by Rebecca Bynum (November 2009)
by Stephen H. Norwood
Cambridge University Press, 2009
The academic attitude of high-minded impartiality which seems to hover weightlessly above the crass corpus of power politics, does, in plain fact, aid and abet those who actively seek the destruction of western civilization. There are times when a principled stand must be taken, for, for all its claims of impartiality, silence implies acquiescence. This was as true during the 1930’s as it is today, when apologists for the Islamic brand of fascism are routinely given respectful hearings in lecture halls and platforms in student newspapers at our finest institutions of higher learning. One difference being, in the 1930’s regular newspapers around the country were much more willing to print the brutal facts about the rise of fascism in Europe - facts submitted by clear-eyed on-the-ground reporters such as William L. Shirer, whereas today, the entire press corps seems unreasonably squeamish about publishing the facts on the ground about what occurs in Muslim countries. Of the draconian punishments enforcing conformity in thought, word, dress and deed, public mutilation, public executions, the canonization of suicide bombers, the demonization of Jews, the distortion of history, the conspiracy theories, the economic and intellectual stagnation weighing down the Muslim world - little, if anything, disturbs our nightly news programs. more>>>
It is true that the National Socialist Worker's party began as a revolutionary left wing organization, but Hitler sold out for personal power to the military and industrial establishment. Rohm was much more of a revolutionary than Hitler was. I think Hitler's core beliefs in racial destiny and so forth are more or less the logical extreme of scientism and can't be characterized as either left or right.
I would characterize socialism as inherently fascistic. There is a belief in one group or class, of humanity as destined to rule - in actuality of course, power was concentrated in very few hands - and no thought of self-government for the masses. The old monarchic mode of governance in that sense too, is fascistic.
I wouldn't say fascism is inherently right or left - it can come in from either side.
There exists still today much confusion over the difference between nazism and fascism and I do not see a clear distinction made in this review.
Fascism was a relatively mild form of right-wing dictatorship and was practised only in Italy and Spain. Nazism, or hitlerism, was an extreme left-wing movement. The acronym NAZI stands for NAtional Workers Socialist Party. It is no accident that all the murderous, genocidal tyrannies of the 20th century -- count them, from Lenin & Stalin to Castro, Mugabe and Chavez -- are left-wing.
It is a triumph of left propaganda that nazism has been identified as a fascist, i.e right-wing, movement, and that Stalin's communism as relatively benign.