Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Were the Nazis all bad? Is anarchism enough?‏

Posted 8 years ago on May 28, 2012, 3:29 p.m. EST by GringoFrijolero (38)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Anarchism is not Enough -- Laura Riding Arbeit Macht Frei -- Work will free you (Nazi slogan)

My posts on the Occupy forum concerning the formation of a Right to Work party (OCCUPY THE UNEMPLOYMENT OFFICE) and on electoral reform (DON'T VOTE FOR ANYBODY YOU DON'T KNOW) received absolutely no attention here. I comfort myself by entertaining the possibility that this neglect is due to the anarchist orientation of the occupy movement, which tends to dismiss (without comment, apparently) any statist solution (such as political parties and elections) to the problems of unemployment, poverty, tyranny, etc. in favor of "building from within".

History is a curious thing. Every epoch and locale is unique. Today, in the United States, the upper 50%, which ranges from those just barely making it to those making out like the bandits they are, continue their lives glibly, as if nothing too disquieting were happening, while the lower 50%, ranging from those not quite making it to those living in absolute desolation, continue in despair, without hope, ignorant of the causes of their misfortune.

Near the end of the previous millennium, in southern Mexico (where I live), as Bill Clinton and Phil Gramm were setting the nails in the coffin of the precarious experiment in democracy in America, a fairly large community based on anarchist principles that had been nurtured for over a millennium rose up against a half millennium attempt by a statist tyranny to "occupy" them. With the help of illegal international arms shipments, they successfully separated themselves from the tyrants, much as the American colonies separated themselves from the crown.

A note in passing: Neither the American "revolution" nor the Zapatista revolt was a revolution. The American colonists did not want to destroy and take over the government of England, they merely wanted to separate from it (or secede -- ironically the U.S. reversed it's position on secession during the civil war). The Zapatistas were more explicit in making this distinction. They refused even to recognize the state of Mexico or it's institutions and withheld support for the candidacy of the leftist Obrador in the presidential elections of 2006. As a result, the elections ended in a coin toss (as they did America in 2000 and 2004), and the rightist Calderón took over. Obredor (unlike Gore and Kerry) fought back and attempted to "occupy" Mexico. Public disgust over the disruptions that ensued diminished his popularity and in the present election, he is running a poor third.

Obredor's economic agenda could be called "national socialism", using "national" here in the sense of "protectionist" as it was in the early days of the National Socialist (NAZI) regime, before the turn to militarism. And this brings me to my final historical anecdote and the point of this post. My political priorities are the formation of a party to represent the lower 50%, which would elect representatives and leaders by voting only for people that they know personally and which would embody the economic principles of national socialism as endorsed by Cynthia McKinney and delineated in the NEED act by Dennis Kucinich.

These principles go against the grain of the propaganda of the two party tyranny, which has become the common sense of the upper 50%, so they need a good historical example to buttress them. During the previous great depression, three major world leaders attempted to cope with the situation. While Roosevelt and Stalin limped along until war broke out, Hitler enabled one of the speediest and complete turnarounds in the history of the world. Economist C. K. Liu explores these three attempts and much more in an article in the Asia Times online (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GE24Dj01.html), from which I offer the following excerpt as my final historical anecdote:

Hitler's economic miracle The Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933, at a time when its economy was in total collapse, with ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Yet through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies it could exploit, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began. In fact, German economic recovery preceded and later enabled German rearmament, in contrast to the US economy, where constitutional roadblocks placed by the US Supreme Court on the New Deal delayed economic recovery until US entry to World War II put the US market economy on a war footing. While this observation is not an endorsement for Nazi philosophy, the effectiveness of German economic policy in this period, some of which had been started during the last phase of the Weimar Republic, is undeniable.

The whole article is lengthy but worth reading. C. K. Liu has a web page that lists all his articles. The NEED act is available online. As you can see, I have a tendency to wander. I usually do better responding to comments on my posts, should anyone wish more information or have questions. "Anarchism is not Enough" is a book by Laura Riding. It is a little obscure, but I would like to close with one of her poems, which was posted on the website of Jacob Russell, a facilitator at the Occupy Philly Free University.

The Way It Is

It falls to an idiot to talk wisely. It falls to a sot to wear beauty. It falls to many to be blessed In their shortcomings, As to the common brute it falls To see real miracles And howl with irksome joy.

Many are the confusions that fall, Many are the inspired ones. Much is there indeed contrary, Much is there indeed wonderful, A most improbable one it takes To tell what is so, And the strangest creature of all To be natural.



Read the Rules