CHAPTER 5: Is Socialism an Obstacle to Christianity?
That socialism can become a force against Christianity we know from the history of the social democratic and communist movements. But the reason for this lies not in socialism itself, not in the fact that it strives for a different economic system from the capitalist one, but in its connection with historical materialism and with the secularization process of the liberal age. But this connection is only historical, not essential.
Socialism excludes Christianity the moment it hypostasizes its social ideal, i.e. puts it, as it were, in the place of the Kingdom of God. Economic order always remains only economic order. One order does not have the same deficiencies as the other - they all have deficiencies. That people are tempted to exchange tried and tested deficiencies for untested ones is understandable, and the Christian has no reason to prevent people from trying out the various possibilities of life. But the moment the spirit is declared to be a product or a reappearance of matter, the moment the production and distribution of material goods is elevated to a "doctrine of salvation" which in some way also has, as it were, magical consequences in making men "better," the conflict between socialism and Christianity, and therefore the struggle, is inevitable.
Now, what about the socialism of the National Socialist movement? This socialism consists in the following: First, it demands the domination of the state over the economy, while Marxism wants an abdication of the state to the economy. National Socialism wants to put the economy at the service of the political nation. Marxism wants to transform the state into an economic machinery, into an organization of production and distribution of goods, and to supress the nation into a historical cultural community subordinate to world culture. The National Socialists want the primacy of the state, the Marxists the primacy of the economy. (In this the Marxists find themselves together with bourgeois economic liberalism, to which, according to the idea, they should be deadly enemies).
Second. National Socialism sees as its goal not the greatest possible comfort of the individual (for "common good comes before self-interest"), but the greatest possible accumulation of national power. It wants socialism in the interest of the nation, not in the interest of the individual. He wants a harsh, hard, militarily disciplined socialism, not a socialism that promotes the enjoyment, the pleasure of life, the cultural feasting of the individual, not a "humanistic" socialism.
Thirdly. The Socialism of Marxist origin wants socialization of the means of production. National Socialism wants "breaking the bondage of interest" (that would be point 11 of the party program). What does this mean? Interest bondage is, according to Feder, the condition of the peoples, who are "under the money or interest rule of high finance". So one does not turn against industry, nor does one aim against production, but rather, one turns against the banks and aims at money itself. The means of "high finance", which is designated an "all-Jewish" one, is the device of credit. It is through credit that the farmer, the worker, the commercial middle class, and the industrialist is brought into dependence. The dependence of a nation on other nations, of a man on other men, established by the fetter of interest, is to be "broken." While the ideal of liberal socialism is the well-ordered factory, the ideal of national socialism is the farm. This "National Socialism" strives for a wholesomeness in which all men become functionaries, and further more it strives for a wholesomeness which leaves room for free initiative.
That socialism can become a force against Christianity we know from the history of the social democratic and communist movements. But the reason for this lies not in socialism itself, not in the fact that it strives for a different economic system from the capitalist one, but in its connection with historical materialism and with the secularization process of the liberal age. But this connection is only historical, not essential.
Socialism excludes Christianity the moment it hypostasizes its social ideal, i.e. puts it, as it were, in the place of the Kingdom of God. Economic order always remains only economic order. One order does not have the same deficiencies as the other - they all have deficiencies. That people are tempted to exchange tried and tested deficiencies for untested ones is understandable, and the Christian has no reason to prevent people from trying out the various possibilities of life. But the moment the spirit is declared to be a product or a reappearance of matter, the moment the production and distribution of material goods is elevated to a "doctrine of salvation" which in some way also has, as it were, magical consequences in making men "better," the conflict between socialism and Christianity, and therefore the struggle, is inevitable.
Now, what about the socialism of the National Socialist movement? This socialism consists in the following: First, it demands the domination of the state over the economy, while Marxism wants an abdication of the state to the economy. National Socialism wants to put the economy at the service of the political nation. Marxism wants to transform the state into an economic machinery, into an organization of production and distribution of goods, and to supress the nation into a historical cultural community subordinate to world culture. The National Socialists want the primacy of the state, the Marxists the primacy of the economy. (In this the Marxists find themselves together with bourgeois economic liberalism, to which, according to the idea, they should be deadly enemies).
Second. National Socialism sees as its goal not the greatest possible comfort of the individual (for "common good comes before self-interest"), but the greatest possible accumulation of national power. It wants socialism in the interest of the nation, not in the interest of the individual. He wants a harsh, hard, militarily disciplined socialism, not a socialism that promotes the enjoyment, the pleasure of life, the cultural feasting of the individual, not a "humanistic" socialism.
Thirdly. The Socialism of Marxist origin wants socialization of the means of production. National Socialism wants "breaking the bondage of interest" (that would be point 11 of the party program). What does this mean? Interest bondage is, according to Feder, the condition of the peoples, who are "under the money or interest rule of high finance". So one does not turn against industry, nor does one aim against production, but rather, one turns against the banks and aims at money itself. The means of "high finance", which is designated an "all-Jewish" one, is the device of credit. It is through credit that the farmer, the worker, the commercial middle class, and the industrialist is brought into dependence. The dependence of a nation on other nations, of a man on other men, established by the fetter of interest, is to be "broken." While the ideal of liberal socialism is the well-ordered factory, the ideal of national socialism is the farm. This "National Socialism" strives for a wholesomeness in which all men become functionaries, and further more it strives for a wholesomeness which leaves room for free initiative.