by Caleb Nelson
Of course, when people must justify their existence to the collective, it is not long until the violence begins, however much the socialist may claim pacifism. A famous literary socialist, George Bernard Shaw, was well ahead of the Nazis (and possibly influenced them) when he called for the development of a “deadly” but “humane” gas for the purpose of killing, many at a time, those unfit to live. In a 1931 interview, he said,
“Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.”
[239]
Such is the brotherly love and equality of the socialists.
PART 4: FASCISM
“We have buried the putrid corpse of liberty.”
[240] - Benito Mussolini
This concept is one that is widely referenced but rarely used correctly. As George Orwell pointed out in 1946, “The word Fascism has now no meaning except insofar as it signifies ‘something not desirable.’”
[241]
Fascism comes from the Italian fascio meaning “bundle, group”—even its origin has collectivist roots.
Fascism is a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, which, while not having ownership of the means of production, nevertheless plans and controls the economic affairs of the nation.
Historians Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen describe Mussolini’s fascism as “a hybrid of state corporatism, nationalism, and socialism.”
[242] They explain that the, “Fascists’ economic doctrines lack any cohesion except that they wedged a layer of corporate leaders between state planning and the rest of the economy. There was no operation of the free market in fascism, but rather the illusion of a group of independent corporate leaders who, in reality, acted as extensions of the state and were allowed to keep impressive salaries as payroll . . . The Italian state bought large stock holdings in the major banks and other companies, making it the leading stockholder in ventures controlling 70 percent of iron production and almost half of all steel production. It was as close to communism as one could get without collectivizing all industry . . .”[243]
There has been a long and consistent campaign to whitewash and disguise the true nature of fascism and equate it with some sort of nationalistic capitalism. It is sometimes called state capitalism or crony capitalism. This campaign places fascism on the opposite end of the political spectrum from Communism. This effort is to distort economics, rewrite history, and eliminate the possibility in the minds of people for the existence of a free country and uncontrolled economy. The distinguishing feature of fascism in the minds of most people is some vague concept relating to authoritarianism and ultra-nationalism. Racism is often mistakenly cited as a defining characteristic, though it is not—Hitler’s fascism was racist, Mussolini’s was not.
Both socialism and fascism are concerned with power over the use and control of property. Socialism negates property rights altogether, vesting control in the community as a whole, which means in the state. Fascism leaves nominal ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of property to the government.
Ownership without control is a contradiction, of course. Under fascism, the citizens retain the responsibility of property ownership with none of its benefits.
Apply this new knowledge by asking yourself, “Which ideology is more prevalent in America today?” Remember, a system in which the government does not nationalize the means of production, but merely assumes control over it, is fascism. Wealth redistributionists have rarely claimed socialism as their goal. They do not intend or advocate the socialization of property, they want to “preserve” it—with government control of its use and disposal. That is exactly the defining characteristic of fascism. Such a system of nominal private property with extensive government controls is not capitalism, but fascism.
However, a concerted effort continues by Marxists to portray capitalism as a system of government controls serving some privileged class. They want to form the vague concept in our minds that governments are the tools of economic class interests.
They love the traditional Left-Right spectrum which assigns us a choice between Communism on the Left and Fascism on the Right. How are two social systems, whose defining characteristics include totalitarianism and tyranny (whether by one or many), supposed to be opposites? Yet, this doctrine is accepted and leaves everyone groping blindly for some sacred middle ground in avoidance of “extremes,” without ideals, principles, or conviction, sacrificing all to “Compromise and Moderation.” If tyranny reigns at both “extremes,” we are told, the safest ground is the center.
As we discussed in Chapter 6, it is much more accurate and truthful to use a spectrum of government based on essentials—tyranny and rights-violators to the left, liberty and rights-defenders on the right. This is why fascism, socialism, and Communism would all be located at one extreme end—not opposites at all!
Let’s cement the essentials of fascism in our heads by letting its originators explain it to us. Mussolini laid out some defining characteristics of his fascism in 1928: “The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill.”
[244]
As Hitler’s Nazi party adapted fascism to its policies beginning in 1933, he defined his version of fascism clearly, saying: “The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property.”
[245]
Fascism is alive and well in today’s world; just not exactly how many people would imagine it to be.
Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler
[xix]
PART 5: DEMOCRACY
“Democracies . . . have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
[246] - James Madison
“There are few things more democratic than a [lynch mob], where everybody is satisfied except a small and insignificant minority of one.”
[247] - Thomas Nixon Carver
We’ve already discussed democracy in some detail in our section on the American system of government. While our system of government does contain some democratic principles in action, it is not a democracy. Democracy is not what we should advocate, it is not what we should fight wars for, and it is not how our country was founded. It is not the ideal.
Democracy is government by the people—specifically, the rule of the majority. It has been humorously described as two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner. Yet infringements against minorities have done little to make most people question the moral foundation of democracy. This is because they have learned no other way to discover what is right or wrong beyond an appeal to popularity.
America was not founded as a democracy. A group of representatives (i.e. a republic) met and formed the framework of our nation on a written system of principled law. It is this foundation of principles that determines which new laws may be enacted and which are unconstitutional. A majority vote by the people does not generally decide new policies or bills. This is for the best because a comparison of a new law to a principled foundation is the only way to adequately protect the rights of minorities, regardless what the majority desires—and we must remember that th
e smallest minority is an individual. The people may alter the Constitution through a very difficult process, thus adapting slightly the foundational framework used for all other laws, but this should be rare and carefully considered.
Democracy is purely collectivist in principle and violates the individual rights it claims to esteem. There is little that can be more collectivist or evil than the doctrine of the sanctity of the “Will of the People” taken as a majority ruling, disregarding all principles, and sacrificing minorities to the coercive power of the gang in charge.
