Customer Reviews

Leftism Revisited: From De Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is a truly extraordinary book by the Austrian Nobleman Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. Being the recipient of an American public school education(which teaches that democracy is the only valid form of government), I was somewhat floored by the author's basic argument. This being that democracy in itself is leftist, and inevitably leads to tyranny, collectivization and war. All you hear in American politics is how superior democracy is and how it is our duty to spread "freedom" to the rest of the world. What a breath of fresh air this book is.

The author explains at length the leftist origins of National Socialism as well as Communism. He methodically dissects the leftist mindset, while tracing basically everything he views as leftist, back to the French Revolution and it's aftermath. He rails against democracy as being no different than socialism in it's impossible and harmful quest for equality. He makes no secret that he is a Christian aristocrat and supports a form of monarchy as the only true "rightist" government. He also claims that monarchy provides more personal liberty than democracy. If, like me, you blindly believed in democracy as a superior way of life, this book is a wake-up call. That being said, atheists and secularists will most likely reject this book, as K-L's entire philosophy rests on the foundation of a transcendent worldview that sees God as the ultimate authority.

Some notable ideas include:

Contrary to popular belief, fascism is a leftist movement. Enforced uniformity and the exaltation of the state above all else is a leftist invention that has the same origins as communism. Mussolini was an ex-socialist. The Nazi's saw all German communists as potential recruits. They were also anti-aristocrat, anti-tradition, and anti-capitalist.

The right rules by authority, the left rules by coercion. There's a difference.

Materialism, egalitarianism, racism, extreme nationalism, and totalitarianism are all leftist.

Many of America's founding fathers loathed democracy. That's why we are a constitutional republic.

America's anti-monarchial bias in foreign policy has wrought destruction in Europe.

The author was that rare breed of classical European liberal, a species now all but extinct. In this masterpiece he investigates the Leftist mindset, Leftism in history and in the foreign policy of the USA. Most important, the book provides a valuable description of Real versus False Liberalism.

Kuhnelt-Liddihn's aim was to reinforce the noble Western tradition of individual freedom that has been under assault for so many decades now, from so many sides. Not an easy read, the book can be quite exhausting in places as the author puts his vast knowledge of human thought to work in support of his great insight.

Under the Leftist Mind, he discusses certain good forms and bad forms of government as they manifest in the realm of politics, e.g. monarchy versus tyranny, aristocracy vs oligarchy and republic vs a democracy. In this section he also explores some 40 odd characteristics of the Leftist mind, like hatred of freedom, secular fanaticism and materialism.

In the section titled Leftism In History, Kuhnelt-Leddihn provides an awesome analysis of Leftist history with reference to the French Revolution, the birth of the USA, and various manifestations of collectivist movements like Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Fascism and Nazism. He considers the French Revolution as the most characteristic manifestation of Leftism.

The author then examines American foreign policy under Wilson and Roosevelt, the Vietnam War and the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. Here he also talks about the fanatical nature of totalitarian ideologies that fills the void left by an imploding Christianity.

The passage on Liberalism, Real and False, reveals profound truths. Under Real Liberalism, he discusses the thinkers, the timeframe, the leaders, and attitudes towards religion. Adam Smith, de Tocqueville, Burke, Mises, Hayek, Lloyd George and Churchill are some of the names mentioned here.

Then he discusses False Liberalism, which is modern Leftism in the USA. He asks why the meaning of Liberal has undergone such a total inversion so that it now represents illiberal statism, and provides the answer. Leftists laid claim to the future, to terms like Progressive, whilst Conservatives tended to adhere to the status quo. He calls America's current version of liberalism "a boring mixture of modernity, mediocrity, mimicry and naivete."

This thought-provoking book remains a classic and has grown in stature since it was first published.

