It must be understood that Hayek’s argument had no factual basis. Only a polemicist could argue that the two totalitarianisms that existed in this period – namely, Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union – had formed because a naïve democratic government had engaged in some economic planning that then got out of hand and resulted in tyranny. But Hayek’s motivations probably lay somewhat deeper – probably so deep that he himself could not properly recognise them.
What democratic government is this referring to? For the love of God don't tell me he was calling Lenin or the political squabbling among his successors when Stalin was going from big dog to only dog a democracy. if he's referring to the aftermath of the February Revolution the existence of two governments of which the second, the Soviets were anything but democratic, also argues otherwise, as does both the repression of the July Days and the attempts by the Social Revolutionaries to side with the remnants of the old Tsarist high command to form the White movement.
Stalin took a dictatorship experiencing a temporary devolution of power in a quasi-vacuum and turned it totalitarianism. There was no Soviet democracy for him to destroy. Call the NEP democracy and you debase the term out of all meaning.
If we look at the reasons the Nazis were rising in the 1929-32 period, we should also credit the Stalin regime for forfeiting the chance for a joint Leftist bloc that could easily have mustered no less than two paramilitaries, the Reichsbanner and the Red Front, in order to stop the SA and the Nazis, as well as Hitler exploiting new media in a way that had never really been done before. Then there's the claim that from Bruning to Schleicher and von Papen that the Republic was, strictly speaking, democratic. Actually they were already starting the process of the collapse of the democracy that Hitler completed. Bruning's rule by decree with Hindenburg's approval was the beginning of the end, and a return to the Empire's politics of the central authorities appointing the overall leadership of the state and the electorate having to accept this.
So Hitler can't really be credited for killing democracy in Germany, either. Now Paul von Hindenburg und Benkendorf, that senile old bastard, OTOH, actually can be.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 11/2/13 02:25 (UTC)It must be understood that Hayek’s argument had no factual basis. Only a polemicist could argue that the two totalitarianisms that existed in this period – namely, Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union – had formed because a naïve democratic government had engaged in some economic planning that then got out of hand and resulted in tyranny. But Hayek’s motivations probably lay somewhat deeper – probably so deep that he himself could not properly recognise them.
What democratic government is this referring to? For the love of God don't tell me he was calling Lenin or the political squabbling among his successors when Stalin was going from big dog to only dog a democracy. if he's referring to the aftermath of the February Revolution the existence of two governments of which the second, the Soviets were anything but democratic, also argues otherwise, as does both the repression of the July Days and the attempts by the Social Revolutionaries to side with the remnants of the old Tsarist high command to form the White movement.
Stalin took a dictatorship experiencing a temporary devolution of power in a quasi-vacuum and turned it totalitarianism. There was no Soviet democracy for him to destroy. Call the NEP democracy and you debase the term out of all meaning.
If we look at the reasons the Nazis were rising in the 1929-32 period, we should also credit the Stalin regime for forfeiting the chance for a joint Leftist bloc that could easily have mustered no less than two paramilitaries, the Reichsbanner and the Red Front, in order to stop the SA and the Nazis, as well as Hitler exploiting new media in a way that had never really been done before. Then there's the claim that from Bruning to Schleicher and von Papen that the Republic was, strictly speaking, democratic. Actually they were already starting the process of the collapse of the democracy that Hitler completed. Bruning's rule by decree with Hindenburg's approval was the beginning of the end, and a return to the Empire's politics of the central authorities appointing the overall leadership of the state and the electorate having to accept this.
So Hitler can't really be credited for killing democracy in Germany, either. Now Paul von Hindenburg und Benkendorf, that senile old bastard, OTOH, actually can be.