The View From 1776

§ American Traditions

§ People and Ideas

§ Decline of Western Civilization: a Snapshot

§ Books to Read


Liberal_Jihad_Cover.jpg Forward USA

Sunday, August 15, 2004

What Is Liberalism?

American liberalism is simply a sect of the worldwide religion of socialism, just as Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists, and so on, all are sects of Christianity.  Socialism is a secular and materialistic religion.  The terms liberal-socialist, liberal, and socialist are interchangeable equivalents.

As celebrated socialist spokesman Bertrand Russell said of the German socialist party, “....[socialism] is a complete self-contained philosophy of the world and of human development; it is, in a word, a religion and an ethic.  To judge the work of Marx, or the aims and beliefs of his followers, from a narrow economic standpoint, is to overlook the whole body and spirit of their greatness.?

Like other religions, socialism has its prophets (Henri de Saint-Simon, Auguste Comte, and Karl Marx) and its sacred writings (Saint-Simon’s “The New Christianity,” Comte’s “The Course of Positive Philosophy,” and Marx’s many works such as “Das Kapital” and “The Communist Manifesto”).  Socialism holds forth the exhilarating promise of earthly salvation, of heaven-on-earth in a society of perfect harmony and plenty for everyone.  All of society’s goods and services are to be available to anyone, based solely on need, without regard to one’s ability to pay.  (For additional details, see the article entitled Socialism: Our Unconstitutionally Established Religion, posted on March 08, 2004.)

This harmonious perfection of plenty-for-all is to be achieved by restructuring government with the objective of redistributing income and wealth as nearly equally as possible.  Socialism is a secular and materialistic religion, which means that spiritual religion and personal morality play no role.  The only important aspect of society is its economic elements, its materialistic and secular aspects.

Restructuring government means creating an intellectual planning hierarchy under which all production and distribution will be regulated by government agencies chaired by social-engineers.  This, you will recognize, is the pattern carried on and hugely enlarged by President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s Depression. 

Under socialistic systems like liberalism, Fascism, and Nazism, inalienable individual rights, particularly property rights, are expressly repudiated.  Since all of society?s goods and services are regarded as social property of the collectivized State, whatever the State grants it may also take away.  While the State may permit businesses to continue operating under private ownership, as long as it serves the interests of the State to do so, the State reserves the absolute right to interfere in any way it chooses in economic activity.  Individual farmers may continue to till their land, but they are permitted to grow only what the State decrees.  The State will fix prices and regulate supply as its planners see fit, which, of course, is precisely what President Roosevelt did in the 1930s with his alphabet soup of industrial and farm control agencies.

The Roosevelt New Deal’s first major piece of legislation in 1933 established the National Recovery Administration (NRA).  Under the NRA, industry councils were established and industry codes of conduct were dictated by Federal administrators.  Those industry codes of conduct established production quotas, selling prices, and labor wage rates.  As news reporters at the time noted, the NRA was nearly a carbon copy of Mussolini’s Fascist State Corporatism.

Since 1933, the history of the Federal government has been one of continual expansion of areas of regulatory control for all aspects of our lives.  The United States of today, in every spiritual and moral aspect, would be unrecognizable to the colonists who fought for our independence in 1776.  And for those colonists, the spiritual and moral aspects were the very essence of what they were fighting for.  The slogan, “No taxation without representation,” was based on the Christian, natural-law conception of God-given, inalienable individual rights to life, liberty, and private property.

An underlying presumption of socialism is that intellectuals, being much more intelligent than ordinary businessmen and citizens, are the only people qualified to make decisions about allocating society’s economic resources.  In theory, intellectuals will regulate industry much more efficiently than private businessmen, so that productivity will expand enormously under socialism, making it possible for everyone to have whatever he needs, simply by asking for it.

Experience in the real world, of course, has been somewhat different.  With the collapse of the vaunted socialist planned economy of Soviet Russia, it became clear that industry under socialist state-planning was among the least productive and backward of all the world’s nations.  The Soviet Union couldn’t even produce enough food, clothing, and shelter to satisfy people’s most basic needs.  The average citizen spent hours in line waiting for groceries each day; luxuries such as refrigerators and automobiles required years of labor and were beyond the reach of the vast majority.

Liberal-socialists, who have dominated the American education scene since the 1920s, want you to view socialism as an innocuous alternative way of organizing economic affairs.  Taking a cue from their English predecessors, the Fabian socialists, they abandoned the French, Russian, Chinese, and Cuban revolutionary approach to establishing socialism in the United States.  Liberals, instead, have pursued the slow, but steady route.  They recognized as early as the 1880s that the surest route to socializing the United States is to gain control of education and thereby to convert students to the doctrine of socialism.  Since the 1920s, the added tactic has been to fill judicial seats with socialists and simply to rewrite the Constitution. 