"Did the Nazis describe themselves as rightists or leftists?" In 1998 I submitted this question to Professor von Kuehnelt-Leddihn himself. (Incidentally, when he was among us, a person fond of titles would have called him Knight better than Baron, though this kind of titles have been forbidden in Austria since the end of the First World War.) Kuehnelt-Leddihn answered my question by quoting an article in "Der Angriff" (The attack) of Dec 6th, 1931 in which Goebbels declared: "The NSDAP is the German Left. We despise bourgeois nationalism". As to Hitler and Rudolf Hess, they always stressed the "democratic" character of the NSDAP, but they also claimed to be "rightist" and "liberal". This is what Kuehnelt-Leddihn told me. Hitler was anyway a genius of deception and tried to draw votes by promising something to everybody. Though the keenest observers, like Thomas Mann, Stefan Zweig, Otto von Habsburg, the future cardinal von Galen and Kuehnelt-Leddihn himself had no doubts from the beginning, many were deceived by his apparent "democraticism". Kuehnelt-Leddihn reminds us in his book that Lloyd George, asked why he was sympathetic to Hitler while disliking Franco, said: "I always line up on the side against the priests". Never forget that the acronym NSDAP means: "National Socialist Party of German Workers". The Nazis themselves adopted the shortened form "Nazi-sozi", while the term nazi prevailed only after the war and helped to overlook the reference to socialism. Today the distinction between the extreme left and the extreme right is usually based on the kind of "identity" which is considered more significant: left wingers - it is said - choose the class, right wingers the race or the national identity. Obviously only somebody they can identify with can captivate the masses. This is why a revolutionary demagogue has to insist on some sort of identity, be it social, racial, national, linguistic, ethnic or religious. This approach to the masses by the "identity", common to all the revolutionaries, is more significant than the kind of identity selected by every single demagogue. Kuehnelt-Leddihn describes Hitler as an "identitarian" with a proletarian turn of mind, and it is precisely his demagogic approach, on the ground of a racial identity, that justifies the author's inclusion of Hitler in the wide group of left-wing revolutionaries. (Obviously, if "history is bunk", as many Americans continue to believe, the book of Kuehnelt-Leddihn is of no use).

This book is rivaled perhaps only by the other title of the author: Liberty or Equality. This is a brilliant, erudite, and explosive explanation of how liberalism basically became its opposite: illiberal utopian statism, more akin to national socialism or international socialism than its own roots. That is, historically, how the cause of freedom became tragically attached and confused with a concurrent political shift toward democracy, the two intertwining in the history of the American nation. He is dispassionate, objective, and fair, even to Luther, whom he once disliked intensely. His footnotes alone are worth the price of the book. His basic argument devolves around the idea that leftism is motivated by envy and greed (of which they are fond of slurring their victims), perpetuated by ignorance and ambition (of which they are fond of accusing their opponents), and inevitably bound to end in massive chaos and bloodletting, as well wanton cruelty and sadism, of which the glorious Marquis de Sade is typical. Ironically, history shows (and he demonstrates) that the moderate and concessionary conservatives that replace each choatic revolution and are hailed as heroes, end up being hauled to the chopping block by a new, more degraded and ignoble mob than the last. Most impressive of all, the author is not a pessimist, and reading this book gives you hope that all is not lost in this modern sea of relativism, where "without God, anything is permitted".

Ignore the shallow reviews. One writes that Hitler was a Right-winger in his chauvinism and racism. Did the writer even read this book? Racism and chauvinism are leftist, as Kuehnelt-Leddihin documents.

WHAT LEDDIHN SAYS

The Leftist Mind

The drive toward identity is a mere animal herd instinct. It is uniquely human to also desire diversity. Thus men are attracted to the new and exotic. Leftists desire base identity. They fail to grasp that equality can exist without the herd. Two qaurters equal a fifty cent piece, but are not identical to it.

Men, in fact, are not equal - not even before God, the law or opportunity. Each man is individual, a fact ignored by leftist democracy, which gives one vote to the 18 year old prostitute - and one vote to the 65 year old injured veteran tax-payer.

Democracy is a form of government, but leftists mistake it for an ideology or social value. In reality, the majority can choose Facism, Marxism or any other ideology. Hermann Melville wrote: "Better to be secure under one king, than exposed to violence from twenty millions of monarchs, though oneself be one of them."

The Right is from Latin dexter; it corresponds to the Sheep at Christ's Judgement seat. The Left is "sinister", the goats, perverse distruction of individuality. Leftism is materialistic.

History of Leftism

Leftism has origins in Athenian democracy, Platonic socialism and Anabaptist communism. By contrast, the Reformers and Puritans were conservative and anti-egalitarian.

The New England Puritan colonies, U.S. Founding Fathers and original Constitution were not at all democratic.

The French Revolution was the fault of aristocrats and clergy who embraced the "Enlightenment". The materialism of Rousseau and de Sade led the way to totalitarian terror.

The democratic ideal of equality produces a desire for "secular monasticism". Early socialists were insane dreamers with utopian hopes.

