Fear implies a feeling of
being inferior to another person (or to a situation): Hatred is possible
only if one feels helpless in the face of a person considered to be stronger
or more powerful. A feeble and cowardly slave can fear and hate
his master; his master in return will not hate, but will have mere contempt
for the slave. Haters all through history have committed horrible
acts of cruelty (which is the inferior’s revenge),5 whereas contempt
-always coupled with a feeling of superiority-has rarely produced
cruelty. In order to avoid that fear, that feeling of inferiority, the
demand for equality and identity arises. Nobody is better, nobody
superior, all can relax, all can be at ease, nobody feels challenged,
everybody is “safe.” And if identity, if sameness has been achieved,
then the other person’s actions and reactions can be forecast. No (disagreeable)
surprise can be expected, everybody can read thoughts and
feelings in everybody else’s face. And thus a warm herd feeling of
brotherhood will emerge. These sentiments, these emotions, this rejection
of quality (which can never be the same with everybody!) explain
much of the spirit of the mass movements of the last 200 years.
Is this not more or less precisely what animates the hate-filled faces of brainwashed college students who wage violence in the name of peace, and who do and say profoundly ugly things in the name of compassion and understanding, without the slightest shred of self awareness or desire for cognitive consistency?
With regard to National Socialism, he makes a good analogy by saying that Nazism and Communism were not enemies: they were competitors. Both sought absolute authoritarian states, both sought absolute conformity among their people, but they could not both exist in the same spaces. As he says, Company A, which sells shoes, may be a competitor to Company B, but both believe in the value of shoes. They are in the same basic business, even if their approaches to marketing may differ, their precise product focus may differ, and their management styles may differ.
Here is another great quote:
The second aspect of envy lies in the superiority of another person
in an important respect. The mere suspicion that the other person feels
superior on account of looks, of brain-power, of brawn, of cash, etc.,
can create a burning feeling of envy. The only way to find a compensation
lies in a successful search for inferior qualities in the person who
figures as the object of envy. “He is rich, but he is evil,” “He is
successful, but he has a miserable family life,” “He is well born and
well connected, but, oh, so stupid.” Sometimes these shortcomings of
an envied person serve as a consolation: sometimes they also serve as
a “moral” excuse for an attack, especially if the object of real or
imagined envy has moral shortcomings.
In the last 200 years the exploitation of envy, its mobilization among
the masses, coupled with the denigration of individuals, but more frequently
of classes, races, nations or religious communities has been
the very key to political success. The history of the Western World
since the end of the eighteenth century cannot be written without this
fact constantly in mind. All leftist “isms” harp on this theme, i. e. ,
on the privilege of groups, minority groups, to be sure, who are objects
of envy and at the same time subjects of intellectual-moral inferiorities.
They have no right to their exalted positions. They ought to conform
to the rest, become identical with “the people,” renounce their
privileges, conform. If they speak another language, they ought to drop
it and talk the lingo of the majority. If they are wealthy their riches
should be taxed away or confiscated. If they adhere to an unpopular
ideology, they ought to forget it
You can download the whole thing for free here: https://mises.org/library/leftism-de-sade-and-marx-hitler-and-marcuse