Obama’s Struggle
Revised February 18, 2009
Ayn Rand[1]
and Leonard Peikoff[2] have written
about how the ideas of Nazi Germany are taking hold in the United States. The
election of Obama as President is a large step down that same deadly road to a
Nazi-style state.
Here is a passage
from a widely-known but not widely-read book from a few generations ago. Some
particulars have changed since then, but the essential ideas should be familiar
to those who follow contemporary politics.
The greater the individual's readiness to subordinate
his
own
purely
personal interests
is,
the
more
increases
also the
ability
for the
establishment of
extensive
communities.
This will to sacrifice in staking his personal labor and, if necessary, his own life for others, is most powerfully developed in the Aryan. He is greatest, not in his mental capacities per se, but in the extent to which he is ready to put all his abilities at the service of the community. With him the instinct of self-preservation
has
reached the
most
noble
form, because
he
willingly
subjects
his
own
ego
to
the
life
of
the
community
and,
if
the
hour
should
require
it,
he
also
sacrifices
it.
Not in the intellectual abilities lies the Aryan's culture-creating
and
building
ability.
If he
had
only
these,
he
would always
be able
to
work
only
destructively,
but
in
no
case
'organizingly';
for
the
innermost
nature of
all
organization is based on just the fact that the individual renounces representing his personal
opinion and
his
interests and
sacrifices
both
in
favor
of
a
majority of
people. Only
by way
of
the
general community
is
his
share
returned to him.
Now,
for
instance,
he
no
longer
works
directly
for
himself,
but
with
his
activity
he
joins
in the
frame
of
the
community,
not
only for
his own
advantage,
but
for
that
of
all.
The
most
wonderful
explanation
of
this
disposition
is
offered
by
his
word
‘work,’
by
which
he does
not mean
an
activity
for
gaining
his
living,
but
only a
creative
toil
that
does
not contradict
the interests
of the
community.
...
This disposition now, which causes the individual's ego to step back in the face of the
preservation of
the
community, is really the first prerequisite for any truly human culture. Only out of this all the great works of mankind are able to originate, works which bring little reward to the founder but the richest blessing to
posterity. Out
of
this
alone
one
can understand
how
so
many
are
able to sustain
a
poor life
in
honesty,
which
imposes
only poverty and
modesty on themselves, but which guarantees the fundamentals of the community's existence. Every laborer, every peasant, every inventor, official,
etc., who
works
without
ever
being able
to attain happiness
and
well-being,
is
a
carrier
of
this
high
idea,
even
if
the
deeper
meaning
of
his
actions
remained
hidden to
himself
forever.
But what applies to work as the basis of human nutrition and all human progress applies to a far greater extent
to
the
protection of
man
and
his
culture. In
giving up
one's
own
life
for
the
existence
of the
community
lies
the
crowning
of
all
will
to
sacrifice.
Only
this
prevents
everything
that
human
hands
have built
from
being
overthrown
again
by
human
hands,
or destroyed
by
Nature
for
herself.
But just our German language has a word which in a glorious manner describes acting in this sense: fulfillment of duty (Pflichterfiillung)
;
that
means,
not to
suffice
for
oneself, but to serve the community; this is duty.
Now the basic disposition out of which such an activity grows we call idealism, to
distinguish it
from
egoism.
By
this
we
understand
only the
individual's
ability
to
sacrifice
himself
for
the
community,
for
his fellow
citizens.
...
Just in such times, when the ideal attitude threatens to disappear, we can at once recognize a reduction of that force which forms the community and
thus
gives
culture its
presumption.
As
soon
as
egoism
becomes
the
ruler
of
a
nation, the ties of order loosen, and in the hunt for their own happiness people fall all the more out of heaven into hell. Even posterity
forgets those
men
who only
serve their
own
advantage,
and
it
praises
as
heroes those who
renounce
their
own
happiness.
The Jew forms the strongest contrast to the Aryan. Hardly in any people of the world is the instinct of self-preservation more strongly developed than in the so-called ‘chosen people’. [3]
... the Jew is led by nothing but pure egoism on the part of the individual.[4]
As some of you may have recognized, this book is Mein Kampf.
One of the big lies by our contemporary intellectuals is the notion that Fascism and Nazism are at the opposite end of the political spectrum from socialism. In fact, Fascism and Nazism are variants of socialism. The word “Fascism” comes from the Italian word “fascio,” which means “bundle.” The full name of the Nazi Party was the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany.
In his Proclamation by the Government to the German Nation[5], on his third day in office as Chancellor, Hitler spoke these words:
Millions
of the finest German men and women in all stations of life have had to behold
with heavy hearts the unity of the nation breaking up and disappearing in a welter
of egoistic political theories, selfish business interests and conflicting
social doctrines.
...
Millions of our proletariat are
without work and without means of existence, and the entire middle class is
rapidly becoming impoverished.
...
The national government will
regard it as their first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the
spirit of unity and cooperation. They will preserve and defend those basic principles
on which our nation has been built up. They regard Christianity as the
foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national
life. They are determined, without regard for class and social status, to
restore the nation to a consciousness of its political and national unity and
of the duties consequent upon this realization.
