Introduction

The 1930s in Germany were characterized by the clash between two totalitarian ideologies: National Socialism (Nazism) and Communism. While these systems differed in their economic ideologies, both shared a penchant for concentrated power and control over various aspects of life. This essay examines the practical implications of controlling versus owning the means of production, the extent of their political repression, and their influence on corporations and education. It also draws parallels to contemporary American progressivism, which advocates for a more centralized government and sometimes employs strategies that encroach on individual freedoms, reflecting a shift from the principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

Government Control and Ownership of Production

In Nazi Germany, the regime controlled the means of production without outright ownership. This meant that businesses remained privately owned but were heavily regulated to serve the state’s objectives. Companies like Volkswagen, Krupp, and IG Farben were instrumental in the Nazi war effort and propaganda machine. For instance, Volkswagen was promoted as producing affordable vehicles for the Aryan race, symbolizing the regime's commitment to economic prosperity. Krupp and IG Farben produced military supplies and were deeply integrated into the Nazi state’s agenda, often showcasing their contributions as symbols of German industrial strength.

In contrast, Communism mandated state ownership of all means of production. Private property was abolished, and the state directed all economic activities. In the Soviet Union, enterprises like Mosselprom and the achievements of organizations directed by Gosplan (the State Planning Committee) were used to promote the supposed successes of the Communist economic model. The Stakhanovite Movement highlighted workers who exceeded production quotas, portraying them as heroes and reinforcing the narrative of Communist superiority.

Concentration of Government Power and Political Repression

Both Nazi and Communist regimes affirmed concentrated government power. In Nazi Germany, power was centralized in the hands of the Führer, Adolf Hitler, who wielded absolute authority. The state apparatus was hierarchical, focusing on the cult of personality around Hitler. Political enemies were ruthlessly eliminated through events like the Night of the Long Knives and the use of concentration camps.

Communist regimes also centralized power within the Communist Party, where a select few held sway. The Politburo and the General Secretary were central figures, exemplified by Stalin’s rule. Political repression was extensive, with purges, show trials, and the Gulag system used to suppress dissent and maintain control.

Control of Education and Propaganda

Both regimes believed in controlling education to ensure loyalty and promote their ideologies. In Nazi Germany, the education system emphasized Aryan supremacy, physical fitness, and loyalty to Hitler, with textbooks rewritten to reflect Nazi ideology. The Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, led by Joseph Goebbels, used media and film to glorify the Nazi party.

Similarly, in Communist states, education was used to inculcate Marxist-Leninist principles. History was rewritten to favor the Communist Party, and political education was a core component. State-run newspapers like Pravda and Izvestia published exaggerated accounts of industrial and agricultural successes, creating a narrative of unending progress under Communism.

Influence on Corporations and Media Control

Nazi Germany used corporations as propaganda tools, integrating major firms into the state’s agenda. Companies were expected to promote Nazi ideologies through their marketing and products. In the Soviet Union, state-owned enterprises were used to demonstrate the supposed benefits of socialism, with all aspects of economic production serving as propaganda tools.

Both regimes understood the power of media in shaping public perception. In Nazi Germany, the Ministry of Propaganda controlled the press and produced films like "Triumph of the Will" to promote Nazi ideology. In the Soviet Union, state control of media ensured that only favorable narratives about the regime were disseminated.

Comparison to Modern American Progressivism

In contemporary America, progressives often advocate for a more centralized and activist government, sometimes leading to policies that encroach on freedoms of speech, press, and assembly. Efforts to regulate social media platforms and moderate content can blur the line between combating harmful content and suppressing dissenting views. Deplatforming individuals or groups whose opinions diverge from mainstream progressive perspectives raises concerns about the erosion of free speech.

"Lawfare," or the strategic use of legal systems to achieve political goals, is another tactic used to stifle opposition. This can include filing lawsuits against political opponents or leveraging regulatory agencies to investigate adversaries, indirectly targeting specific groups and undermining democratic principles by weaponizing the judiciary and regulatory bodies.

In education, there is a push for greater control to promote progressive values. Curricula that emphasize social justice, diversity, and inclusion can often resemble ideological indoctrination. The promotion of specific historical narratives and the exclusion of alternative viewpoints create an educational environment where critical thinking is stifled, mirroring totalitarian practices. Trapping kids and parents in state-run schools and then authorizing unelected bureaucrats rather than parents deciding what children can see and learn by teachers unions who curate the books in “public” school libraries.

