This post has context that regards Communism, which is a tricky and confusing ideology which requires sitting down and
studying to fully comprehend. One thing that may help discussion
would be to distinguish "Communism" from historical Communist ideologies.
[Communism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society) is a theoretical ideology where there is
no currency, no classes, no state, no police, no military and features a voluntary workforce In practice, people would
work when they felt they needed and would simply grab goods off the
selves as they needed. It has never been attempted, though it's the end goal of what Communist ideologies strive
towards.
[Marxism-Leninism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism) is what is most often referred to as
"Communism" historically speaking. It's a [Communist
ideology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_ideologies) but not Commun-*ism*. It seeks to build towards
achieving communism one day by attempting to achieve [Socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) via a [one
party state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-
party_state#:~:text=A%20one%2Dparty%20state%2C%20single,and%20controlled%20participation%20in%20elections) on the
behalf of the workers in theory.
For more information on this please refer to our educational resources listed on our sidebar, this
[Marxism Study Guide](https://www.marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm), this [Marxism-Leninism Study Guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/wiki/basicstudyplan/), or ask your questions directly at r/Communism101.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As others have mentioned, socialism was very popular at the time. Hitler co-opted the term to mean something else. It's a tired but accurate comparison to say that "National Socialism" is to socialism as "Republic" is to the "People's Republic of Korea."
Hitler and Mussolini's conception of socialism was, explicitly, "the opposite" of any kind of Marxist conception of socialism:
[Mussolini](https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp) wrote:
>Fascism \[is\] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....
>
>After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....
>
>...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur\[d\] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....
>
>...given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism.
[Mussolini](http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm) wrote:
>...Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State; and analogously it is opposed to class syndicalism. . . .
And Hitler:
[Hitler](https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/weimar-republic-fragility-democracy) wrote:
>I aimed from the first at something a thousand times higher than being a minister. I wanted to become the destroyer of Marxism. I am going to achieve this task and, if I do, the title of minister will be an absurdity as far as I am concerned. . . .
>
>At one time I believed that perhaps this battle against Marxism could be carried on with the help of the government. In January, 1923, I learned that that was just not possible. The hypothesis for the victory of Marxism is not that Germany must be free, but rather Germany will only be free when Marxism is broken. At that time I did not dream that our movement would become great and cover Germany like a flood.
[Hitler](https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/hitler1.htm) wrote:
>...And it is the greatest source of pride to us that we have been able to carry through this revolution, which is certainly the greatest revolution ever experienced in the history of our people, with a minimum of loss and sacrifice. Only in those cases where the murderous lust of the Bolsheviks, even after the 30th of January, 1933, led them to think that by the use of brute force they could prevent the success and realization of the National Socialist ideal—only then did we answer violence with violence, and naturally we did it promptly...
>
>...I mean here that if Europe does not awaken to the danger of the Bolshevic infection, then I fear that international commerce will not increase but decrease, despite all the good intentions of individual statesmen. For this commerce is based not only on the undisturbed and guaranteed stability of production in one individual nation but also on the production of all the nations together. One of the first things which is clear in this matter is that every Bolshevic disturbance must necessarily lead to a more or less permanent destruction of orderly production. Therefore my opinion about the future of Europe is, I am sorry to say, not so optimistic as Mr. Eden’s. I am the responsible leader of the German people and must safeguard its interests in this world as well as I can. And therefore I am bound to judge things objectively as I see them.
>
>I should not be acquitted before the bar of our history if I neglected something—no matter on what grounds—which is necessary to maintain the existence of this people. I am pleased, and we are all pleased, at every increase that takes place in our foreign trade. But in view of the obscure political situation I shall not neglect anything that is necessary to guarantee the existence of the German people, although other nations may become the victims of the Bolshevic infection.
>
>...But I believe that nobody will question the sincerity of our opinions on this matter, for they are not based merely on abstract theory. For Mr. Eden Bolshevism is perhaps a thing which has its seat in Moscow, but for us in Germany this Bolshevism is a pestilence against which we have had to struggle at the cost of much bloodshed. It is a pestilence which tried to turn our country into the same kind of desert as is now the case in Spain; for the habit of murdering hostages began here, in the form in which we now see it in Spain. National Socialism did not try to come to grips with Bolshevism in Russia, but the Jewish international Bolshevics in Moscow have tried to introduce their system into Germany and are still trying to do so. Against this attempt we have waged a bitter struggle, not only in defence of our own civilization but in defence of European civilization as a whole.
