En briljant tenker

av Unknownrebel Lagret under: filosofi on august 1st, 2009

Hvis du vil titte litt mer inn i hodet på Thomas Sowell, kan du lese de mange glimrende artiklene som finnes hos Capitalism Magazine;


Tips oss hvis dette innlegget er upassende

Stikkord:, , ,

Månelandingen og Ayn Rand

av Unknownrebel Lagret under: filosofi on juli 21st, 2009

“Apollo 11 enacted the story of an audacious purpose, its execution, its triumph, and the means that achieved it – the story and the demonstration of man’s highest potential… an achievement of man in his capacity as a rational being – an achievement of reason, of logic, of mathematics, of total dedication to the absolutism of reality… The mission was a moral code enacted in space.

The flight of Apollo 11 will be the first achievement of a great new age; if not, it will be a glorious last — not forever, but for a long, long time to come.”

-Ayn Rand, “Apollo 11″, The Objectivist, 1969

Tips oss hvis dette innlegget er upassende

Stikkord:, ,

Kapitalisme og penger

av Unknownrebel Lagret under: filosofi on juni 10th, 2009

Av og til finner man gull på youtube. Slik som dette.

Tips oss hvis dette innlegget er upassende

Stikkord:, , ,

Davy Crockett

av Unknownrebel Lagret under: filosofi on mai 20th, 2009

Her følger en historie om den amerikanske kongressmannen David Crockett. Det er et langt stykke, men du vil være rikere etter å ha lest den.

Not Yours to Give

One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

“Mr. Speaker–I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

“Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called
candidates, and—‘

“Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again.”

“This was a sockdolager…I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

” ’Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.
…But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

” ‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“ ‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

” ‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

” ‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. ‘No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.’ “The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.’

” ‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

” ‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’

“He laughingly replied; ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

” ‘If I don’t’, said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

” ‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

” ‘Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.’

” ‘My name is Bunce.’

” ‘Not Horatio Bunce?’

” ‘Yes.’

” ‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’

“It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity,  and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him – no, that is not the word – I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

“But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted – at least, they all knew me.

“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

” ‘Fellow-citizens – I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’”

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

” ‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

” ‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the
credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

“He came upon the stand and said:

” ‘Fellow-citizens – It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

“He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.’

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.’

“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday.

“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased–a debt which could not be paid by money–and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000,  when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

Tips oss hvis dette innlegget er upassende

Stikkord:, , ,

Svart arbeid er rett

av Unknownrebel Lagret under: filosofi on mai 1st, 2009

Det er ingen overflod av libertarianere i Norge, men det finnes noen. En av disse er Bent Johan Mosfjell som står bak siden svartarbeid.no, hvor man blant annet kan lese følgende;

Svartarbeid.no er en internettside som drives av Libertariansk Forum. På siden skal man finne info for selvforsvar mot statlig, organisert kriminalitet. Vi vil fokusere på tiltak for å slippe unna skatt. Vi håper å kunne gi mennesker både ideologisk argumentasjon mot skatt og praktiske tips for å gjemme seg og sitt fra de kriminelle landeveisrøverne.

Slikt har jeg endeløs sympati for. Ditt liv er din eiendom, og da er også fruktene av ditt arbeid din rettmessige eiendom. Stå på Bent!

Besøk siden, og om du er en sympatisør kan du klippe og lime adressen så flere får sett innholdet. Plant et frø idag.


Tips oss hvis dette innlegget er upassende

Stikkord:, ,

Barry Goldwater

av Unknownrebel Lagret under: filosofi on april 20th, 2009

Tips oss hvis dette innlegget er upassende

Stikkord:, ,


av Unknownrebel Lagret under: filosofi on april 15th, 2009

I denne artikkelen på venstresida.net som omhandler hvordan nasjonalsosialisten Hitler åpenbart hører hjemme på høyresiden, bruker forfatteren dette utrykket jeg har hørt så mange ganger før, nemlig “ultraliberalisme”. Når jeg spurte forfatteren hva han la i dette, fikk jeg følgende svar;

“Unknownrebel: F.eks. slike som går inn for laizzes-faire-lignende systemer, ekstremvarianten av disse igjen er sekten som utviklet seg rundt Ayn Rand.”

