You are missing the forest for the trees. There is no significant difference between 20th century totalitarian movements: Russia, Germany, Italy, China, Clinton/Gore. The left draws false distinctions because Hitler didn't murder the industrialists first-like Lenin did. That's entirely emotional on their part-Lenin couldn't be all bad, because he hung the Bourgesoie first. But Hitler had a use for them, and forced most into the party instead. The totalitarian pattern was followed by all except Clinton/Gore, which was precluded, because the constitutional system threw them out of power before they could manifest themselves:
1) Rise to power on fraud-lying about what your "ideal" world would look like.
2) Purge the elements of your own party who are no longer useful after power is seized.
3) When the laws of economics fail to adhere to your flawed world view, imprison or murder the scapegoats.
4) Transition from an unworkable vision into greater and greater corruption, eventually fading away, or disappearing in counter-revolution.
The surviving Nazi's had no economic beliefs at all. They were a pure war party. After initial successes in war, they found new enemies, because they understood that they would fail at peacetime leadership (which is dominated by economics). Having started enough new wars in 1941, they were destroyed by a terrified but united world. It saved us the trouble of having to watch them fade away, drowned in their own corruption, as we did with the Soviet Union.
The totalitarian pattern repeated itself with every one of these cancerous regimes in that century. the Chicoms will be the last to fade, but will, for the same reasons... |
