Written by Christophe Cieters.

Curiously, there are no Western socialists marching in the streets to give their own property away to starvation-stricken Africans that happen to live outside the arbitrary borders of State X, Y or Z. This would merely be absurd: there obviously is nothing which keeps them from doing so. So why don’t they? Is it not safe to say that the wealth disparity between a starving African child and a Western socialist is generally greater than between that same socialist and the people he himself generally seeks “equality” with?

Similarly, few socialists in Western countries are interested in allowing sub-Saharan or Eastern peoples to join the voting process on a global level. Imagine what would happen if they did, and imagine how the average Western socialist would react to such a third world inhabitant laying claim on his property in the same way as he himself lays claim on the property of others!

Socialists are both nationalistic in their aims – “only those within the arbitrary national borders get to vote” – and coercive in their means. As the architect of such collectivist marvels as “The Great leap Forward” and the “Cultural Revolution”, Mao Zedong, wrote: “every Communist must grasp the truth: political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” (Zedong, 1964).[1] How right he was.

It is no wonder then that “observer after observer, in spite of the contrary expectation with which he approached his subject, has been impressed with the extraordinary similarity in many respects of the conditions under ‘fascism’ and ‘communism’. Even communists must have been somewhat shaken by such testimonies as that of Mr. Max Eastman, Lenin’s old friend, who found himself compelled to admit that ‘instead of being better, Stalinism is worse than fascism, more ruthless, barbarous, unjust, immoral, anti-democratic, unredeemed by any hope or scruple,’ and that it is ‘better described as superfascist’; and when we find the same author recognizing that ‘Stalinism is socialism, in the sense of being an inevitable although unforeseen political accompaniment of the nationalisation and collectivisation which he had relied upon as part of his plan for erecting a classless society’ (Eastman, 1940), his conclusion clearly achieves wider significance” (Hayek, 1944). When the pieces of the puzzle start to fall together, it is not hard to see that “Marxism has led to Fascism and National-Socialism, because, in all its essentials, it is Fascism and National Socialism” (Voigt, 1939, emphasis added).

As Hayek observed in his classic Road to Serfdom (Hayek, 1944), “in Germany and Italy the Nazis and Fascists did indeed not have much to invent. […] It was not the fascists but the socialists who began to collect children from the tenderest age into political organizations to make sure that they grew up as good proletarians. […] The means which the old socialist parties had successfully employed to secure the support of one occupation group – the raising of their relative economic position – cannot be used to secure the support of all. There are bound to arise rival socialist movements that appeal to the support of those whose relative position is worsened. There is a great deal of truth in the often heard statement that Fascism and National Socialism are a sort of middle-class socialism – only that in Italy and Germany the supporters of these new movements were economically hardly a middle class any longer. It was to a large extent a revolt of a new under-privileged class against labour aristocracy which the industrial labour movement had created. […] The conflict between the fascist or National-Socialist and the older socialist parties must indeed be very largely regarded as the kind of conflict which is bound to arise between rival socialist factions. There was no difference between them about the question of it being the will of the State which should assign to each person his proper place in society. But there were, as there always will be, most profound differences about what are the proper places of the different classes and groups. […] Fascism and National-Socialism, on the other hand, grew out of the experience of increasingly regulated society awaking to the fact that democratic and international socialism was aiming at incompatible ideals. Their tactics were developed in a world already dominated by socialist policy and the problems it creates. They had no illusions about the possibility of a democratic solution of problems which require more agreement among people than can be reasonably expected. They had no illusions about the capacity of reason to decide all the questions of the relative importance of wants of different men or groups which planning inevitably raises, or about the formula of equality providing an answer.[2] They knew that the strongest group which rallied enough supporters in favour of a new hierarchical order of society, and which frankly promised privileges to the classes to which it appealed, was likely to obtain the support of all those who were disappointed because they had been promised equality but found that they had merely furthered the interest of a particular class. Above all they were successful because they offered a theory, or ‘Weltanschauung’, which seemed to justify the privileges they promised to their supporters” (Hayek, 1944, emphasis added).[3]

In other words, the romanticized struggle between International Socialism (Communism) and National Socialism was as bitter as it was not because of their differences but because of their similarities.

For all intents and purposes they were and are ideological copies of each other and only materially differ in the classes to which they appeal for support (the “lower” or the “middle” “classes”) with the promise of feasting on the spoils gained from looting and literally murdering the opposition (be it Jews, the “bourgeoisie”, the Poles and Czechs, the so-called and vaguely defined “traitors” of all sorts, or whoever).

Adolf Hitler was extremely popular in his time, before and after he claimed total power. It is true that he did not have 100% of the votes: the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP) achieved 43.9% of the votes during the last elections in pre-war Germany on the 5th of March 1933. By comparison, the second largest party – the Social Democratic Party – received 18.3% of the votes. But this, as we all know, does not necessarily matter in a democracy: one does not need the full consent of the population to be the winner of a democratic election and consequently direct the policy and lives of all individuals within the arbitrary bounds of the nation. Hitler’s Ermächtigungsgesetz was granted on the 25th of March 1933 through the support of the constitutionally required two thirds majority in the democratically elected Reichstag.

Democracy is what brought Hitler to legal power, let there be no mistake about it.

Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, upon the democratic passing of the bill in the German Reichstag, declared: “the authority of the Führer has now been wholly established. Votes are no longer taken. The Führer decides. All this is going much faster than we had dared to hope” (TRN, 2008).[4]


[1] Research has shown that “Mao Zedong, founder of the People’s Republic of China, qualifies as the greatest mass murderer in world history. [… In the four years] from 1958 to 1962, when the nation was facing a famine, […] the systematic torture, brutality, starvation and killing of Chinese peasants [could be compared to] the Second World War in its magnitude. At least 45 million people were worked, starved or beaten to death in China over these four years; the worldwide death toll of the Second World War was 55 million” (Akbar, 2010).

[2] In his famous novel “Welcome to the Monkey House”, Vonnegut described socialist equality as follows: “The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General. The ‘handicapping’ worked partly as follows: Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she could not think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty minutes or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains” (Vonnegut, 1970).

[3] Also see the previous Chapters.

[4] Do note that I do not dispute that the reasons behind Hitler’s democratic election can be traced back to the Treaty of Versailles – in itself a mongrel of collectivism – and even earlier times and multitudes of other interacting vectors and parameters. In a universe ruled by causation, it could hardly be any other way. The point made here however only relates to the fact that he gained power and established his authoritarian regime in a democratically legitimate way and with the backing of a two thirds majority in the democratic German Reichstag.


Christophe is a guns and gold loving anarchist from the geographical area known as Belgium. He spends his days slaying dragons and rescuing damsels in distress, invigorated by bathing in statist tears on a daily basis. He was put on this world to kick socialist ass and chew bubblegum – and he is all out of bubblegum.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider purchasing his book The Road to Anarchy and leave a review.