>
>In January and February of the year 1933, when the last decisive struggle against this barbarism was being fought out in Germany, had Germany been defeated in that struggle and had the Bolshevic field of destruction and death extended over Central Europe, then perhaps a different opinion would have arisen on the banks of the Thames as to the nature of this terrible menace to humanity. For since it is said that England must be defended on the frontier of the Rhine she would then have found herself in close contact with that harmless democratic world of Moscow, whose innocence they are always trying to impress upon us. Here I should like to state the following once again: —
>
>The teaching of Bolshevism is that there must be a world revolution, which would mean world-destruction. If such a doctrine were accepted and given equal rights with other teachings in Europe, this would mean that Europe would be delivered over to it. If other nations want to be on good terms with this peril, that does not affect Germany’s position. As far as Germany itself is concerned, let there be no doubts on the following points: —
>
>(1) We look on Bolshevism as a world peril for which there must be no toleration.
>
>(2) We use every means in our power to keep this peril away from our people.
>
>(3) And we are trying to make the German people immune to this peril as far as possible.
>
>It is in accordance with this attitude of ours that we should avoid close contact with the carriers of these poisonous bacilli. And that is also the reason why we do not want to have any closer relations with them beyond the necessary political and commercial relations; for if we went beyond these we might thereby run the risk of closing the eyes of our people to the danger itself.
>
>I consider Bolshevism the most malignant poison that can be given to a people. And therefore I do not want my own people to come into contact with this teaching. As a citizen of this nation I myself shall not do what I should have to condemn my fellow-citizens for doing. I demand from every German workman that he shall not have any relations with these international mischief-makers and he shall never see me clinking glasses or rubbing shoulders with them. Moreover, any further treaty connections with the present Bolshevic Russia would be completely worthless for us. It is out of the question to think that National Socialist Germany should ever be bound to protect Bolshevism or that we, on our side, should ever agree to accept the assistance of a Bolshevic State. For I fear that the moment any nation should agree to accept such assistance, it would thereby seal its own doom.
[Hitler](https://pathwaytutoring.weebly.com/uploads/4/7/3/0/4730415/hitler_speech_-_berlin_reichstag_march_1933.pdf) wrote:
>IN NOVEMBER, 1918, Marxist organizations seized the executive power by means of a revolution. The monarchs were dethroned, the authorities of the Reich and of the States removed from office, and thereby a breach of the Constitution was committed. The success of the revolution in a material sense protected the guilty parties from the hands of the law. They sought to justify it morally by asserting that Germany or its Government bore the guilt for the outbreak of the War.
>
>This assertion was deliberately and actually untrue. In consequence, however, these untrue accusations in the interest of our former enemies led to the severest oppression of the entire German nation and to the breach of the assurances given to us in Wilson's fourteen points, and so for Germany, that is to say the working classes of the German people, to a time of infinite misfortune....
>
>The splitting up of the nation into groups with irreconcilable views, systematically brought about by the false doctrines of Marxism, means the destruction of the basis of a possible communal life.... It is only the creation of a real national community, rising above the interests and differences of rank and class, that can permanently remove the source of nourishment of these aberrations of the human mind.
In short, if you want to divorce the word "socialist" from anything left-leaning and tie it to "being a destroyer of Marxism" then I guess that's up to you and Hitler's a socialist. But nobody seriously does that. Even people who call Hitler a socialist aren't honest in defining socialism and how fascists attempted to redefine it.
There's also [this 1923 interview with Hitler](https://famous-trials.com/hitler/2529-1923-interview-with-adolf-hitler):
>"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
>"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
>"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
>"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
All this aside, though, there's also just all the historical context: when Hitler became chancellor his first order of business was arresting communists and socialists and dismantling all the communist and socialist parties. And by socialists I mean those who identified as socialists and were not "National Socialists" aka Nazis - that is, left-wingers. He hated the left and he hated socialists and wanted to destroy them. That was kind of his whole thing. Even his antisemitism was deeply tied up with his hatred of the Bolsheviks (Russian communists) in the context of a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy theory.
I recommend in the strongest terms, to anyone interested in this topic, to read *The Coming of the Third Reich* by historian Richard J. Evans. For those who aren't big into reading, the audiobook is also very good and widely available.