Writer Isabel Paterson denied that democracy has any unique moral authority, saying, “If one man has no right to command all other men—the expedient of despotism—neither has he any right to command even one other man, nor yet have ten men, or a million, the right to command even one other man, for ten times nothing is nothing, and a million times nothing is nothing.”
[248] If one man has no inherent right to be a tyrant, then a million men also do not have that right.
“The difference between democracy and socialism is not an essential difference, but only a practical difference.”
[249] - Woodrow Wilson
There is not some vague, indefinable concept such as a “social contract” that gives the majority the authority to rule the life of the individual. It is not the price of living in a society to give up our lives and property to the ruling majority. The only rational and moral “social contract” is that of individual rights. I can’t violate yours, and you can’t violate mine.
CONCLUSION
When SS Captain Josef Kramer was asked at the Nuremberg trials what his feelings were as he stripped and gassed eighty women, he replied, “I had no feelings in carrying out these things because I had received an order to kill the eighty inmates . . . That, by the way, was the way I was trained.”
[250]
Yes, he was trained that way; down to his deepest core, his philosophy. This shows the practical results of the philosophy of collectivism.
Altruism is a creed of sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice. Egoism and its social system, capitalism, is a creed of the individual’s right to live for his own sake. It based on the trader principle where no one has any claim to the unearned.
Each creed of collectivism identifies who must be altruistically sacrificed for the good of whom. Communism sacrifices the producers for the sake of the consumers. Socialism sacrifices the rich to the poor. Fascism sacrifices the businessmen to the state. Democracy sacrifices the minority to the majority. Racism sacrifices one ethnic group to another. Pragmatism leads to a mixed economy where pressure groups vie for control in deciding who gets sacrificed next. Capitalism calls for the sacrifice of no one and lets each man achieve and earn whatever he is able, to the best of his abilities, and demands that the individual rights of all must be protected. No other system does that.
It is no exaggeration to say collectivism is evil—it is an understatement. Collectivism is a creed of death, misery, and destruction preached as a moral ideal, for it elevates the immolation of the individual for the good of others. Which others? Anyone but you. Collectivism tells you that anything that builds you up is bad, and anything that tears you down to feeds others is good.
What is the ultimate goal of collectivism? Not merely to feed you to the cannibals—to make you want to feed yourself to the cannibals. Its foundational meanings are hidden, evaded, lied about, and distorted because its ultimate message is that human life has no value.
Review
Q1: What is collectivism?
Q2: What is the moral code of collectivism?
Q3: What does Communism primarily seek to abolish?
Q4: What is economic determinism?
Q5: Explain the principle “People Are Assets.”
Q6: What are the differences and similarities between Communism and socialism?
Q7: What is fascism? How is that different than what it is commonly understood to mean?
Q8: What are the four main features of Pragmatism?
Q9: Why is subjectivism evil?
Q10: What are the features of a mixed economy?
Q11: What is statism?
Q12: What defines Progressive thought?
Q13: Describe the difference between nationalism and patriotism.
Q14: Describe the differences between classical and social liberalism.
Q15: Why are all forms of conservatism inherently unprincipled?
Q16: Why are democracy and freedom incompatible?
Q17: Why is racism based in collectivism?
Q18: How is having a pro-racist ideology different from being a racist?
Q19: Why is starting with a pro-racist ideology inescapable if you are part of the majority culture?
Q20: What are some ways you have unconsciously supported the superiority of whites? Or, if you are Black, what are some ways you have seen others unconsciously support a pro-racist ideology?
Q21: What is altruism? Why is it evil?
Chapter 11: Prosperity Principles
WHAT IS MONEY?
The concepts of “money” and “currency” are essential to understanding a principle-based approach to life, politics, prosperity, and economics. In attacks against capitalism and freedom, money itself is attacked, distorted, vilified, and even deified. A correct understanding of this important tool is essential to a cognitive defense.
Money is a concept; currency is a physical concrete such as dollars, yen, or precious metal coins.
THE MORALITY OF MONEY
Money is merely an idea. It is not intrinsically evil or good. It is a tool. A hammer in an experienced builder’s hand can create great value for everyone. In the hands of the ignorant or foolish it can be very destructive.
In morality, money itself is value-neutral. It doesn’t corrupt or purify; instead, it serves as a magnifier or revealer of the character of the individual who has it. It will not provide or destroy virtue or change the character of its owner for better or worse. Money will merely make the character of the person who controls it more obvious. Are they generous, kind-hearted, disciplined, and wise? Money will magnify those qualities and make them more readily visible to others. Is a man mean-spirited, shallow, miserly, and foolish? Give that man a large sum of money and you will find out.
Money is a tool of exchange. Money represents the principle that men must deal with one another by trading value for value, not by looting or mooching.
Where does such a principle come from? Consider a microchip or flat screen television and try telling yourself that they were made by unthinking cavemen. Try to grow food without the knowledge left to you by others who discovered it. Man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced and all the wealth that has ever existed on earth. Man’s mind is the root of money.
In Atlas Shrugged, the character Francisco d’Anconia gives his famous “Money Speech.” He asks,
“But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made—before it can be looted or mooched—made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced . . . .
“To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money—and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man’s mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being—the self-made man—the American industrialist.
[251]
WEALTH AND PROSPERITY
Webster’s New World College Dictionary defines wealth as “much money or property; great amount of worldly possessions; riches; the state of having much money or property; valuable products; everything having economic value measurable in price; any useful material thing capable of being bought, sold, or stocked for future disposition.”
[252]
Is anyone surprised at that definition? What usually comes to mind at the word wealth? Money.
This is strange, however, considering the etymology of the word. In Middle English, it was welthe, meaning “happiness,” or wele, meaning “a sound, healthy, or prosperous state; well-being.”