In a previous post, I discussed my thesis that the “social” in any kind of “socialism” involved pushing the costs for bad things onto society as a whole. This always entails other consequences, such as a degree of growth in the apparatus of state, and the state “directing” things more closely, whether it be taxpayer-funded contracts for approved corporates (hello, Capita!) or increasing micro-management of people’s lives (the so-called nanny state).

Now, there are arguments for socializing costs (apparently we can make more “civilized” decisions) and there are arguments against socializing costs (they hide the costs of decisions, eventually you run out of other people’s money). But if you assume that that the arguments for socializing costs (with their consequent knock-on nannying and corporatism) then why is the idea of “national socialism” inherently much more repellent than “international socialism”?

National socialism certainly has some tainted associations! It was the policy of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party in the 1930′s, which didn’t end well. It is also currently the policy of the British National Party, which certainly does appear to attract a particular type of political anorak, shall we say.

But then international socialism was the policy of cuddly teddy bears like Uncle Joe Stalin, who is thought to have killed more than ten million of his own people to hang on to the reins of power. Many millions more around the world have died because of international socialism, yet of the two policies, International Socialism continues to enjoy good press.

Indeed, decades after the Soviet Union collapsed, we have the European Union introducing uniform socialist policies across numerous European countries. If there is anything since the Soviet Union that even comes close to the International Socialism of the EU, I’d really like to know what it is.

So given that the main economic point of national socialism is to amortize costs across a nation, why is it so vilified compared to trying to amortize costs across multiple nations?

ManNotNumber
July 18, 2011 at 20:52

The only thing that I am sure about is that they are all twats.

Robert Edwards
July 18, 2011 at 14:36

No-one who has read the documents regarding Nazi-Soviet relations (as I
have) need be in any doubt that each side was constantly attempting to con the
other regarding spheres of influence; the USSR wanted European domination even
more than the Nazis did. Whereas the USSR had an active network in the USA the
Nazis seemed content (for that time) to stick with the Eurasian landmass. So
really just a matter of scale…

Rob July 18, 2011 at 09:54

Some great insight from TJW.

There is another aspect to the NS Vs IS debate and it is htat they are
ultimately the same.

Everything we hear in the MSM about how evil NS was is correct. People were
identified as wrong thinkers, wrong bloods or just an inconvenience that had
to be removed to ensure the philosophy was not diminished.

While the motivation for IS is that we all live as one accross the world
and the intention is to remove borders and nationality as a hurdle to world
peace/shared earth, what happens to those who are not considered (or do not
consider themselves) to be part of the world envisioned by the ISists?

The reality of the IS system is that it will create outsiders/non
conformists just as the NS regimes did.

International Socialism is really just a bigger version of National
Socialism.

Rob July 18, 2011 at 09:56

I would also add that the proponents of National Socialism were actually
pretty International in their ultimate aims and objectives.

The long term aim of both systems was to take control of a total
international government of the world.

They are the same thing.

Rayboy July 18, 2011 at 06:20

Indeed. Just watch The Soviet Story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soviet_Story

Robert Edwards
July 17, 2011 at 18:14

I’ve always thought that one of the reasons why the war on the Eastern
Front was so mind-numbingly savage is that it had about it certain qualities
of a civil war between two such similar ideologies. Obviously there were
certain ‘biological’ characteristics about it as well, but if you compare the
conflict between Germany and the other Allies there is very little comparison
in terms of policy.

But in terms of similarities there are many between Nazism and Communism
and I’ve never regarded the relationship between them as a spectrum, more of a
circle. Certainly, no-one got fat on the differences.

John B July 17, 2011 at 17:13

The scores?

International socialism: 150 million and rising ?
National Socialism: 15
million?

AnnaNonAMoose
July 17, 2011 at 17:08

This is an interesting post and a subject I’ve had wonder about over the
years too.

There is supposedly a quote from the early 20th century from the
international socialists, who after realizing Germany was too late and had
fallen to the national socialists, had a slogan something like “First Brown,
Then Red”.

