A Violent Circle: Where Socialism Meets Nationalism and the Two Become One

By Janice Barlow 


It’s well established that Hitler’s Germany was a socialist Germany.

For those who did not study that era, the term socialism means to: surrender ownership and control of private capitalism (such as factories and industry, enterprise and commercial ventures), and land, as well as some personal privacy and wealth, in order to benefit the common good.

This is mostly done through taxation and redistribution of wealth. The difference between socialism and communism is that communism reverts control of ALL ownership of all properties to the State. The citizens have no rights, including no right to religious liberty. Communism is totalitarian, meaning that everything is controlled by one single political party and it is ongoing.

Socialism has a little more leeway. The people have some modicum of participation in their political process. Both ideologies focus on the redistribution of wealth, but communism takes away the actual property and assets from individuals and industry.

Next, let’s attempt to define “alt-right”.  It has resurfaced since 2008 along with white supremacy and extreme right-wing thinking. Alt-right is a fluid term, best defined here:

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, the term “alt-right” was coined by [Richard] Spencer in 2008 as part of a “shallow rebranding” of white nationalism. Short for “alternative,” the “alt” refers to the movement’s rejection of both the mainstream media and the Republican establishment.

The definition of white nationalism varies, but the term essentially refers to an ideology that promotes a national identity based on race, often rooted in the perceived superiority of white people over those of other races. The NPI describes itself on its website as “dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of people of European descent in the United States, and around the world.”

“They don’t want to be identified as white nationalists anymore,” the SPLC’s Heidi Beirich told Yahoo News back in August. “People associate that with white supremacy, which is what it is, so instead they changed it to ‘alt-right.’” 

One more definition is needed here. What is a concise definition of fascism?

Fascism is authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. 

Now that the terms are all on the table, let’s set communism aside, because it is not really at issue here. The question becomes, how does alt-right vary from socialism? Were they not both tenets of Hitler’s Germany?

Hitler was both a Socialist and a White Supremacist. I suppose, by definition, this made him a Nationalist as well. He was a racist, deeply prejudiced against the Jews, to the point of setting out to wipe them from the face of the earth. Hitler wanted racial cleansing -not only to rid the world of the Jewish people, but of all the weak and disabled as well, and those not of the white Aryan race. He is viewed as a mass-murdering tyrannical dictator – and a fascist. Fascism encompasses some of the socialistic mechanism of the distribution of wealth through taxation, and the authoritarian and nationalistic tools of alt-right philosophy.

What appears initially to be an oxymoron – how can a socialistic society be alt-right?- becomes quite possible when viewed through the lens of Hitler’s Germany.  If we change our worldview about what political ideology is for a moment, and see it as a circle instead of a line, the concept becomes much more attainable.

Imagine moderates to be at the bottom of the circle. Then, the liberals veer along the left of the circle, while the conservatives veer to the right. The extremists meet at the top where there is a scrambling of liberalism and conservatism that is quite dysfunctional, but is resurfacing in America. Think about what the term, “Neo-Nazi’s” means, and you are there.

I’m not saying the current administration is Hitler’s Germany. Let me make that clear before I get bashed and slammed for equating Trump to Hitler. That is not the point here. I used Hitler as an extreme example of an historical result of how the meeting of extreme left and right wing dogmas can mix.

What I am seeing is now is another example –  not a mass murdering situation, but one of alt-right intolerance mixed with the socialism embraced by Hillary Clinton. Yes, that is correct. The Trump supporters must accept that many of the tenets of his administration are also those that Hillary would have mandated.

Trump is advocating some kind of single payor or Universal Healthcare. He has stated he wants health care for everyone, and praised the systems in Canada and Scotland. He kept the unconstitutional DREAMer’s Act intact. He didn’t touch Obama’s LGBTQ Executive Order. Ivanka is pushing for extended maternity leave. A global “climate change” Executive Order has been signed by Trump. A trillion dollar infrastructure program is being set in motion, very much like Obama’s stimulus program. These are items which require the redistribution of wealth via taxation. Socialism.

By supporting Trump on these issues, you are supporting socialism. These items, in and of themselves, may not all be perceived to be terrible things by moderates, and certainly not by liberals, but they are not conservative mandates at all. They never have been and never should be.

One must also keep in mind that Trump has no trouble being referred to as a Nationalist and neither do many of his supporters. Many are tied to White Supremacism or other racist activities. The tragedy that just occurred in Charlottesville, VA this past weekend merely emphasizes this point. Many of the Unite The Right group who were protesting wore Trump hats and t-shirts. David Duke was there and invoked Trump’s name.

Did Trump want to avoid attacking his own base, much the same way Obama could not say the words, “Radical Islamic Terrorism”? Trump failed to condemn the violence of the alt-right until Monday afternoon, perhaps under pressure to do so in a very brief announcement read off a Teleprompter.

Unlike this late announcement, other members of Congress quickly stood up against the violence only hours after it occurred.

Senator Cory Gardner (R- Colorado) condemned the violence and demanded that the president call it by name and call out the white supremacists as domestic terrorists. Senator Ted Cruz issued a statement against the group and said that their behavior did not represent America.

Trump himself may or may not be racist. That is not really the contention at all. The  controversy is whether his supporters want to be tied to people who DO fall in that category. Because even though all Trump supporters are not Nationalists, all Nationalists are Trump supporters.

So a choice needs to be made.

Conservatives have a real dilemma. Either they are with Trump, or they are really conservatives. Either they are willing to be lumped in with BOTH socialists and nationalists, or they are conservatives. They cannot claim to be on both sides of the fence. I find this impasse not only to be a stumbling block for John Q. Conservative, but for the Republicans in Congress as well.

Where do they stand? Where do you stand? Are you an alt-right nationalist who embraces some liberal policies, or a non-Trump supporting conservative?  Non-Trump supporting conservatives, (and moderates and liberals) have no problem not toeing a Trump line. There is no conflict. Supporting Trump always has some conflict tied to it.

It doesn’t matter where you choose to stand, but taking a stand is necessary for both Congress members and conservative Americans. It is double minded to choose Trump and to be conservative on these issues. He’s not conservative, therefore, a Trump supporting conservative must also morph.

A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.” James 1:8

 

Janice Barlow is a true crime author who also recently published a fiction work about Daisy, her 14-year-old greyhound. https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B00SUAE9Z4

Please follow and like us:

Related posts