Baader-Meinhof was a far Left terrorist group, and one of the most violent, killing dozens and maiming more during the 1970s. Its “official” name was Rote Armee Fraktion (“Red Army Faction”). The logo shows a nice big socialist red star with a Heckler Koch submachine gun.
The group’s two most prominent members were Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof. Here is one of Meinhof’s explanations:
“Auschwitz meant that six million Jews were killed, and thrown on the waste-heap of Europe, for what they were: money Jews. Finance capital and the banks, the hard core of the system of imperialism and capitalism, had turned the hatred of men against money and exploitation, and against the Jews … Anti-Semitism is really a hatred of capitalism.” [Source.]
Which is of course right out of Karl Marx: “What is the profane basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly god? Money. Very well: then in emancipating itself from huckstering and money, and thus from real and practical Judaism, our age would emancipate itself.
“As soon as society succeeds in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism—huckstering and its conditions—the Jew becomes impossible … The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.” [Source: “On the Jewish Question” (1843), in The Marx-Engels Reader, pp. 48, 52.]
Which is what Hitler agreed with: “Today I will once more be a prophet. If the international Jewish financiers, inside and outside Europe, succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevisation of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!” [Source: Hitler, speaking in the Reichstag on January 30, 1939.]
As did Goebbels, in speaking of “the money pigs of capitalist democracy”: “Money has made slaves of us.” “Money is the curse of mankind. It smothers the seed of everything great and good. Every penny is sticky with sweat and blood.” [Sources: Goebbels, 1929, quoted in Orlow 1969, p. 87 and Goebbels 1929, quoted in Mosse ed., 1966, p. 107.]
[Bonus question: Who said this?
“The worker in a capitalist state—and that is his deepest misfortune—is no longer a living human being, a creator, a maker. He has become a machine. A number, a cog in the machine without sense or understanding. He is alienated from what he produces.”
Answer: Joseph Goebbels, in his 1932 “Those Damned Nazis” pamphlet.]
Related:
Heidegger, anti-humanism, and the Left.
The Nietzsche and the Nazis page.
[Go to the StephenHicks.org main page.]
Very interesting source information; thanks for posting this.
Sadly, there isn’t a very large gap between the sentiments (and even the language) expressed here and many of the op-eds and bloviating of several prominent politicians of the past two years.
Let’s hope we can turn the culture fast enough, far enough to avoid the same fate.
Regards,
Jeff
Thanks, Jeff.
There are definitely parallels, ominous ones, one might say.
Professor, I just finished watching your DVD (from Netflix) on Nietzsche and the Nazis. It was excellent. Better than most movies I rent. Your point that we should take the Nazi philosophy seriously rather than seeing it as some kind of madness is right on point. It always seemed to me that the world the Nazis were trying to create had a lot of “beauty” in it, especially when one looks at the things Speer was going to build. The grand architecture, the discipline, those lovely blonde german fraus; nazism gave life beauty, meaning, order and hope for a better tomorrow–and it did this in a world in which god was fading away and people were looking for something. Unfortunately, I do not know if our society is going to have the ability to combat the next ism that comes along as modern people see philosophy as essentially worthless. Sigh. Again, thanks for the video. As a philosophy major, it was good to be back in the classroom listening to something actually important.
Thanks, Tim. Philosophy can be a hard sell sometimes, especially when it means having to take your enemies’ positions seriously and in their strongest form. Glad to hear you enjoyed the program.
Hi Professor Hicks,
Just finished your lecture on Netflix and really enjoyed it. I am a student of medical anthropology and love when individuals are able to explain, within a larger social context, history.
However, I had a few questions for you.
First, do you really believe that socialism (not national socialism, but at the end when making your comparative list) needs to be countered with capitalism? I ask this in the reference that you made of the Nazi’s ability to manipulate democracy and democratic rule. As we all should be fully aware of capitalism’s own manipulation of democratic rule to meet it’s own ends, from the recent news of the BP Oil Spill and the Obama admin.’s involvement in looking the other way publicly in regards to clean – up efforts/safety regulation, Bush family/Halliburton/Iraq War, Bush/Obama/Afganis/Natural Gas reserves, ect. The list could be as long as the day.