Hvilket altså gjør meg til en ultraliberalist. Spennende greier!
Hva angår selve artikkelen er den et prakteksempel på selektiv historietolkning og ønsketenkning. Men nasjonalsosialismen har jeg skrevet om før, og det har andre også.

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html (Anbefales på det sterkeste!)

Og om du vil sette deg ytterlige inn i temaet vil jeg komme med følgende bokanbefalinger; The Ominous Parallels av Leonard Peikoff og Liberal Fascism av Jonah Goldberg. Disse er verdt pengene.

Men tilbake til ultraliberalismen. Å sette “ultra” foran et ord er en måte å gjøre betydningen av det ordet til noe ekstremt, et ytterpunkt. En slik beskrivelse er en tankestopper, og det er den funksjonen artikkelforfatteren drar nytte av. Det er ikke en uvanlig hersketeknikk på venstresiden, Kamerat Sakariassen i Stavanger SU forsøkte for en tid tilbake å stemple de av oss som er tilhengere av fred og frivillighet (markedet) som psykisk ustabile fundamentalister. Jaja, det er ikke fritt for vås.

Liberalismen har sitt utpring i opplysningstiden. Utav det intellektuelle mørket kom ideer om frihet, og individets rettigheter. Liberalisme er fred og frivillighet satt i system. Motsetningen er diverse systemer som bygger på tvang og vold, som for eksempel kommunisme og fascisme.
Laissez-faire er som forfatteren helt riktig observerer kompatibel med liberalisme. Laissez-faire kapitalisme anerkjenner individuelle rettigheter, slik som retten til eget liv, og da naturligvis eiendomsretten. Vold og tvang er kun legitimt i selvforsvar, og statens virke er derfor begrenset til beskyttelse av individet mot overgrep.

Jeg synes bruken av begrepet “ultraliberalisme” er et særdeles godt eksempel på hvor syk og pervertert deler av venstresiden er. Å hevde at fred er riktig, at vold kun er legitimt i selvforsvar, og at individet har en ukrenkelig rett på eget liv er altså ekstremt.
Venstresida.net er selverklærte marxister. Dem om det, men hvor vridd i hodet må man være for å betrakte den ukrenkelige retten til eget liv som et ekstremt ytterpunkt som man ikke kan ta seriøst, mens man samtidig forfekter en ideologi som har tatt livet av rundt 100 millioner+ mennesker?

Tips oss hvis dette innlegget er upassende

Stikkord:, , ,

Earth Hour og Nord Korea

av Unknownrebel Lagret under: filosofi on mars 28th, 2009

Jeg har såvidt nevnt Earth Hour før, men det er verdt å gjenta. Hva denne dødskulten som er miljøbevegelsen vil, er at du bidrar til å gjøre verden mer som Nord Korea i en time i kveld. Skal man støtte det?

Denne fanatiske kampen for å “redde” miljøet, er intet annet enn en kamp mot menneskeheten og alt hva mennesker klarer å gjøre.
Vi har klatret ned fra trærne, og dette bør feires, ikke bekjempes.
Klimafanatikernes kamp for miljøet er irrasjonell og ond. Å ønske en verden der det ikke finnes spor etter mennesker, er å ønske en verden der det ikke er mennesker.

La de lysene du trenger være på.

Tips oss hvis dette innlegget er upassende

Stikkord:, ,

Ytringsfrihet er hellig

av Unknownrebel Lagret under: filosofi on mars 18th, 2009

Pat Condell er like fantastisk her som han bruker å være.

