Re: Responding to CRB Cont’d


From a reader, more thoughts tomorrow:

Dear Jonah,   Interesting response to RJ.   I wonder, however, whether both of you could push your points a bit more.  I have not seen anyone put it quite so bluntly, but I suspect it might be worth reducing it to the terms of basic logic: all fascists are socialists, but not all socialists are fascists.  (On the other hand, both ideologies tend to tyranny.)   It seems to me that the goal of regular socialism is the universal, homogeneous society, coupled with the withering away of the state.  A world with no nations, races, religions, etc.   For the National Socialists, however, the goal was to create a world where the master race ran things.  The superior race and nation ruled over the others.  I suspect that’s what RJ had in mind by pointing to Nietzsche.   Judged by the end they sought, which often has a powerful effect on politics, there was a great difference.   I don’t know how that would apply to Italian fascism.    The American Progressives were universalists.  As we see today, their children don’t like the idea that the only reasonable way to understand the US as a political thing is as a federal union under the constitution.  On the other hand, they did wish to use science to improve the human gene code.   It might be, however, that, in practice, socialists of all parties tend to support similar things.


Subscribe to National Review