I often wondered about that quote. Were they implying that they hadn’t the
strength, military or otherwise, at that point in time to undo the tide that
already took over Germany and other nations with their brands of national
socialism – but they were not going to roll over and be defeated that easily.
Were they content to simply wait out their place in history to rise up later
and then go for the jugular of internationalizing the entire world under
socialism, communist style. And if so, then what has risen up today, this new
strain of international socialism, must be so tenacious a belief system, a
religion, that it is able to hold sway from one generation to the next – as it
will take multiple generations for them to eventually get what they want,
which is the one world uniformity under a single socialist government
control.

Maybe they were smart enough to know the national socialism of the
1930s/40s , if they couldn’t defeat it militarily or politically at first,
then eventually they could still use it as a whipping boy later on, for
purposes of name-calling their opposition.

“First Brown, Then Red”. I think that was a quote of theirs from back in
those days.

Gareth Connors
July 17, 2011 at 18:44

Interesting political chromotography.
This makes Australia under
Labour and The Greens;

RED, BROWN, GREEN AND PINK.

John B July 17, 2011 at 17:07

National Socialism isn’t big enough for those who relish power? Small
beer.
A diversion from total control and the absolute submergence of the
individual will?
An inadequate attempt to replace eternity?

Robert Edwards
July 17, 2011 at 16:21

The Stalin ‘numbers’ can be misleading; I suspect them to be far too low.
If you add in the number of people killed directly as a result of his military
and political incompetence then I think we are looking at twice that. Further,
if you add in the number who died as a result of deliberate terror famines,
(but not recorded) it goes up again. And so forth…

According to normal birth rate expectations, a Census revealed, before the
war, that the population of the USSR was adrift by fifteen million. Stalin’s
solution was to arrest the census takers. “No man; no problem.”

Michael
Fowke July 17, 2011 at 14:13

“International Socialism continues to enjoy good press.”

Well, just look at the journalists.

Zaphod July 17, 2011 at 13:36

Interesting posts. Food for thought. Thanks.

A trivial quibble-
The word “own”, as in “killed more than ten million
of his own people”, appears redundant. Or is it emotive?

A similar unconcious trick is “Choked on their OWN vomit”.

Just one of those things that bug me. Is it only me?

AndrewWS July 18, 2011 at 06:26

Mmm, yes, it does rather imply that the rulers own the ruled – which is
the whole point.

Little Black
Sambo July 18, 2011 at 14:15

“Is it only me?”
Probably.

Matt Wardman
July 17, 2011 at 13:21

(mod note – doing a little playing with Twitter buttons etc to make them
tidier, so a little buggering-about may be noticeable)

Tom
Paine July 17, 2011 at 13:18

Yes and involves similar techniques

Fabian the
Fabulous July 17, 2011 at 13:15

Love that word “socialise” – it sounds training your puppy not rub himself
on the guests’ shins.

right_writes
July 17, 2011 at 12:38

@Daz Pearce…

If “International Socialism is for angry young people – National
Socialism is for pissed off old folk – ergo one will always be more ‘trendy’
than the other.”

Whither “Greenery”…

My view, the “resting home” for the meritocratic internationalist “Guardian
reading” left…

Possibly the most dangerous form of leftism, as it seeks to be not just
internationalist but world encompassing.

And there is nothing f**king cuddly about any of them!

Daz
Pearce July 17, 2011 at 12:14

Interesting question – I guess one answer would be that whatever may have
been done in its name, International Socialism has managed to re-invent itself
in ways that are compatible with a liberal democracy. This has enabled
socialist and internationalist parties to adopt a softer and more cuddly image
within the democratic framework – the Green Party are a good example of this,
seen by many as cute and cuddly despite having some dangerous and wacky
policies when you put them under any kind of scrutiny.

The racial aspect of national socialist politics means that those who
peddle it will always suffer from an ‘image problem’ they are never quite able
to shake off. When they try, like Griffin did with the BNP, it is ultimately a
counter productive move in political terms as the hardcore racists in their
support lose faith while a lot of people in the mainstream never believe them
anyway.

International Socialism is for angry young people – National Socialism is
for pissed off old folk – ergo one will always be more ‘trendy’ than the
other.

Of course both suck in reality…