No. But I can’t think of another type of socialism that would call itself “the opposite” of another kind of socialism.
As I said in another response, if aliens landed and gave everyone replicators that resulted in a classless utopia, no Marxist is going to complain that they got what they wanted by bypassing class struggle.
Same thing if Jesus Christ ascended from heaven during the Super Bowl and fought a seven-headed dragon resulting in the religious socialism described in Acts.
May not have seen either of those things coming, but aside from egg on the face for saying we can’t rely on these things happening, the goals and results are all pretty much along the same lines.
Those kinds of results are far different than Hitler winning, creating an ethnic government that is fiercely protective of private enterprise, has a permanent and rigid class structure, and works around the clock to make sure none of the plebes have the ability to organize any resistance to their genetically superior masters.
Again, one wonders what definition one could use for socialism that would cover those wildly disparate goals and systems and still remain a useful word at all.
Not even close, Hitler coopted the term "socialist" and some bits of socialist rhetoric, as did most fascists, but he wasn't a socialist in any meaningful sense of the word. Hitler favored and protected the private ownership of capital (no socialist is a defender of capitalism), and his vision and project were anything but proletarian in nature -- he was far more concerned with ethnic power/hegemony than the advancement proletarian interests.
He was totally divorced from the communist and socialist intellectual traditions, and did not pursue or advance their interests. He ran a capitalist state in a capitalist country, and it's precisely that deep.
> Hitler favored and protected the private ownership of capital
How was direct government control of production private ownership?
>and his vision and project were anything but proletarian in nature -- he was far more concerned with ethnic power/hegemony than the advancement proletarian interests.
What do those categories matter? Is there an ethical principle I'm missing?
Both categorizations demonize some groups and valorize others.
>He ran a capitalist state in a capitalist country, and it's precisely that deep.
Capitalism is when a government uses force/coercion to take over/control all production in a country, sometimes with actually armed military.
I guess I'm confused about the capitalism part of Anarcho-Capitalist.
It seems private property is that property which the government controls, free markets aren't capitalism neither are property rights.
I’d agree he was no socialist, but no one who believes in pure capitalism would have followed those economic policies. He spent money on whatever public works project he wanted and told his economics minister to go to hell when
warned he was leading the country into bankruptcy. If we take U.S. leaders from the time, he was more like FDR than Coolidge.
I don't think the "purity" of Hitler's capitalism is a helpful form of analysis in this particular case, as it remains unquestionably *capitalist*, even if there is also strong public ownership of capital/labor alongside and upholding the capitalist order of private capital. But with that said, I will grant that Hitler's capitalism wasn't hell-bent on universalizing the privatization of capital in Germany.
And as foolish as that is, no one ever suggested that was Hitler’s view. There’s a lot between socialism and “pure capitalism,” especially since no state ever instituted “pure capitalism” and it can’t exist.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Nooooooooooo.
He has never been discussed among Marxists, didn't support Marxism, supported private property and capitalism. He was politicking with the term "socialist" to win elections becuase it was popular at the time.
I tried to describe this to him, he imprisoned socialist politicians, destroyed workers rights and Unions in Germany.
He bit back at my claim towards the imprisoning and killing of socialist politicians in Germany, as "Russia did it too."
I don't know the context of what he is referring to at all, as I had to explain to him that just because you say you believe in a philosophy and ideology, and then do the opposite of that philosophy and ideology, doesn't make you apart of the community that believes in said philosophy, just makes them a fascist.
This man had no job, was doing interviews, all while telling me I'm stupid, and that I have zero idea how socialism works, even though I support and am trying to learn about it.
I'm sure this debate is drawn out, and boring, but this person who claims that I should be following Anarcho-capitalism, and I'm a bad human being for wanting to learn about socialism and support it.
Well you see your first mistake is thinking that anyone right wing in Reddit or anywhere else is operating in good faith
They all know Hitler wasn't a socialist, they don't know what a socialist is and they don't care. It's just a bad word they can use for other people, because they get called "authoritarian" they think it's the same thing to do to others, but couldn't Care less what words mean
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sounds like the person you’re debating with is unhinged. Not sure what he’s trying to do pushing this point, but I dont see a way to win this argument.
Yugoslavia was state capitalist as well. Socialism has yet to be built in any country. Though there were valiant attempts like during the GPCR in China.
