Goebbels On National-Socialism, Bolshevism, and Democracy
10 September 1938
Men and women of the National-Socialist Party:
Public
life in Europe to-day is influenced by three striking political phenomena,
which I will group together under the popular heading 'National-Socialism,
Bolshevism, and Democracy.' It is, however, clear to me that these names
cannot define their full significance. The general public thinks of
them as a triangle of irreconcilable contrasts. It would be understandable
and logical if their reactions upon political personalities, actions,
achievements, negotiations, and developments showed a corresponding
degree of contrasts, but this is only the case to a limited extent.
Often, and indeed mostly, we find, where decisive political problems
are concerned, a united front of democracy and Bolshevism opposed to
the nationalist, authoritarian States and their representatives. This
is one of the most puzzling phenomena of modern politics. It can only
be explained by the essential nature of the three political systems.
I therefore think it necessary to analyse them in some detail from the
theoretical point of view and in their effect on racial relations in
Europe.
The political starting-point of democracy dates from
the storming of the Bastille in 1789. The new principles of the State
and social life which were then proclaimed, as previously in liberal
philosophy, were Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. ... Economic and
cultural liberty was proclaimed. The individual, who in the authoritarian
State was of secondary importance, emancipated himself and was released
from the authoritarian tie to the State. The ideas and conceptions of
this so-called 'Great Revolution' were expressed in the popular and
psychologically prevalent slogan that all those who bear human form
are equal. ... Everywhere the more or less complete severance of the
tie which binds the individual to the community was elevated into a
principle. The Revolution thus carried within it the seeds of the Marxist-Bolshevist
conceptions which were later to arise. It was not until the twentieth
century that this lack of connexion found its ultimate expression in
the Bolshevist system. ...
The fact that the causes and effective potentialities
of Bolshevism were already existent in a latent form in democracy explains
why Bolshevism flourishes only on democratic soil, and is indeed generally
the inevitable consequence of a radical and excessively democratic conception
of the State. Bolshevism allegedly makes a classless society its aim.
The equality of whatever bears a human form, which democracy applied
only to political and social life, is set up as a ruling principle for
economic life also. In this respect there are supposed to be no differences
left. But this equality of all individuals in respect of economic goods
can, in the Marxist-Bolshevist view, result only from a brutal and pitiless
class struggle. ... It is only logical that in connexion with this,
Bolshevism should proclaim the equality of nations and races. ... The
opposition between the democratic and the Bolshevist mentality and conception
of the State are in the last resort merely theoretical, and here we
have the answer to the mysterious riddle which overshadows Europe and
the explanation both of the opposition in the lives of nations to-day
and of the things which they have in common. It enables us to see at
once why democracy and Bolshevism, which in the eyes of the world are
irrevocably opposed to one another, meet again and again on common ground
in their joint hatred of and attacks on authoritarian nationalist concepts
of State and State systems. For the authoritarian nationalist conception
of the State represents something essentially new. In it the French
Revolution is superseded. ...
It is no proof to the contrary that democracy and
Bolshevism will not make public admission of any common cause. ... They
put up artificial oppositions of a purely theoretical character which
on closer inspection are seen to be without substance. ... They do not
touch the root on the matter. At heart democracy and Bolshevism are
closely related and indeed almost identical. They represent merely different
stages in the development of a common outlook. Bolshevism is in a sense
the bad boy of democracy. Democracy gave it birth, brought it up, and
alone keeps it alive. It may be ashamed of the connexion now and again,
but at critical moments in European life the maternal instinct breaks
through and the two again present a common front, united above all by
the violence of their assault upon authoritarian-nationalist State concepts,
which they have come to recognize as their bitterest, most dangerous
foes. ...
We have modernized and ennobled the concept of democracy.
With us it means definitely the rule of the people, in accordance with
its origin. We have given the principle of Socialism a new meaning.
... Never have we left anyone in doubt that National-Socialism is not
for export. ... We do not aim at world domination, but we do intend
to defend our country, and it is our new conceptions which give us the
inexhaustible and ever-renewed strength to do so. ...
We Germans were strong in the past, but nothing more
than strong; and when our weapons were taken from us, we lay helpless.
In that time of national suffering we learned that the strength of nations
lies not only in weapons, but in ideas. A great idea and the faith which
it inspires can remove mountains. Weapons cannot produce ideas, but,
as Germany has shown, ideas can produce weapons. ... The Fuehrer himself
gave us this great and vivid idea of liberty which fills and inspires
us all to-day. And, most essential of all, he is producing the weapons
with which to defend the ideas and their political and economic outcome.
Now we no longer fear anyone or anything. ...
Source: "Documents on International Affairs,"
vol. II, 1938, pp. 17-19.
No comments:
Post a Comment