If you actually bothered to read properly what was written, it says Hitler rejected Socialism and Communism because it destroyed the natural unity of the people. ie, this is NATIONALISM.
Marxism doesn't destroy nationalism, far from it.
Marx Engels and Lenin on the national question Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal
Nations and history
In his introduction to the Penguin collection of Marx's writings,
The Revolutions of 1848, David Fernbach accuses Marx and Engels—Engels in particular—of a "general great-nation chauvinism" based, he claims, on "the major miscalculation that the smaller peoples of Europe were doomed by the logic of history, and had irrevocably lost their autonomy".
Is this the case? Marx and Engels supported the national struggles of the German, Italian, Polish and Hungarian peoples—the so-called "great historic nations"—because each had developed to the stage where their struggle for national unity and independence from the reactionary powers was politically viable and progressive. Their victory would hasten the demise of feudalism and speed the arrival of socialism.
Hitler and the socialist dream - Arts and Entertainment - The Independent
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not hypocritical. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself. In public Hitler was always anti-Marxist, and in an age in which the Soviet Union was the only socialist state on earth, and with anti-Bolshevism a large part of his popular appeal, he may have been understandably reluctant to speak openly of his sources.
His megalomania, in any case, would have prevented him from calling himself anyone's disciple. That led to an odd and paradoxical alliance between modern historians and the mind of a dead dictator. Many recent analysts have fastidiously refused to study the mind of Hitler; and they accept, as unquestioningly as many Nazis did in the 1930s, the slogan "Crusade against Marxism" as a summary of his views. An age in which fascism has become a term of abuse is unlikely to analyse it profoundly.
His private conversations, however, though they do not overturn his reputation as an anti-Communist, qualify it heavily. Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. "I have learned a great deal from Marxism" he once remarked, "as I do not hesitate to admit". He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that "they had never even read Marx", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history!
His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on Marx.
This is besides the point really. It's not what Marx or Engels would have wanted, it's how their view of what could happen with Communism was taken on by others and utilised.
The point (i think, I don't really think it makes any sense) is that Hitler hated Communism because they were Jews, and therefore he was left wing and not anti-left wing as people seem to be saying.
I don't know, anyway, Marxism was utilised by people like Lenin, then devoured and turned into something else by Stalin and there was a desire for Communism to become nationless, beyond nations (which it was, the USSR was made up of many nations) kind of like Islam is seen by Muslims.
If you actually bothered to read properly what was written, it says Hitler rejected Socialism and Communism because it destroyed the natural unity of the people. ie, this is NATIONALISM.
Marxism doesn't destroy nationalism, far from it.
Marx Engels and Lenin on the national question Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal
Nations and history
In his introduction to the Penguin collection of Marx's writings,
The Revolutions of 1848, David Fernbach accuses Marx and Engels—Engels in particular—of a "general great-nation chauvinism" based, he claims, on "the major miscalculation that the smaller peoples of Europe were doomed by the logic of history, and had irrevocably lost their autonomy".
Is this the case? Marx and Engels supported the national struggles of the German, Italian, Polish and Hungarian peoples—the so-called "great historic nations"—because each had developed to the stage where their struggle for national unity and independence from the reactionary powers was politically viable and progressive. Their victory would hasten the demise of feudalism and speed the arrival of socialism.
Hitler and the socialist dream - Arts and Entertainment - The Independent
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not hypocritical. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself. In public Hitler was always anti-Marxist, and in an age in which the Soviet Union was the only socialist state on earth, and with anti-Bolshevism a large part of his popular appeal, he may have been understandably reluctant to speak openly of his sources.
His megalomania, in any case, would have prevented him from calling himself anyone's disciple. That led to an odd and paradoxical alliance between modern historians and the mind of a dead dictator. Many recent analysts have fastidiously refused to study the mind of Hitler; and they accept, as unquestioningly as many Nazis did in the 1930s, the slogan "Crusade against Marxism" as a summary of his views. An age in which fascism has become a term of abuse is unlikely to analyse it profoundly.
His private conversations, however, though they do not overturn his reputation as an anti-Communist, qualify it heavily. Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. "I have learned a great deal from Marxism" he once remarked, "as I do not hesitate to admit". He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that "they had never even read Marx", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history!
His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on Marx.
This is besides the point really. It's not what Marx or Engels would have wanted, it's how their view of what could happen with Communism was taken on by others and utilised.