Tips oss hvis dette innlegget er upassende


Fascisme og sosialisme, to sider av samme sak

av Unknownrebel Lagret under: filosofi on mars 2nd, 2009

“All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”(1)

- Benito Mussolini

Benito Mussolini var i sin ungdom en varm tilhenger av marxismen og var svært aktiv i sosialistkretser i italia. I 1900 meldte han seg inn i Partito Socialista Italiano (PSI). I 1910 ble han partisekretær i byen Forli, hvor han overtok ansvaret for tidsskriftet “L’idea socialista” som han døpte om til “La Lotta Di Classe”, eller “Klassekampen”. I 1911 brøt det ut krig mellom Italia og Tyrkia, en konflikt som PSI og Mussolini tok sterk avstand fra. I forbindelse med en antikrigsdemonstrasjon støtte Mussolini sammen med politiet og ble dømt til et års fengsel. Denne dommen ble senere halvert, men hans rykte som som revolusjonær sosialist hadde likevel blitt kraftig styrket.
Noe Olindo Vernocchi påpekte ved hans løslatelse når han sa;

“Fra i dag av er du, Benito, ikke bare representanten for Romagnas sosialister, men il duce for alle revolusjonære sosialister i Italia.”(2)

Han ble i 1912 eksludert fra PSI, og organiserte den gruppen som senere skulle bli fascistpartiet. Fascistene representerte noe som var ulikt alt annet i det politiske landskapet på den tiden, og ble beskrevet som “den tredje vei.”(3)
Et av fascistenes mest markante brudd med det marxistiske tankegods, var deres motstand mot klassekamp. De næret istedet nasjonalistiske ideer slik som sterk nasjonal enhet, gjennom samarbeid mellom de forskjellige sosiale klasser. Og det var nettopp denne ferden fra venstre (internasjonalismen) til høyre (nasjonalismen) som var grunnen til fiendeforholdet mellom fascistene og kommunistene. Mussolini var en bror i ånden, en kamerat som hadde sviktet den kommunistiske sak.
Her er noen punkt fra Det Fascistiske Manifest,(4) publisert i “Il Popolo d’Italia” i 1919;

- Universell stemmerett.
- 8 timers arbeidsdag.
- Minstelønn.
- Omorganisering av jernbanen og transportsektoren.
- Senke pensjonsalderen fra 65 til 55 år.
- Progressiv kapitalskatt.

Så til det nasjonalsosialistiske tyske arbeiderparti (NSDAP).  Den kollektivistiske totalitære ånd gjennomsyret alt hva nazistene gjorde og skrev. Det er især et punkt i deres 25 punktsprogram som er verdt å merke seg.

“We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The good of the state before the good of the individual.”(5)

- Fra nazistene 25 punktsprogram

Her er noen flere punkt fra samme program:

- Staten er forpliktet til å sørge for borgernes sysselsetting og levebrød.
- Aktiviteten til den enkelte må ikke bryte med samfunnets interesser, men foregå innenfor samfunnets grenser, og til det felles beste.
- Industriens profitt må deles.
- En bred utvidelse av eldreomsorgen.
- Utdanning på statens bekostning.
- En styrking av folkehelsen

Den tyske nazismen kan beskrives som fascisme pluss rasisme. Den var lik den italienske fascismen, men dets unike trekk var den insitusjonaliserte antsemittismen. Nå var ikke antisemittisme på den tiden forbeholdt kun nazistene, men den nådde som kjent tragiske høyder. Karl Marx, som selv var jødisk, hadde også sterke antisemittiske holdninger. Noe som kom til utrykk i hans skriverier.

“What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time…. We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development — to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed — has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry.”(6)

- Karl Marx

Flere historikere har ment at Marx så på jødene som personifiseringen av kapitalismen, og som arkitektene bak dens ondskap.(7)  Marx hadde en enorm innflytelse på den sosialistiske bevegelsen, og antisemittisme ble et et fast innslag hos mange sosialisters tankesett. August Bebel, en av grunnleggerne av det tyske sosialdemokratiske arbeiderparti, mente at antisemittisme var “tåpers sosialisme”. Nå var som sagt antisemittisme å finne hos mange tenkere på den tiden, men de mest ivrige antisemittene fant man på venstresiden.