This sci-fi-style socialism was followed by the cold, "scientific" theory of Marxism. Marx himself was hateful and anti-semitic.

Russian Bolshevism, like French Revolutionism, was a sadistic movement of intellectuals. Russians are characteristically anarchistic, not communal. Pre-revolutionary Russia was actually a democratic republic with reds in the Duma. The revolt was not against the Czar.

Mussolini was an ex-Marxist who stole support from the socialist parties. Italian and world Communists praised his reign.

Naziism was sadistic, leftist, socialist and anti-traditional. National Socialism and Communism were rivals, not enemies.

Liberalism

Real liberalism was a free market, libertarian movement. Classical liberals were suspicious of democracy.

False "liberalism" arose in the United States when statists claimed progress and old liberals were afraid to look passe. True liberals took the name libertarian. Foriegn Policy

WWI was a leftist fiasco motivated by hatred of the Hapsburg monarchy. Woodrow Wilson was a southern racist and niave idealist.

Between the World Wars, the Paris Conference oppressed Germany and Nazis rose in power. The Great Depression shook faith in capitolism, and many Americans praised the U.S.S.R. Chamberlain had no choice but to compromise with Hitler, because Britain had been disarmed. Churchill initially praised Hitler.

WWII was started when Stalin broke faith with Hitler. Leftist America praised the Soviets and pretend that plebian Hitler represented aristocracy and tradition.

Post-war agreements put socialists in power accross Europe. Allied troops helped Soviets deport Russian refugees back to the U.S.S.R. Irrational leftism, combined with decline in religion and new technology produced the concept of total war.

(Don Quixote was impractical but idealist & honorable; Sancho Panza was practical but without honor. Leftists, however, lack both realism and honor!)

Colonialism was a positive and civilizing force on world heathenism. Currently, anti-colonial "foriegn aid" retards the development of nations.

Outlook

1. Leftists remain irrationally optomistic about the future.

2. The rule of illiterate masses is an evil.

3. Monarchy was stable; now foriegn policy changes with each election.

4. Men are fallen (sinful). In democracy, they prefer corrupt leaders like themselves to great men.

5. In practice, democracy is simply party-rule. Partisans attack each other, not the common social needs.

6. Democracy has been rendered obsolete by the atomic bomb, which makes the U.S. President (and others) master of earth. (A good man will not be corrupted even by absolute power.)

7. Conservatives reject ideology as leftist utopianism. However, the only alternative to a consistent world-view is rule by slogans and progress by animal trial and error. Men need a vision to guide their development.

8. Places like Russia and South America will never work as liberal democracies; new ideology is needed.

9. An attempt at a Rightist ideology was made in the Portland Declaration.

10. It takes courage to stand against irrational mobs of stupid voters.

11. The Roman Catholic Church is in disarray, invaded by Liberation theology.

12. Nice moderates are really leftists and will justify human sin as good men tricked by "conspiracies". Law needs transcendant authority (God) behind it.

13. Men like Alexis de Tocqueville predicted the totalitarian-democratic nature of the 20th century.

14. Crises loom in Russia and China. A return to monarchy would be best.

15. Democracy is inadequate to defeat leftism. New axioms and political structures are needed.

CRITICISM OF LEDDIHN

This is a watershed book, controversial because it explodes the propaganda of American public school/government "history". One may disagree with Leddihn, but his well-documented claims will not be refuted by leftist bluster.

He drops the ball in explaining the continuity of U.S. Democratic Party lefists. Slavery was replaced by the welfare state. Leftism evolved, it did not come from outside and force its way in.

As a Roman Catholic, Leddihn sees little evil in the Papal Church. He claims that it was most corrupt in the tenth century, when it had minimal political power; certainly the Borgias papacy against which Luther protested was more so.

However, Leddihn is insightful in classifying the Reformation as a reactionary movement. Luther and Calvin were Medieval Christians, not progressives. The Faith they expounded came from the ancient Bible, and is the only ideology that can trump humanism in all its forms.

This encyclopedia of Leftism's arcana illustrates the "Progressive" nature, philosophical and historical roots of socialism's errors and attrocities, from the French Revolution to Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, which are laid out in exquisite detail by the recently deceased Leddihn. "Lefism" cannot be defeated by the 'non-ideology', of the Right. Hitler, the animal rights legislator,(anti-smoking} vegetarian, New Age religionist socialist competed successfully for the intelligencia of Europe and America up untill his attack on socialism's Utopian hope..Russia. Hitler's sexual progressivism as well as the French Revolution's is made clear, as well as the early "racist" and class-warfare {punishment/reward by group category rather than as individuals} thinking of socialists in the communist branch. Also, a valuable reference book of out of print classics and the American founding father's actual attitudes, constitutional safeguards and objections toward Democracy.

