HITLER SIMPLY CO-OPTED THE TERM “SOCIALISM”. NATSOC HAD NOTHING IN COMMON WITH IT.

Hitler used the term for a marketing measure, just as the communist party in china uses ‘socialism with chinese characteristics’. The soviets and the early chinese practiced socialism. NatSoc combined nationalism, an aesthetic nationalist religion, something approximating economic autarky, and a total prohibition on criticism. All governments shift between direction of the economy in war (Total War under Napoleon) and relatively free markets. Germany was attempting to fight off international communism – particularly Russia and Hitler mobilized an economy for total war under the Napoleonic model. I tend to use the term Fascism for this purpose. But technically speaking, we have no technical definition of fascism. I am still not convinced that the combination state-private industry, and otherwise private property, with strict constraints on the retention of profits within the polity, and total suppression of opposition isn’t a good thing. The difference is that I would write a constitution of natural law so that it could not be abused. In fact, in most of my work I advocate what I call market fascism for the simple reason that I do not think opposition to rule of law and nationalism should be tolerated. If the courts exist then that is sufficient means of protection of the individual. The court of public opinion, as the 20th century has demonstrated, consists almost entirely of gossip, pseudoscience, and lies.

Leave a Reply