Fighting against "liberal democracy" around the world
- Thread starter Petr
- Start date
Petr
Administrator
This is indeed what German National Socialist theorists also thought - that it was a very regrettable and dangerous situation when der Staat became separated and alienated from das Volk, when it begins to live and act only for its "own sake." Alfred Rosenberg wrote thus:
The Myth of the Twentieth Century : Alfred Rosenberg : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
This book is The Myth of the Twentieth Century by Alfred Rosenberg. It was one of the most important philosophy books of early 20th Century Germany. The book...
archive.org
After the collapse of absolute monarchy in 1789, Democratic principles struggled with the National idea. Separated from the start, and later bringing both movements into rigidity, a new doctrine of power alien to the blood was formulated which reached its peak in Hegel. It was then taken over in renewed falsification by Karl Marx, who equated state with class rule. Today, we confront the problem. The state has delivered itself and the people to the dishonourable forces of trade. It has appeared to the broad masses more and more as a soulless tool of violence. The views of Hegel concerning the absolutist state in itself became predominant during recent years in Germany, and not only in Germany. The official moved more and more into a position of master, and forgot, thanks to the identical attitude of those ruling, that he was nothing other than a representative of the entire folk whose duty it is to fulfil the technical or political needs of the folk. The state and the state official thus became separated from the organic body of the people, and appeared as a special mechanical apparatus toward the latter, in order to lay claim to control over life. Millions took a hostile attitude against this development, but since no opponent dared to appear openly in the national camp, those who were discontented moved to the side of international social democracy, although they inwardly really were not Marxists.
The revolt of 1918 altered nothing in all this because the Marxists naturally had really nothing in common with the German people. They strove only for the establishment of fixed international principles, using the old technical apparatus, and the state in itself appeared again in active opposition to the enemies of the state. The roles were all exchanged and the soulless essence remained. But this essence had become far more distinct after 1918, because the state had earlier, on occasion, stood in the way of open enemies of the people; but now, in the person of its judges, the state was forced to imprison men whose lives and actions were devoted only to service and sacrifice for the people.
State and folk thus often confronted each other openly as enemies. From 1918 to 1933 they even appeared as deadly enemies. Our destiny will be shaped according to the manner in which this inner conflict is resolved.
Today, the state is no longer a separated idol before which we are all supposed to lie in the dust. The state does not even have a purpose unless it acts to preserve the concept of folk.