I guess I would like to get your views on the social, political problems that arise with the welcomed marriage of capitalism and democracy and the subsequent abuses that both multinationals and the political usury carry out on a daily basis in the world. Isn’t the current state of affairs with certain governments of more concern (i.e. U.S., Britain, Israel, German, France, ect) then of any future national socialist goverment?
Thanks for making me think.
Timothy Miller
August Bebel, the leader of the Marxian lead German SDP dubbed antisemitism the “socialism of fools” because he understood that such politics got their traction by flattening concrete reality and hence working against the rational development of a mass politics for greater freedom. In this sense antisemitism resembles all varieties of simple anti-capitalisms/anti-imperialisms, from the fascist populisms of the 1930s, to communist nationalisms, to the RAF terroism, to Chavez. These are not problematic, however, because they are anti-capitalist, but because their anti-capitalism is blunt and unable to recognize, let alone realize, the historical potential of their moments. If anything they are conservative movements, not movements from the Left.
My biggest issue with your post is how you counter the flattened character of 1930s populism with a flattened account of antisemitism. I was left wondering if this was in naive good faith or simply in the service of a cheap polemic against authoritarianism. The shocking rise of antisemitism in the late 19th Century, after all, is something that was deeply vexed liberal thinkers and precipitated a considerable crisis in thought and politics. To simply chalk it up to the rise of socialism is to miss a great deal about its character and to reproduce the simplicity that made antisemitism seem like progressive politics in the first place.
A final point. Your instrumental use of the Jewish Question gives no consideration to the text and why it is being written. It is quite simply not, as you caricature it, Marx’s attempt to root the problems of modernity in a Jewish cabal. It is, rather, Marx’s initial attempts to understand the character of the liberal state, developed through a critique of a Left Hegelian position, that of Bruno Bauer. Bauer’s argument is that a religious minority, those of German Jews, must subordinate their demands for religious freedom in the service of demanding liberal freedoms for German citizens more generally. Marx specifically takes note of how Bauer’s position essentially pits the rights of the individual against their rights of as an abstract ‘citizen’ of the state. From here he spends the bulk of the essay reviewing how individual freedom is being manifested constitutionally in the wake of the French Revolution. Marx’s point is that this pitting of the individual to society is a symptom of bourgeois society; that theoretical liberalism engenders illiberal practice. It is liberalism’s inability to realize its ideals that Marx is trying to flush out in this essay.
Professor – just finished your excellent analysis of Nietzsche and the Nazis on Netflix. Fantastic! I’m sure you’re not making any friends in academia with your use of reason and logic to conclude that individualism and free enterprise are powerful weapons against repeating the mistakes of National Socialism. Thanks also for reminding us of the powerful link among communism, socialism, and National Socialism resulting in the murder of over 100 million human beings under Stalin, Mao, and Hitler. Keep up the great work.
Thanks for that, Christopher. It is pretty easy to make enemies in the academic world! I like this phrase of yours: “use of reason and logic to conclude that individualism and free enterprise are powerful weapons.” Good one.
