Nazi v. Communists

We sho­uld all wel­co­me recent deba­te in Euro­pe on outla­wing com­mu­nist and Nazis sym­bols. It is irre­le­vant to argue abo­ut whet­her com­mu­nists or nazis kil­led more peo­ple and impo­sed more suf­fe­rings. They both did a lot. It is also impor­tant to iden­ti­fy tho­se move­ments as two prac­ti­cal appli­ca­ti­ons of soci­a­list doctrines.

The basic pre­mi­se of soci­a­list lite­ra­tu­re is that the insti­tu­ti­ons of soci­a­lism are capa­ble of brin­ging abo­ut a “just” soci­e­ty. This pre­mi­se has pro­vi­ded both the phi­lo­sop­hi­cal foun­da­ti­on and the poli­ti­cal justi­fi­ca­ti­on for the prac­ti­ti­o­ners of soci­a­lism to repla­ce the rule of law and indi­vi­du­al liber­ti­es with the rule of men (here­af­ter: the arbi­tra­ry sta­te) and a con­tri­ved con­cern for the “peo­ple.” The term “peo­ple,” a favo­ri­te clic­hé of all soci­a­list lea­ders, is mere­ly a faça­de of words behind which the ruling eli­te hides its own pri­va­te ends.

The twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry wit­nes­sed the rise and fai­lu­re of two major appli­ca­ti­ons of the soci­a­list doc­tri­ne: Nati­o­nal Soci­a­lism and Marxism-Leni­nism. Like the com­pe­ting fami­li­es of the unde­rworld, Nati­o­nal Soci­a­lism and Marxism-Leni­nism were at war (cold and hot) with each other as well as with the rest of the world. And they both fai­led to deli­ver on the­ir pro­mi­ses. The Second World War destro­yed Hitler’s soci­a­lism, whi­le Marxism-Leni­nism deca­yed from within.

Nati­o­nal soci­a­lists and com­mu­nists sha­red many basic poli­ti­cal and eco­no­mic pre­mi­ses of the soci­a­list doc­tri­ne. They both ran com­mand eco­no­mi­es. They made the indi­vi­du­al a bare tool in the achi­e­ve­ment of the ends of the­ir ruling eli­tes. Nati­o­nal Soci­a­lism and Marxism-Leni­nism were hosti­le to the pri­va­te-pro­per­ty free-mar­ket soci­e­ty, and its corol­la­ry, the soci­e­ty of free and respon­si­ble indi­vi­du­als. They favo­red a lar­ge and acti­ve sta­te, cre­a­ted com­pre­hen­si­ve wel­fa­re pro­grams, and paid no heed to the rule of law. Nati­o­nal Soci­a­lism and Marxism-Leni­nism were equ­al­ly unre­len­ting in the pur­su­it of the­ir pri­ma­ry tar­gets: infe­ri­or races and the bour­ge­o­i­sie respectively.

Nati­o­nal Soci­a­lism and Marxism-Leni­nism had some fun­da­men­tal dif­fe­ren­ces as well. Com­mu­nists were open­ly hosti­le to the right of owners­hip, whi­le nati­o­nal soci­a­lists were com­for­ta­ble with con­trol­ling and moni­to­ring the beha­vi­or of pri­va­te owners. Nati­o­nal soci­a­lists saw the strug­gle for raci­al puri­ty wit­hin nati­o­nal boun­da­ri­es as the major mec­ha­nism for the deve­lop­ment of the­ir brand of soci­a­lism. Com­mu­nists, on the other hand, saw the class strug­gle waged by the pro­le­ta­ri­at across nati­o­nal boun­da­ri­es as the vehic­le for the deve­lop­ment of the Marxist-Leni­nist type of soci­a­lism. Late G. War­ren Nut­ter, a hig­hly respec­ted eco­no­mist, said this abo­ut the com­mu­nist regi­me: “It was Lenin’s geni­us to recog­ni­ze the impor­tan­ce of embel­lis­hing the Sovi­et System with all the trap­pings of demo­cra­cy. If the peo­ple wan­ted a con­sti­tu­ti­on, give them one, and even inc­lu­de the bill of rights. If they want a par­li­a­ment, give them that, too. And a system of courts. If they want a fede­ral system, cre­a­te that myth as well. Abo­ve all, let them have elec­ti­ons, for the act of voting is what the com­mon man most cle­ar­ly asso­ci­a­tes with demo­cra­cy. Give them all the­se, but make sure they have no effect on how things are run.”

Sve­to­zar Pejovich 
Pro­fes­sor Emeritus
Texas A&M University