Now and then I read a book which is so quirky I don't know exactly what to make of it. On one page you find yourself discovering something you'd never imagined existed or making connections you'd never envisioned. Then on the next page you're wondering what kind of a writer would dare make such outlandish conclusions or allow his prejudices to dictate his presentation. The positions espoused, or the data cited, drives one to actually read the endnotes--and there are 150 pages in the work under review! Such a book is Leftism Revisited: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, c. 1990) by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihin, a regular columnist for National Review.
In the author's opinion, the past 200 years vividly illustrate the folly of the French Revolution and its call for "liberty, equality, frater¬nity." As Goethe declared, "'Legislators and revolutionaries who promise equality and liberty at the same time are either psychopaths or mountebanks'" (p. 9). You just can't enact both liberty and equality, so by and large revolutionaries promise liberty and then strangle it in order to implement the economic equality demanded by the masses. Much of this book is an endeavor to lay bare "the roots of a heinous iniquity, the French Revolution, historically the mother of most of the ideological evils besetting civilization, not only of the West but of the entire world" (p. 57). In Kuehnelt-Leddihn's view, we humans by nature need liberty. Created in the image of God, who alone is truly free, we need the freedom to be the spiritual beings we're created to be. "Right, then, is what is truly right for man, above all his freedom. Because man has a personality, because he is a riddle, a piece of a puzzle that never completely fits into any preestablished social or political picture, he needs room, space" (p. 25). Every man wants to be . . . and needs to be . . . free!
Leftists, however, consider human beings basically physical creatures with purely material needs. "Leftism is basically materialistic" (p. 28). Thus equality, dividing up the economic pie fairly, becomes the goal. If it's necessary to sacrifice individual liberty to attain economic equality, the die is cast in favor of equality.
Equalitarian regimes, communist dictatorships, have, of course flourished and fallen in this century. The connections drawn between the French Revolution's Marquis de Sade and Hitler's Nazi nihilism and the Bolshevik brutality of Joseph Stalin may be tenuous, but K-L (to shorten the author's hyphenated cognomen) ties together common political themes which make them at least distant bedfellows!
At times I was maddened by K-L's aristocratic, anti-democratic Austrian arrogance! Often I considered his historical and political judgments wildly skewed! Like most Americans, I'm rather environmentally conditioned to favor "democracy," which K-L pronounces only in disgust. (Of the American thinkers, he favors the likes of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, who admittedly took an equally dim view of full-fledged democracy and its tendency to pander to the lowest appetites of the majority.) Yet I found myself, more frequently than I'd have imagined, agreeing with the penetrating analysis thrust upon me.
Because it stimulates thought, because it forces one to examine what we Americans often so easily assume to be true (e.g. that "equality" is a social good to be sought), I think the book worth reading and reflecting on. One thing's for sure: if you care about the history of political thought, if you care to understand the political world, you'll not be bored by K-L's assertions!

"Leftism Revisited" is the best book I've read on Western social and political conditions. A true Christian conservative, EVKH's seemless prose makes the Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/Michael Savage crowd look like the war-mongering halfwits they truly are. Especially useful is the devastating critique of democracy that America's founders understood well but W. Bush and other latter-day political hacks don't grasp or don't want to grasp. EVKH's learning is extraordinary. He brings Plato and Aristotle -- democracy is bound to evolve into tyranny -- and Freidrich Engels (friend and collaborator of Karl Marx) -- democracy is the surest way to communism. From his own mind, EVKH: "An orthodox Moslem cannot evolve into a true liberal." (Neoclowns, take note).
Gems like these are on every page. Although a loyal Roman Catholic, Austrian EVKH doesn't flinch from giving his church doses of tough love. He also gives novel critiques and helpful advice about Jews and to Jews. From a Jewish point of view, EVKH was/is truly one of the Chasidei Umos Ha-Olam (pious among the non-Jewish nations of the world).

