Edited heavily to clear ambiguites. Sorry for original errors.
I was wondering what my fellow Austrian Economists thought.
I personally would assume that Hitler and Marx both assumed they were helping out 95% they believed good and only hurting the 5% that they deemed evil, when in fact, fascism was evil to every individual.
I’m asking what faction of fascism would John Locke be more intolerant of or equally intolerant of. What about their intentions? Wouldn’t he be equally intolerant of their intentions?
Hitler ended WWII by suicide; Locke didn’t like the notion of suicide. And Wilson/FDR started and ended the War by provoking Japan.
Is it safe to also assume this?: Had Marx been successful in directing a military to perform violence, which his Communist Manifesto advocated, then maybe Marx, if he was less cowardly, and faced trial, would have continued to fight until someone had to defend themselves against him.
So I would guess equal since both had convoluted theories and neither situation both imagined were real.
When Hitler commited suicide, the Red Army was already storming Berlin. Hitler’s death was only a small event in the entire timeline of the war, it had no influence whatsoever on the course of it. Plus, you have the causality wrong: Hitler commited suicide because victory was impossible, so he did not want to have to surrender to his enemies.
I don’t know what you mean by Wilson provoked Japan, or even the fact that you suggest the war was begun by the American government provoking Japan. If you include Japan’s pre-1939 expansion in Asia as part of WWII, there is no blame for America provoking Japan for the Japanese expansion into Asia was not done because of American provocation whatsoever. It wasn’t until the Rape of Nanjing that there was the American oil embargo against Japan that provoked both Pearl Harbor, and their expansion into the Southern Pacific (though their imperialism here might have very well happened without the oil embargo)
Thanks for replying. I made a few ambiguities, mainly that when I said Wilson provoked Japan; rather, he allowed for WWII. I think that FDR still wouldn’t have had a just war unless Japan had attacked on U.S. soil, though. And wilson’s expansionism had probably given Japan the correct implication that the U.S. would eventually come after them. So I tend to see Japan as the victim of the WWII; I have no sympathy for FDR’s involvement in it because of that and the fact that he didn’t let Jews in who were trying to escape.
Wilson’s policies and expansionism cleared the way for WWII. You’ve cleared up my assumption that Hitler commited suicide because he may have been guilty. I had thought that because he was fairly cowardly, in some ways. I think he didn’t want to surrender to the Red Army and wouldn’t want them to be able to take any credit for killing him, had he not killed himself first.
But, to rephrase my basic question: Is it true that Marx simply wrote the CM based upon something that was only caused by big government, and that what he wanted would’ve required military action that would’ve strengthened his cause that was already in effect? Basically, Marx advocated the poor killing the rich, but the rich were only rich because the tyranny of the majority had made them rich in the first place by strengthening govt, and not all the rich were greedy, unlike Marx’s implication.
Would John Locke think that their rationale was equally flawed? Or is there something I’m not seeing that indicates Locke would’ve thought Hitler’s rationale was more incorrect? To compare Marx to hitler, Hitler just fought big govt, by use of big govt. The International Bankers, while responsible for the econ crisis (what the ignorant majority came to hate Jews for) weren’t all Jewish. One of many Jews I can think of, Ayn Rand, indicataed not all Jews had the same greedy intentions as the International Bankers. In fact, Ayn Rand was quite the opposite of the Fed. So I think Hitler’s hatred all of Jews was dumb, just as Marx’s theory was flawed, because he advocated the killing all rich people rather than a unified attempt of what was the only justification of violence–a revolution against a tyrannical govt.
I had thought Marx advocated violence and hatred against the rich in the communist manifesto. Is it right to say he just was imagining something that wasn’t by real nature’s god?
The OP, while a bit confusing, led me to ask certain questions.
Marx believed that the political class was a creation, and a tool, of the bourgeoisie. Evidently, what the OP is implying is that the reverse is true (the political class creates the bourgeoisie). Is this the standard Austrian sociological position? It seems like something Rothbard might talk about, but I haven’t read much Rothbard, and at any rate have not encountered that theory. It seems to me like they are two separate social groups (in this I follow Popper, who states that Marx’s sociology is simplistic and a more than a bit too convenient) whose interaction has poor outcomes for society at large - but it would certainly be overstating the case to propose that a government-less society would be egalitarian (as the OP seems to say).
I like Locke very much, and I find that his standard contractualist view of government remains an effective defense against both Marxism and Fascism. Still, I fail to see how Lockean philosophy could contribute to dialogue with those theories beyond the basic statement of contractualism - especially since they rely so strongly on sociological theory, a concept rather alien to Locke. In that sense I would prefer Spencer to Locke as the interlocutor of both Marx and the fascists.
Thanks for replying. I’ll clarify myself further, if you’d like.
Basically, Marx’s theory isn’t possible without an Authoritarian govt; neither was Hitler’s. They thought that their versions of fascism would result in an egalitarian society in which they wouldn’t. Locke, on the other hand, realizes that both are social liberals; Locke-followers believe social liberalism will never work and that social liberalism is the path to big govt, even if social liberals think that fascism could be accepted by every individual if fascism wasn’t simply another division that produced the same awful society.
As for locke, he was a Classical Liberal, in which his contract was there only to enforce the State of Nature–to reduce the bad effects of an Anarchy. Classical Liberalism allows the good parts of anarchy–individual freedom; Social Liberalism allows all the bad parts of Authoritarianism–fascism or group rights, based upon ethnicities, or class, or both.
To illustrate, assuming Obama wants the best for every individual–not a majority like Hitler and Marx believed–but using Marxist policies–class divide will be created. Under Obama and the American Democrats and neo-cons, as quasi-Marxists (“quasi” because Obama doesn’t advocate the poor killing the rich, or at least not yet), it will no longer be ethnicity based as Hitler intended for, but the rich vs. the poor. Whenever a division of fasicsm comes to power, be it marxism, or hitlerism, a tyrannical majority’s rule will be absolute.
So, I think Locke would be equally intolerant of both Hitler’s hateful intentions as well as Marx’s hateful intentions. Does anyone agree with me on that? Or, are my thoughts totally flawed?