The point (i think, I don't really think it makes any sense) is that Hitler hated Communism because they were Jews, and therefore he was left wing and not anti-left wing as people seem to be saying.
I don't know, anyway, Marxism was utilised by people like Lenin, then devoured and turned into something else by Stalin and there was a desire for Communism to become nationless, beyond nations (which it was, the USSR was made up of many nations) kind of like Islam is seen by Muslims.
The real problem is that Marxism is contradictory on the issue of nationalism. The worker cannot rise up without a nation.
Marx and Engels and the National Question
The difficulties surrounding the reception of the phenomenon of modern nationalism by the founders of historical materialism are evident in even the most cursory examination of the basic texts. First, it is useful to take note of the celebrated references to the nation in the
Communist Manifesto. [
4] In the substantive section of the text, noting that the Communists ‘have been [...] reproached for wanting to abolish the nation and nationalities’, Marx and Engels go on to assert that:
'Workers have no nation of their own. We cannot take from them what they do not have. [...] National divisions and conflicts between peoples increasingly disappear with the development of the bourgeoisie, with free trade and the world market, with the uniform character of industrial production and the corresponding circumstances of modern life.' [5] The weight of evidence of subsequent history rather appears to discredit this statement: far from mitigating national divisions, the extended development of global capitalism in the century since these words were written would on the contrary seem to have intensified the political divisions between states and peoples along national lines; and, in addition, the twentieth century has certainly seen ever greater numbers of proletarians seemingly increasingly inclined to sacrifice their lives in wars fought against other proletarians for national ends. Nationalism, it would seem, contrary to the best intentions of the authors of the
Manifesto, has continued to preponderate in the sphere of politics.
Yet in terms of how the authors of the ‘
Manifesto’ seek to map out the necessary parameters for working class advance we encounter something of a paradox: for, in the ellipsis in the excerpt offered above, Marx and Engels argue – almost, it would seem, to the contrary of the rest of the passage – that:
'Since the proletariat must first of all take political control, raise itself up to be the class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is still nationalistic, even if not at all in the bourgeois sense of the term.' [
6] This message is repeated elsewhere in the ‘
Manifesto’:
'All previous movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the independent movement of the vast majority in the interests of the vast majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of present-day society, cannot lift itself up, cannot raise itself up, without the flinging into the air the whole superstructure of social strata which form the establishment.
'The struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie is at the outset a national one in form, although not in content. Naturally, the proletariat of each country must finish off its own bourgeoisie.' [
7]
It is formulations of this kind that have been wrestled with by subsequent commentators – Marxist or otherwise – for generations: for while our first quotation seems to offer blandishments of at least an internationalist, if not actually nationally nihilistic, character, then the second set of references clearly seem to suggest that, to the contrary, the road to proletarian advance in fact lies along precisely nationally delimited lines: indeed, it is exactly to this end – to justify the notion that the proletariat’s advance to socialism is principally a national one – that this passage has been deployed. Thus, the right-revisionist German social-democrat Heinrich Cunow could write in 1921:
'Today (1848) the worker has no country, he does not take part in the life of the nation, has no share in its material and spiritual wealth. But one of these days the workers will win political power and take a dominant position in state and nation and then, when so to speak they will have
constituted themselves the nation, they will also be national and feel national [...].' [
8] While along much the same lines is the later interpretation offered by Ronaldo Munck: '[W]orkers must become the ‘leading class’ [...] in a particular nation-state, so that they become ‘national’; but not in a bourgeois or chauvinist sense. Once in power the proletariat can work to diminish national antagonisms. [...] Workers of any country must ‘of course’ settle things with their own bourgeoisie (not international capitalism), which means that the form of the struggle is a national one; workers will achieve power only with a national strategy.' [9] And even Lenin – quite the opposite of a ‘national-chauvinist’—could draw out the following conclusion, writing in 1913: 'The working class could not grow strong, become mature and take shape without ‘constituting itself the nation’, without being ‘national’ (‘though not in the bourgeois sense of the word’).' [
10] Thus we can find a contradictory and conflicting message in the ‘Manifesto’: the clear and obvious question, which remains unanswered, is sharply put by Rosdolsky: ‘In what sense do the workers have “no country”, and how is it that, nonetheless, even after acquiring supremacy, they will still remain “so far, national”?’ [
11]