...
The National Government intends to
solve the problem of the reorganisation of trade and commerce with two
four-year plans:
The German farmer must be rescued
in order that the nation may be supplied with the necessities of life.
A concerted and all-embracing
attack must be made on unemployment in order that the German working class may
be saved from ruin.
...
Compulsory labour service and the
“back-to-the-land” policy are two of the basic principles of this programme.
The securing of the necessities of
life will include the performance of social duties to the sick and the aged.
...
May God Almighty give our work His
blessing, strengthen our purpose and endow us with wisdom and trust of our
people, for we are fighting not for ourselves but for Germany.
Compare these words from Hitler with those from any speech by Obama—for example, his Announcement for President, Feb. 10, 2007—speeches filled with such demands as “shared sacrifice and shared prosperity” and such claims as that “we are our brother’s keeper.”
Socialism, Fascism, and Nazism (which essentially is Fascism with some racism thrown in) differ from each other in superficial ways, as sects of the same religion differ. Each worships some group--an economic class, a nation, a race--and demonizes and subjugates the individual. Each is derived from the philosophic tradition of Plato, culminating in the ideas of the German philosophers Kant and Hegel. According to Hegel, Marx, Mussolini, and Nazi writers, particular individuals are not really real. What is really real is the whole of society. The consequence of this view of reality is the ethics of sacrifice of the individual to the group. Hegel wrote, "A single person, I need hardly say, is something subordinate, and as such he must dedicate himself to the ethical whole." His next sentence was: "Hence if the state claims life, the individual must surrender it."
Under Socialism, the means of production are owned by the state. Under Fascism and Nazism, in contrast, individuals are allowed to retain ownership of some property. But this ownership is in name only; the property is controlled by the state, which tells the owners what products they can produce, to whom they can sell, what prices they can charge, whom they can hire and fire, what wages to pay, and what to do with the profits if any. This policy is like saying, “We’ll let you stay married to whom you want, but we’ll tell you whom you can live with.”
How has the United States of America, the land of individual rights, of the individual’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, come to elect a President who is essentially a Nazi? For one thing, the President-elect ran against the record of an incumbent who was a Fascist, and his two main rivals were Fascists too. More broadly, the Unite States has been drifting gradually toward Fascism and Nazism for the past century. The ideas of the German philosophers Kant and Hegel have conquered America’s intellectual establishment as well as Germany’s. The conquest of America took longer, and it required an intermediary step: the neo-Kantian/Hegelian school of philosophy known as Pragmatism, led by John Dewey, the father of modern American education. According to Dewey, reality, knowledge, truth, are no more than products created by group consensus. What we need, therefore, is not a Fuhrer, but a committee. Nevertheless, the goal of subjugating the individual to the group is the same as Hegel’s.
Today’s politicians are kinder, gentler Fascists and Nazis. As long as everyone agrees, there’s "no problem," because what is agreed to, what the group believes, is what is real. There’s no need to be overtly bloodthirsty and violent, as the old Nazis were, though it is okay to befriend those who are bloodthirsty and violent. But there’s no need to be violent, unless certain individuals refuse to agree, to come together, to unite, to share their prosperity, share in the sacrifice.
Today’s politicians don’t overtly try to kill the greedy, money-grubbing Jews, though they try to get Jews to agree with those who do try to kill Jews. Today there are new greedy, money-grubbing scapegoats: Wall Street, Big Oil, the Drug Companies, speculators, special interests, CEOs.
The kind of change that America needs--exactly the opposite of the kind of change advocated by Hitler, Mussolini and today’s political leaders--was identified by Ayn Rand a half century ago. It is fitting, therefore, to close with a passage from that great champion of freedom.
Capitalism
was destroyed by the morality of altruism. Capitalism is based on individual
rights--not on the sacrifice of the individual to the "public good"
of the collective. Capitalism and altruism are incompatible. It’s one or the
other. It’s too late for compromises, for platitudes, and for aspirin tablets.
There is no way to save capitalism--or freedom, or civilization, or
America--except by intellectual surgery, that is: by destroying the source of
the destruction, by rejecting the morality of altruism.
If
you want to fight for capitalism, there is only one type of argument that you
should adopt, the only one that can ever win in a moral issue: the argument
from self-esteem. This means: the argument from man's right to exist--from
man's inalienable individual right to his own life.[6]
[1] See, for example, “The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus,” published in The Objectivist Newsletter, May and June 1965, and reprinted in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, New York: Signet (pb), 1967, pp. 202-220.
[2] Peikoff, Leonard (1982), The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America. New York: Stein and Day.
[3] Hitler, Adolf ([1925], 1941), Mein Kampf. Translation prepared under the auspices of Alvin Johnson. New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, pp. 407-412.
[4] Ibid, p. 416.
[5] Hitler, Adolf (1941) The New Germany Desires Work And Peace. Speeches By Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler The Leader Of The New Germany. With An Introduction By Dr. Joseph Goebbels. Berlin: Liebheit & Thieson, pp. 5-9.
[6] Rand, Ayn ([1962,] 1967), “Conservatism: An Obituary.” Reprinted in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. New York: Signet (pb), pp. 200-201.