LAZINESS TO ME,
IS AT THE ROOT OF THIS DELEMA
IT IS MUCH EASIER TO STAND BACK AND LET FRED DO THE WORK WHILE PROCRASTINATING THE SITUATION
,SITTING BACK OBSERVING AND ALLOWING THE TOUGH GUY TO STAND UP TO THE BULLY
CONCERNING SOME INJUSTICE
ALL THE WHILE MAKING SURE NOT TO GET HIS FEATHERS WET
HE IS TOO LAZY TO STAND UP AND HANDLE A DIFFICULT ISSUE HIMSELF
JUST A SHEEP —-WHO REASONS
“WAIT AWHILE, SEE IF IT CAN ALL WORK ITSELF OUT–WAIT AWHILE.———-
OR THE INTELLECTUAL WHO BALANCES OUT BOTH SIDES OF AN ARGUMENT AS TIME IS JUST WASTING WITHOUT A SOLUTION HE REASONS
“YES ITS TRUE,— AND THEN AGAIN NOT
HE PROCRASTINATES AN ISSUE TO DEATH FOR
THE VAIN POSTURING OF BEING EUDITE
,
Professor,
Just watched your mesmerizing documentary, Nietzsche and the Nazis, on Netflix. Obviously, it’s a must see for anyone with an interest in philosophy and history, and more importantly what exactly motivated and guided the Nazi Party rise to power. However, I have one major point of disagreement, which others have noted on this page: Capitalism is not the opposite of socialism, as you state in the last minute of your film. Not only is this statement a misunderstanding of Marx and later writers, but it goes against historical logic as witnessed by the profound political, social and economic advances democratic socialists have categorically proven throughout the world. It’s unclear to me why you felt the need to add this bombshell of a statement at the end of a nearly flawless philosophical documentary, especially since adds nothing to the basis of film’s premise, and leaves the viewer incorrectly thinking socialism leads to nazism. Yes, national socialism as defined by the nazis leads to nazism, but democratic socialism leads to greater equality, happiness and peace, which is IMHO what the world needs.
Hi Kevin:
Thanks for your positive comment on the documentary. I appreciate it
About the opposite to socialism. What do you think the opposite is, if it’s not capitalism?
Stephen
The Nazis never implemented their advertised socialism.The Black Front,the disaffected Nazi left wing,narrowly missed assasinating Hitler on 3 occasions.Since the Socialists and Communists were runners-up in the Reichstag election,one suspects the Nazis seduced many with their socialist rhetoric.Sadly,methinks the sheepish coat of philosophy occludes the rapacious capitalist wolf.How did Hicks phrase it? A system wher you’re free to make whatever you want?Our inalienable right to 116 brands of dog food.
Prof. Hicks, I also watched your DVD, I am familiar with the Chinese Communist history, there seems to be similar events occurred in Chinese recent history. They also used the Marx’s Communism philosophy to spread their belief and then obtained the power. The question I always have is that why they (Germany, Russia, China) changed against the people when they have controlled the power and made people suffered so much ? Thanks
Mr. Hicks,
Recently, I came across your documentary Nietzsche and the Nazis on Netflix and found the documentary very intriguing. Thank you for putting your time and effort into such an important project.
Over the past two years I have been compiling the history of my grandfather who emigrated from Germany to America in the late 1940’s. He spent his life studying history and telling his story of how and why he thought the war developed and what part he was forced to play in it at such a young age. I believe he did this because he longed for perspective and answers to the war story that history books did not provide.
I wish he could have seen this documentary because I believe it provides many of the answers he was searching for.
Currently, I am informally studying many of the works of Ayn Rand and find her philosophy very appealing. Your introduction to Nietzsche has made my study even more intriguing, so I wish to thank you for that as well.
Your works have found an appreciative audience; please keep me updated on any new projects you are working on.
Thanks for the feedback, Mike. I appreciate it.
It must be especially interesting to have known well someone who experienced it first-hand.
That’s a great question, kee. I think many of the leaders continue to be ideological true believers and explain away the suffering and destruction they cause. Others are attracted to the great power such systems offer and, once in power, have a vested interest in maintaining the system even though it’s so harmful. Still, one wonders why more decent people aren’t in a position there to make changes.
Kevin Shaw claims that capitalism is not the opposite of socialism. He may well be right about that. Two things need not be polar opposites to be in disagreement and to be incompatible with one another. Socialism is founded upon arguments that are a direct attack on capitalism, or at least on the straw-man caricature that socialists hold up as being capitalism.
He then mentions something he calls democratic socialism and claims that it leads to peace, equality and happiness. The only problem with his argument is that, as is typical of those on the left, he never explains exactly what is meant by his anodyne terminology.