These two tactics have worked with enormous success.  Momentum has been gained since the 1960s Baby Boomer student anarchism.  Student radicals from that period now occupy prominent positions in politics, labor unions, the media, literary arts, and education.

Despite what is commonly taught in our schools, liberalism, Fascism, Nazism, and Communism all are based on the religious doctrine of socialism.  They share a common belief that individualism and private property are the source of humanity?s ills.  All employ the same methodology of collectivized government control, differing only in degree.  All are materialistic and opposed to spiritual religion, believing that the state?s organization and its control of economic activity are the only real determinants of human behavior.  God as Creator of the universe is pushed aside, and His place is seized by the intellectual regulator.  The world and human society are henceforth to be whatever the intellectual decides that they should be.

The popular myth that Fascism, Nazism, and Communism are distinct and different from socialism was fabricated by apologists for socialism like Hannah Arendt, the author of “The Origins of Totalitarianism.”  Before coming to New York at the outbreak of World War II, Arendt was a German philosopher who had been a collaborator of Martin Heidegger, the notorious philosophical supporter of Hitler?s National Socialist regime and a member of the Nazi party until it was disbanded in 1945.  In New York City she became a professor of political theory at The New School for Social Research, an institution founded in 1919 by John Dewey and other socialists to radicalize American students. 

The New School’s president today is Bob Kerrey, the liberal former United States Senator and one of the highly partisan members of the 9/11 Commission.  Kerrey used every public-grandstanding opportunity to cast all blame on the Bush administration for Al Queda’s attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  For PR purposes, liberals want to scapegoat Christians and deflect blame from socialists in the Clinton administration.

Not surprisingly, Hannah Arendt?s piece of propaganda is standard reading in our liberal-controlled colleges and universities.  She rationalizes that totalitarianism was a one-time phenomenon in Germany and the Soviet Union that depended upon a special set of circumstances unrelated to socialism as such.  Therefore, she contends, socialism remains the path to earthly perfection. To accept this as truth, of course, we must ignore China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Cambodia, North Korea, and the many African nations, all ruled by totalitarian, socialist despots.

What does, in fact, set Nazism and Fascism apart from American liberal-socialism and Communism is their emphasis on the historical cultural traditions of the National State.  Hitler made much of the Teutonic ancestry of German traditions, and Mussolini identified Fascism with the grandeur of the Roman Empire. 

Additionally, Fascists and Nazis did not nationalize private industrial companies to the same degree as Soviet Communists.  Bringing private enterprise under direct regulatory control of the National State was deemed sufficient.  Both Hitler’s Nazi regime and President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal were established in 1933, and both followed the pattern set by Mussolini’s Fascist State Corporatism in the 1920s.

Hitler and Mussolini were first and foremost patriots who aimed to build up and to glorify Germany and Italy.  After many years in senior leadership positions within the Italian Socialist party, Mussolini split off during World War I, because the socialists called upon their members not to fight for Italy, but to give their allegiance entirely to the Socialist Internationale.  After the end of World War I, he organized the Fascist party to impose the order and control required for a nationalistic, socialistic regime. 

Hitler?s attitude was essentially the same.  After Germany?s defeat in World War I, he always spoke of the ?stab in the back,? that is, an imagined betrayal of Germany by the bankers, industrialists, and the Jews.  Hitler shrewdly projected his National Socialist party as the middle ground between the old Prussian aristocracy and the dissolute hedonism of the communist-oriented Weimar Republic.  To the German people, battered by war reparations, catastrophic inflation, and the Depression, he preached resurrection of national power under himself as leader and intellectual planner. 

Hitler?s opposition to the Weimar Republic, so highly regarded by American liberal-socialists, led to the fiction that Nazism was a right-wing movement, completely different from socialism.  That amounts to declaring arbitrarily that left-handed fighters are boxers, but right-handed fighters are criminal assailants.  Both are doing the same thing, just using different labels.

Nazi, by the way, is simply the short name for Hitler?s National Socialist German Workers Party.  The party slogan was ” The Common Good Outranks Private Profit,” and the aims proclaimed for the German political state were exactly those promised by Franklin Roosevelt in his first inaugural address of April 1933. 

In a 1927 speech, Hitler said, ?We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.?

The famous Volkswagen automobile, a name that in German means People?s Car, was commissioned by Hitler.  It was one of the Nazis? many socialistic projects aimed at redistributing wealth to the workers and the middle class, in this case by providing cheap and reliable transportation subsidized by the government.

As was happening simultaneously in the United States under the socialist New Deal, the great German industrial corporations like Krupp, as well as the great banks which controlled much of German industry through stock ownership, were brought under the direction of party officials, and their production and financing were planned for re-building German industry. Germany had been prepared for this by three quarters of a century?s lecturing by political scientists and economists in German universities.  They preached an anti-capitalist and pro-socialist doctrine that despised individualism and exalted the collective National-State, much as our public education now does in the United States. 

The principal difference was that Hitler loved Germany, while our liberal educators despise the United States.