It is rather surprising that Leftism is left not to be studied in its relation to Hitler. Yet, the India’s leftists choose to question nationalism and brand it as ‘intolerance’?
It was a Soviet Swastika used by the Red Army on their flag in their early days which was adopted by Hitler. Marxists deliberately spread a lie that Hitler took it from ‘a Church’ so that his relation to Marxism could be obfuscated. It is an elementary Marxist trait to brush the inconvenient under the carpet. Ask any Indian communist about their relation to Naxalism. They promptly deny there was any.
The ‘gas chamber’ was in use in Stalin’s and Lenin’s Russia much before Hitler. He owes it to them.
Though we are made to believe otherwise, Hitler in original was a staunch Socialist-Marxist. He had proclaimed: “I have learned a great deal from Marxism and do not hesitate to admit.”
The term ‘Nazi’ itself means “National Socialist’. It is derived from German ‘National Sozialist’. Thus the word ‘NaZi’ itself is a pro-Marxist term as far as Hitler was concerned.
The National Socialism when stretched to authoritarian ultra-nationalism is called ‘Fascism’, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of any opposition to socialism and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.
The term ‘Fascism’ came from Mussolini. The Italian term fascismo derived from Roman fascio littorio means ‘a bundle of rods tied to an axe’. This was an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of civil magistrate. Characteristic of Marxists, they brushed Fascism under the carpet in course of time and ensured it was placed on the ‘far right’ within the traditional left-right spectrum. Fascism as generally believed has nothing to do with the right-wing political activists. Just because Hitler went ahead on Marxist road much beyond Marx did not mean his fascism was anything opposite to Marxism. This again has been a fallacious propaganda by communists, while anything having a Marxist base and support when carefully examined should actually be fascist and Nazi in character.
Hitler once told Otto Wagener, his economic advisor, that problem with Communists was they had never even read Marx. He stated plainly and emphatically whole of his National Socialism was based on Marx.
‘Socialism’ is defined technically as public ownership of the means of production, and instead of doing what Stalin did to purge capitalists, Hitler being a staunch Marxist and constant opponent of capitalism, committed himself to simply confiscating their capital. Hitler declared the economy could easily be controlled simply by dispossessing the capitalist class of their ‘means of production’, i.e. their capital.
In a speech in Munich in August 1920, Hitler thundered: “If we are socialists we must definitely be anti-semites”, i.e. against Jews and Arabs.
He continued: “our opposite is Materialism and Mammonism (greedy pursuit of riches), which we seek to oppose. How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-semites?”
Jews, as a race, for Hitler, were epitome of capitalism and his hatred for them was Marxist, not communal or religious.
What Hitler spoke was deliberately given a ‘right-wing’ slant after he lost the war.
Hitler had said: “We must find and travel the road from individualism to socialism without revolution. If individualism was to be destroyed, revolution was the most painful and difficult way to destroy capitalists”.
The expressions such as ‘without revolution’ served to bring in the rightist angle, while actually Hitler had opined “Marx and Lenin had the right goals in their minds, but they simply chose the wrong tactics”. He then furthered Marxism/communism in its strongest intent by waging his own ‘Sozialist’ war on capitalism.
Marxists unquestionably argue that Hitler was a Socialist, not a Marxist. The truth is Karl Marx himself had written: “The meaning of Peace is absence of opposition to Socialism.”
This simply meant war and end of peace on slightest hesitation towards ‘socialism’. A war upon those who opposed Socialism. That is what Hitler did.
If we go by what Marxists say, Marx could also seem to be a ‘Socialist’ rather than a Marxist!!
Leftists are so self-conscious against Hitler being known as a ‘leftist’ that they take every care to picture him as a diabolical right-wing Fascist. This is sheer sophistry because now we can say nothing could ever fortify Fascism more than Marxism through Hitler.
Hitler learnt his lessons in killing all those who stood for capitalism from Marxism as a solution to all society’s ills.
Marxism has killed more than 100 crore people till date. Hitler added another 11 crores to this score, people killed in war not counted. Story of Marxism completes with Hitler and all his slayings go into Marxist account.
Marxism progresses as Socialism-Marxism-Leninism-Communism-Nazism-Maoism-Progressivism-Naxalism-Rationalism, and so on.
Hitler’s nationalism was Marxism in its purest, not simply as propagated by modern-day Marxists in India and elsewhere. His ‘nationalism’ was meant to take ‘socialism’ directly to the people. This precisely meant Hitler wanted socialism to not just be about nationalizing industry, but nationalizing the PEOPLE themselves since socialism, for him, was the only solution to all of society’s ailments.
Had there been no Marx, there wouldn’t be a Hitler! He has established for eternity Marxism in its negativity to everything was nothing but a mental sickness!!
In Hitler, Nationalism rose from the left-wing. Today it seeks to rise as an alternate discourse from the right-wing. Right is the new Left, they say. Nationalism is unavoidable in global economy as on today and is likely to confront Marxism, as well as question validity of Semitic people. Not Jews this time, rather Arab-Islamic Terrorism. Marxism seems to be concentrating on the rise of neo-Nazism of a different kind by criticising right-wing (?) nationalism but actually being in cahoots with terrorism, (as in Kerala), and thus regressing to Hitler’s idea of ‘killings’ in a broader way.
Call them liberals or pseudo-liberals or leftists, they ought to backpedal on their remembering Hitler with reference to anyone talking nationalism. Knowingly or unknowingly they themselves tend to prove nothing less than a mental offspring of Hitler-the-Socialist-Marxist.
Nationalism was best examined by Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore in his book which is always misquoted by Marxists-Liberals-Rationalists. Nationalism was a highly westernised concept hence was termed unacceptable by Tagore.
Rabindranath’s thoughts on Nationalism came in or around 1917 when Hitler was nowhere on the scene. The First World War was on and Gurudev turned his attention to examine the cult of nationalism which was revolting to a mind filled with the idea of vasudhaiva kutumbakam. Tagore focused his penetrating insights into what he felt ‘was wrong with the western civilization’. Tagore, in his ‘Nationalism’ (1917), criticised not only the “organizing selfishness of Nationalism” in the West, but also the replication of this alien concept of nationalism in India by the westernised education. He observed that, “India never had a real sense of nationalism”. Therefore, India’s reverence for ‘God’ and the ideal of ‘humanity’ need not be replaced by the European concept of a limited ‘national identity’.
Hitler’s Nationalism was totally based upon Marxist thought. It was natural for him to use this western concept in his war upon capitalism. Nationalism as forwarded today in India looks like a fully legitimate propagation of Tagore’s thought and runs parallel to his thesis in contemporary scenario. Let us not forget Nationalism today is totally unavoidable, also defined by our constitution. Leftist thinkers have no legitimacy when they tattle against nationalism and reduce it to something worth rejecting.
What the Marxist Hitler did was definitely anti-human. What Marxist Indians end up in doing under any garb or any name could indeed be anti-national.
04-10-2018
unpadh thinks so... 