For anyone interested in the history of Leftism, this book will keep you glued to the pages. If you thought the French Revolution was a GOOD thing, you'll be enlightened as to why it was a very BAD thing. Kuehnelt-Leddihin is one of the most brilliant historians of the 20th Century, and even though you may have trouble finding a copy of this book (or like me, pay $85 for it because you lost that copy you bought for $25), it's worth the effort to get one of your own. The author includes interesting tidbits of historical interest on virtually every page, and not every one is just about Leftism...

Democracy is the Tivil's [devil's] government. - Benjamin Rush.

In dictatorships one has to howl with the wolves . . . and in democracies one has to bleat with the sheep. - Hermann Funke.

_Leftism Revisited_ by Erik von Kuehnelt-Liddihn is a strange book written by a Roman Catholic German Rightist who is at once anti-democratic and pro-monarchy and has described himself as an anarchist of the far right. The book attempts to show the evils of Leftism and democracy (which is a slippery slope to tyranny - as witnessed by many great thinkers including such notables as Plato and de Toqueville) as they are defined by the author. The author notes that traditionally the left hand side has been associated with evil and sorcery while Our Lord Jesus Christ was taken up to rule at the RIGHT hand of the Father in heaven. In parliaments, those who advocate democracy or some form of socialism or communism occupy the seats on the Left while those who advocate tradition occupy the seats on the Right. For the author, a liberal is defined as a lover of liberty, and thus may be a Rightist, which is directly opposed to the modern American understanding of this term, which in fact means just the opposite. The author begins by contrasting identity and diversity. To the author, the Leftist cannot tolerate any diversity among individuals at all, and thus advocates an identitarian politics based on democratic levelling and the conceit of "equality" as opposed to "liberty". The author then moves on to discussing the origins of Leftism in various chiliastic, Gnostic, and millenialist heresies which proliferated during the Middle Ages and before. The author notes that Original Sin and the Fall from Grace is the cause of the existence of the State. Radical sects such as the Hussites and splinter sects off of this group advocated religious and political extremism and anticlericalism. To the author, the Reformation of Luther represents a conservative reaction against the Renaissance humanism which had made its way into the Roman Catholic Church. The author generally sees Luther in a favorable light, although he notes where Luther contrasts specifically with Catholicism, as he represents a monastic reaction against it. On the other hand, the author sees Calvin in a less favorable light and sees in him a precursor to many of the Leftist movements. The author then turns his attention to early America and the American War for Independence (not really a "Revolution" at all). Many of the Founding Fathers of the United States were opposed to democracy and some advocated a return to monarchy. The author next examines the French Revolution which led to mass bloodshed and the wickedness of the Marquis de Sade. According to the author, many Leftists seem obsessed with the thought of total destruction - destruction of man, of the world, and of all of God's Creation. In this sense, they can be described as anti-theists, such is their hatred for God. The author examines some of the socialistic and romantic ideas which circulated during this period - such as those of Fourier and Jean Jacques Rousseau (another Genevan along with Calvin). Next the author turns his attention to the birth of communism by contrasting the anarchist Proudhon with Karl Marx. The author finds Karl Marx to be virtually diabolically in his deceit and hatred of all who disagreed with him in the slightest. Finally the author examines the identitarian politics, racism combined with socialism and nationalism, of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Nearly all theorists consider Hitler and the Nazis to be "on the Right hand side of the political spectrum". However, the author shows how Hitler's socialism and identitarianism are in fact manifestations of Leftism. In the second part of the book, the author turns to a critique of American foreign policy during the First and Second World War and after. The author shows the absurdities behind the worship of Wilson and FDR which many Americans continue to contribute to as well as the hatred of Germans which existed at that time. The author suggests something conspiratorial in the way the Allies and the Russians divided Germany after the war as well as in the usage of the atomic bomb and the bombings of Dresden during the war. The author next discusses the Vietnam War and the regime of Pol Pot as well as the Leftist deceit which took place during this era. The author ends this book with a discussion of the outlook for the future as well as the need for an "ideology of the Right" and presents a scheme for a "utopia of the Right". This book is full of information and obscure references and the argument it makes is unique. With a preface from William F. Buckley, _Leftism Revisited_ is a severely iconoclastic book which will be adored by those on the Right (those who oppose identitarianism, democratic levelling, and socialism and who believe in monarchism, aristocraticism, tradition, and liberty) and despised by those on the Left (those who worship a false equality and advocate identitarianism). The authors advocation of monarchy may appear extreme to many and combined with his individualist bent, he may be considered something of a synthesis between individualist anarchism and monarchism - an anarcho-monarchist, something quite unique in the realm of political discourse.