State-corporate collusion where the state and corporations collude to influence political, cultural, or social change. This merging of state and corporate power is often associated with authoritarian regimes. Among many other things we recentlly witnessed this when government officials were jawboning Big Tech platforms to illegally censor speech and deplatform those who disagree with their vision. 

The administrative state, comprising unelected bureaucrats and regulatory agencies, plays a significant role in this centralization of power. Progressive policies often expand the scope and influence of these bodies, enabling them to enact and enforce regulations without direct legislative oversight. This form of governance reduces accountability and transparency, with significant decisions affecting citizens' lives made by technocrats rather than elected representatives. There are few things less ‘democratic’ than empowering unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats to make laws.

Furthermore, progressive advocacy journalism in the media which often leads to media bias by omission or selective reporting resulting in a homogenization of viewpoints. Major news outlets and entertainment media also often reflect and propagate progressive narratives, marginalizing conservative or alternative perspectives. This media control shapes public opinion and discourse, subtly steering it towards progressive ideals while sidelining dissenting voices. When a political party is closely aligned with or has family members in the media doing their bidding, this situation can be referred to as "media collusion" or "conflict of interest." When a political party has operatives in the media, this can be described as "media infiltration" or "propaganda. In a broader sense, these situations can contribute to cronyism or state capture, where political and media elites collaborate to manipulate public perception and policy to their advantage.

Dehumanizing the opposition by calling them bigots, racists,etc, a tactic which is a form of propaganda  often used to justify marginalization hostility or violence against the targeted group by portraying them as less than human, thus avoiding having to rationally discuss their arguments. 

Does anyone doubt most contemporary Progressives would give the state control of the energy or health care or information sector if they could?

Other totalitarian tendencies manifest in a variety of ways:

• Politicizing the judiciary and legislating from the bench
• Advocating for sweeping changes to the Supreme Court, undermining its independence and breaching constitutional norms
• Movement to abolish the Electoral College, dismissing the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights as outdated relics
• Removing adoption rights from parents who disagree with the ontological belief that feelings determine human identity over God-given biology.
• Enacting laws that strip parents of their rights over children dissenting from state-endorsed transgender ideology in the classroom, thereby violating the separation of church and state
• Compelling teachers and students to use specific gender pronouns in classrooms, regardless of their beliefs
• Promoting initiatives that curb economic freedom under the guise of invented "positive rights"

Real democracy does not demand ideological conformity from its people. Creating expectations for citizens to bow to ideological symbols that stray from the nation's founding principles is more akin to fascism than true democratic ethos.This all goes to demonstrate that, relative to the U.S. Constitution, both Fascism and Communism are left winged ideologies.  Due to the inherent flaw in human nature, too much government, concentrated government power, no matter how good one's intentions are, always leads to tyranny. 

Differences from the U.S. Constitution

The U.S. Constitution emphasizes limited government, checks and balances, and individual liberties. American conservatives advocate for a strict interpretation of the Constitution, preserving these principles. Traditional Democrats, while more open to government intervention, generally respect the Constitution’s framework. However, the progressive wing’s push for centralized authority, whether through regulatory control, educational influence, or media dominance, represents a shift towards a more overreaching governmental structure.

Examples of progressive policies include censorship efforts on social media, the use of "lawfare," and increased control over education. These actions, while often well-intentioned, can undermine the foundational democratic principles of the U.S. Constitution, emphasizing the need for vigilance in preserving individual freedoms.

Conclusion

The totalitarian systems of Fascism and Communism in the 1930s offer stark lessons on the dangers of concentrated power and the suppression of individual freedoms. The rise of progressivism has meant the death of liberalism within the American left. While contemporary American progressivism differs significantly in context and intent, the tendencies towards centralized authority and control over speech, education, and media raise important questions about the balance between governance and individual liberties. The principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution remain crucial in safeguarding democracy and ensuring that government power is limited and accountable. There is always a danger of unchecked power. Due to man's inherent tendency toward corruption, it is vital to maintain a system that constrains power on all of us. Without understanding this fundamental truth, we fail to learn from history and ignore the Bible's stark message about man's fallen condition. Recognizing these tendencies helps prevent the erosion of democratic principles and ensures that liberty and justice prevail.

Greg Whitcomb

-----

Related Resources
Human Depravity and the Presbyterian Form of Church Government
How Presbyterianism Can Save the West (Again)
Lex Rex by Samuel Rutherford
Sphere Sovereignty by Abraham Kuyper