Socialism involves taking property from one person and giving it to another, and that cannot be accomplished without coercion

An interesting corollary to the above arises in the contest of : which is the biggest threat, business or government. In considering the answer to this question it should be observed that government has the power to coerce. Business doesn’t.

As last defense, the political left may argue: “Sure, Hitler was a Socialist when he was a young reformer, but he turned conservative after he obtained power.” Such a view denies the fundamental realities: conservatives believe in FREEDOM. Freedom to work, freedom to own, and freedom to worship if they choose, with a minimum of government interference. Socialists and other collectivists, and dare we say many liberals, on the other hand believe in STATEISM, where the State is all-powerful, as did Mussolini and Hitler with their collectivist bundle of sticks, as did Lenin and Stalin with their most oppressive smothering controlling Communist regimes, as did Mao and Pol Pot who assumed life or death powers over everyone.

What is the relevance of all this to the present day, to the situation at hand? Thank God we live in the United States of America where, although our recently elected President has been accused of being a socialist, and has said that he wants to “spread the wealth”, at least he hasn’t singled out any group for extra attention…well, maybe except for those earning over $250,000 per year, and at least he hasn’t demonized any group…well, maybe except for the hedge funds who refused to violate their agreements with their bondholders for the benefit of the Chrysler deal, and at least he hasn’t resorted to the language of class struggle…well, maybe when he said he doesn’t “stand with” those hedge funds. Stand where, on the barricades of revolution? And at least he hasn’t taken businesses away from their stockholders and given it away to the unions…well, maybe except for Chrysler and GM.

Where do we go from here? If we have learned anything it should be that incentives work! Let’s do everything we can do to keep the incentives of free enterprise rather than the disincentives of collectivism. Let the entrepreneurs take risk and be rewarded where successful, and in the process provide jobs to others. And when considering social benefits, consider whose property is being taken to provide those benefits.

 The following is a reading list for a more comprehensive treatment of the subjects discussed here.

  Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg, National Review, Jan. 2008

Hitler's Beneficiaries, Plunder and the Nazi Welfare State, Gotz Aly, Metropolitan Books, New York, 2008

Fascism Doctrine and Institutions, Benito Mussolini, Ardita Publixhers, Rome 1935

Authoritarianism is Leftist, Not Rightist, John J. Ray,  Political Psychology Magazine, 2004

Modern Leftism and Recycled Fascism, John J. Ray,  Front Page Magazine, Oct.2002

Tyrants, Nigel Cawthorne, Arcturas Publishing Ltd., New York, 2005

The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek, Routledge Publishers, London 1944

Donald A. Pleasants, Editor

Comments:

dpleasants@dontspreadmywealth.com