“We are not fighting Jewish or Christian capitalism, we are fighting every capitalism: we are making the people completely free.”(8)

- Adolf Hitler, i en tale 12 april 1921

Nazistene og kommunistene kjempet riktignok om de samme stemmene i Weimar-Tyskland, men deres uenigheter ble lagt til siden når de sto overfor sin felles fiende, kapitalismen. Under valget i 1933 ble medlemmene av kommunistpartiet beordret av sine ledere å stemme på nasjonalsosialistene, med den begrunnelse at de senere kunne kjempe om makten med nazistene, men at de først måtte de bekjempe kapitalismen.(9)
De to “dødsfiender” kunne også observeres skulder til skulder i Berlins gater i november 1932 da de samlet inn penger for å støtte streikende transportarbeidere. Deres samarbeid gjorde at noen tyskere beskrev nazisten som en biff. Brun på utsiden og rød på innsiden.(10)

Det har blitt påpekt at fascismen tillot privat eierskap av produksjonsmidlene, mens sosialisme hevder kollektivt eierskap over de samme midlene. Også her er forskjellen kun tilsynelatende, nøkkelordet er “eierskap”. For der fascistene tillot private å holde det juridiske eierskapet, var det staten som hadde kontrollen. Selv om forretningsmenn i Tyskland under krigen hadde en viss grad av økonomisk frihet, hadde de ingen politisk frihet. Og politisk og økonomisk frihet er uløselig knyttet til hverandre. Har man ikke det ene, er det andre meningsløst. Ludwig von Mises skrev i 1944;

“The Nazis did not, as their foreign admirers contend, enforce price control within a market economy. With them price control was only one device within the frame of an all-around system of central planning. In the Nazi economy there was no question of private initiative and free enterprise. All production activities were directed by the Reichswirtschaftsministerium. No enterprise was free to deviate in the conduct of its operations from the orders issued by the government. Price control was only a device in the complex of innumerable decrees and orders regulating the minutest details of every business activity and precisely fixing every individual’s tasks on the one hand and his income and standard of living on the other.

What made it difficult for many people to grasp the very nature of the Nazi economic system was the fact that the Nazis did not expropriate the entrepreneurs and capitalists openly and that they did not adopt the principle of income equality which the Bolshevists espoused in the first years of Soviet rule and discarded only later. Yet the Nazis removed the bourgeois completely from control. Those entrepreneurs who were neither Jewish nor suspect of liberal and pacifist leanings retained their positions in the economic structure. But they were virtually merely salaried civil servants bound to comply unconditionally with the orders of their superiors, the bureaucrats of the Reich and the Nazi party.”(11)

Sosialistene og nazistene delte ikke bare motforestillinger mot kapitalisme, de var også forent i tanken om å kvitte seg med uønskede mennesker og å dyrke sunne mennesker. Men sosialister kjemper jo for de svake? Faktum er at det var sosialister som snakket varmest om eugenikk på den tiden. Spesielt da medlemmer av det fabianske selskap. Det fabianske selskap var en gruppe intellektuelle sosialister som hadde til hensikt å fremme sosialdemokratiske prinsipper ved hjelp av reform og ikke revolusjon. Det er især to fabianske sosialister verdt å nevne; George Bernard Shaw og H.G. Wells.(12)

“The notion that persons should be safe from extermination as long as they do not commit willful murder, or levy war against the Crown, or kidnap, or throw vitriol, is not only to limit social responsibility unnecessarily, and to privilege the large range of intolerable misconduct that lies outside them, but to divert attention from the essential justification for extermination, which is always incorrigible social incompatibility and nothing else.”(13)

- George Bernard Shaw

“The way of Nature has always been to slay the hindmost, and there is still no other way, unless we can prevent those who would become the hindmost being born.”(14)

- H.G. Wells

Litterære verk som Shaws “Man and Superman”, og Wells “A Modern Utopia” gjorde nok mer for å popularisere ideen om selektiv avl enn noe annet.