What is “Democratic Socialism?” Democracy is rule by the people. Socialism is state control of the people. Putting them together creates an oxymoron.
Including the word Democratic in a phrase makes it sound good to those whose understanding of democracy is limited to their emotional attachment to the word itself, which are usually the types of people who call for irreconcilable paradoxes like “Democratic Socialism.”
I just watched “NIETZSCHE AND THE NAZIS” that I found extremely informative. There is another important intellectual influence on the Nazis – and especially on Hitler – and that person is RICHARD WAGNER. Many of Nazis slogans were directly borrowed from Wagner’s writings. One example only: The Nazi slogan “Jews – plastic demons that do cause the downfall of humanity” can be traced to Wagner’s voluminous writings. Also, “The Final Solution to the Jewish Problem” is alluded to at the last paragraph of Wagner’s “JUDAISM AND MUSIC”. Would you be interested to produce another documentary (or book) concentrating on “WAGNER AND THE NAZIS”
Sincerely,
It’s rather sad that you decided to take Karl Marx’s quote about Jews completely out of context.. He actually FAVORED Jewish emancipation. The Jewish Question is not an anti-Semitic work philosophizing about the Jewish religion but instead an attempt to address the political status & EMANCIPATION of Jews in prussia/germany from 2nd class citizenry… it’s technically a response to Bruno Bauer who painted a stereotypical view of Jews & argued that Jews needed to shed their religion & enter into secularism in order to & before they could be liberated.. Marx countered & argued that their religious identity was irrelevant because Jews would still be bound by material constraint of capitalism, and thus the Jewish Question was not one of religion but one of liberation from capitalism/materialism (which Marx viewed as an oppressive system which Jews were vested in due to the construction of Prussian capitalist society).. Marx was not anti-Semitic.. Those questions in the early part of that quote were based upon assertions Bruno Bauers had made that equated Judaism to greed.. which is why he responded with “very well” as he moved beyond (ignored) Bauer equation of Judaism with greed to address the materialist issues at hand.. When put in context your quotes should be understood as follows
“What is the profane basis of (greed)? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly cult of the (capitalist)? Huckstering. What is his (the capitalist) worldly god? Money. Very well: then in emancipating itself from huckstering and money, and thus from real and practical (greed/capitalism), our age would emancipate itself. “As soon as society succeeds in abolishing the empirical essence of (greed/capitalism)—huckstering and its conditions—the (greed) becomes impossible … The social emancipation of the Jew (the oppressed) is the emancipation of society from (greed/capitalism).”
In hindsight it is unfortunate that Marx decided to echo the anti-Semitic terminology used by Bauer but this of course was written decades before the Holocaust.
You also failed to mention that HILTER AGGRESSIVELY PERSECUTED MARXIST & COMMUNIST while in power.. a fact I’m sure you know but intentionally ignored in an effort to equate nazism & marxism..
Lastly, you failed to mention that Marx himself was born to parents of Jewish decent… Which is why the “Jewish question” was about Jewish emancipation… but selective fact finding is rampant in media nowadays… so…
Oh and Hitler usage of the term “socialist” refers to HIS unique ideas of what social programs society needed… You know social programs like concentration/death camps & lebensborn (essentially a eugenics program to insure the breeding & development of Hitlers superior race).. These type of programs are DEFINITELY a far cry from Marx or any accepted form of traditional or (for the lack of a better term) orthodox socialism… Anyone foolish enough to accept Hitler concentration camps & eugenics as socialism may as well consider slavery & segregation as socialism too… & just to clear… THAT WASN’T!!!! & neither was Hitlers politics…
@Fienstein: Hitler stated that the the Third Reich would always control the owners of property. Is that not inherently socialist? What about the numerous worker and wage laws passed by the Nazis? What about the massive welfare state which grew out of the Third Reich? What about the central banks? Were these not socialist elements? Also, a few interesting facts: 1.) Lenin was the first leader in Russia’s entire history to create concentration camps. 2.) Early socialists looked upon eugenics in a positive light.