Grunnen for dette innlegget er denne forestillingen om at sosialismen ikke deler noe ideologisk historie med den fascistiske bevegelsen i Europa på 30tallet . Påpeker du at sosialisme/kommunisme og nazisme/fascisme er ideologisk beslektet kan du beste fall risikere å bli kalt historieløs. Fascistene var jo høyreekstreme, alle vet jo dette?  At denne misforståelsen om hva som befinner seg på ytterste høyrefløy og ytterste venstrefløy får stå i fred kan best beskrives som en intellektuell krise. Det er viktig å få klarhet i dette av to grunner; å identifisere disse ideologiene for hva de faktisk var, og for å kunne ha en ærlig politisk debatt.

Det filosofiske grunnlaget for nazisme, fascisme, kommunisme og sosialisme er det samme, nemlig altruisme. Altruisme er ideen om at det er moralsk høyverdig å ofre seg selv for noen andre, å legge seg selv på felleskapets alter. Eneste disse retningene er uenig om er hvilket felleskap eller gruppe som det skal ofres til. Fascistene mente det var nasjonen som sto høyest, nazistene mente det var den ariske rasen og kommunistene mente det var arbeiderklassen. Den logiske konsekvensen av altruisme er kollektivisme. Individet er underordnet en eller annen gruppe; staten, samfunnet, rasen, klassen, nasjonen eller hvilken større enhet det nå måtte være.

Om vi isolerer for eksempel Hitlers nazisme og Lenins kommunisme, og stirrer oss blinde på disse to fenomenene, kan det hende at alt vi ser er forskjeller.
Når man analyserer disse to tilsynelatende ytterpunktene er ikke den tradisjonelle høyre/venstre aksen tilstrekkelig. Om du istedet ser for deg en annen akse, hvor det ene ytterpunktet er null stat og det andre ytterpunktet er total stat, blir alt mye klarere. Denne aksen er heller ikke fullstendig nøyaktig, men den er meget mye bedre. Om du nå tar ytterpunktene fra den gamle høyre/venstre aksen og plasserer de på den nye aksen vil du se at “ytterpunktene” slett ikke er motsetninger, men nærmest er prikk like. Når man introduserer det tredje elementet, frihet, forsvinner forskjellene mellom fascisme og sosialisme som dugg for solen.

Jeg kunne skrevet mye mer, men jeg håper dette vil være nok til at du som leser sitter igjen med en skurrende følelse som vil gjøre at du setter deg inn i temaet selv.

Et siste sitat;

“The unphilosophical majority among men are the ones most helplessly dependent on their era’s dominant ideas.”
- Leonard Peikoff

(1)^Marx Fritz Morstein, Propaganda and Dictatorship (2007) s. 48
(2)^Ivone Kirkpatrick: Mussolini. A study in Power, New York, 1964, s. 49
(3)^Macdonald, Hamish. Mussolini and Italian Fascism. ISBN 0748733868.
(6)^Karl Marx, Zur judenfrage,1843
(7)^Flannery, Edward H. The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism (2004) s. 168. ISBN 0809127024.
(9)^Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, s. 180
(10)^Dr. Leonard Peikoff, The Omnious Parallels. ISBN 9780451627407
(13)^George Bernard Shaw,On the Rocks. 1933.
(14)^H.G. Wells, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 10 (1904), s. 11

Tips oss hvis dette innlegget er upassende

Stikkord:, ,

Tips oss hvis denne bloggen er upassende

Denne bloggen blir ikke forhåndsredigert av VG Nett. Bloggens eier står ansvarlig for alt innhold.
Ingenting varer evig og nå er vi dessverre ved veis ende. VGB er lagt ned og vil ikke komme tilbake.
VG Blogg var en tjeneste levert av VG Multimedia AS. Henvendelser rettes til: Magne Antonsen
Ansvarlig redaktør/Administrerende direktør: Torry Pedersen
Redaktør digitalt Espen Egil Hansen. Redaktør avis: Helje Solberg. Politisk redaktør Hanne Skartveit
Digital direktør: Jo Christian Oterhals. Sentralbord VG: 22 00 00 00