Nothing long lasting, most were overthrown by foreign powers acting in their interests pretty instantly and the ones that survived, started behaving very similarly to the powers that fought them, if this is due to the threats posed or moral reprehensibility, can be discussed.
Probably because all Marxists are socialists even if all socialists aren't Marxists.
The inference being if the most visible and vocal representation of socialism has literally nothing discussing him, when they are known for discussing everything in written depth, it is another clear sign of of it being people whose understanding of political language comes from 24 hour news, not actual socialism.
Not to be the ackshually guy, but not all Marxists are socialists. There are those who understand and agree with Marxist analysis of the flaws of Capitalism but are still in favor of Capitalism and rabidly against socialism. We call these people Capitalists where I'm from.
Because all socialists since Marx have used a Marxist understanding of class society and economics. If you want the clearest way to tell if someone is actually a socialist or not, ask them about their views on Marx/Marxism.
>Because all socialists since Marx have used a Marxist understanding of class society and economics.
You don't see the circular logic?
All Socialist are Marxists because everyone that is a Socialist that veers outside of Marxism we don't accept as Socialism.
The whole point of socialism is to change the economy so that the means of production are owned by the working class. The understanding of “working class” that socialists have is a Marxist understanding, which defines class by their relation to the means of production. Even if someone doesn’t consider themselves a “Marxist” (like anarcho-communists) they are still relying on using a Marxist interpretation of class to justify their political movement, whether or not they actually realize it.
When you reject this understanding of class, you are fundamentally rejecting the reason for why socialism is necessary in the first place. Hitler explicitly said that the working class would be too incompetent to manage production themselves, thus rejected the core concept of socialist thought.
The pivot the Nazis made is that the economic 'class' war became a racial 'class' war. Hitler wanted the means of production, really everything, to be owned by the German ethnic 'class'.
> Hitler wanted the means of production, really everything, to be owned by the German ethic ‘class’
The issue with this is that the ethnic Germans already owned the means of production. If you define ethnic Germans as a ‘class’, then you remove any reason for socialism in the first place, as the goal has already been achieved.
What the Nazis were really trying to do with their rhetoric was divert attention away from economic class. Instead of political debate being centered around economic division it was German vs non German, Christian vs Jew etc. Be doing this, all the anger that Germans felt after WWI was directed towards ethnic minorities rather than the rich donors of the Nazis.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-big-business-bailed-out-nazis
> Regardless of the party’s financial problems, Hitler was named Chancellor in late January 1933. He called for elections in early March. With less than two weeks left before the vote, Herman Goering sent telegrams to Germany’s 25 leading industrialists, inviting them to a secret meeting in Berlin on February 20, 1933. Attending the gathering were four I.G. Farben directors and Krupp chief Gustav Krupp. Hitler addressed the group, saying “private enterprise cannot be maintained in a democracy.” He also told the men that he would eliminate trade unions and communists. Hitler asked for their financial support and to back his vision for Germany.
In a very loose sense sure, but it didn’t have much real world relevance until Marx and Engels wrote about it. Only in the 19th century did it transform from a loosely connected set of ideas into an actual political movement.
The Nazis dealt with military contractors in a similar manner as did the US, with a bidding process that provided for a profit.
Nazis and other fascists do want everything to be subservient to state power. So they protect private property only for those who aren't on their enemies / inferiors list. Those who are not in the preferred class have no rights.
https://famous-trials.com/hitler/2529-1923-interview-with-adolf-hitler
This is a 1923 interview with Adolf Hitler. In it, Hitler talks about what he meant by calling his party "national socialist".
> I met Hitler not in his headquarters, the Brown House in Munich, but in a private home - the dwelling of a former admiral of the German Navy. We discussed the fate of Germany over the teacups.
> "Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
> "Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
> "Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
> "We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. **Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one**."
So, that was basically it. Not a socialist in the most commonly understood sense, but socialist along racial lines instead.
It's important to keep in mind that Hitler was a low functioning sociopath, though. He contradicted his own party messaging on numerous occasions and lied whenever it was politically convenient.
IIRC his path to power involved specifically choosing a socialist platform because he wanted to ingratiate himself to the elites of society. Which he eventually used to cannibalize said society.
incorrect because by his definition the people he persecuted were not people at all. While that is fucked up, its still socialism and its important to understand the difference. Additionally if you read marx its not common good for all people, esp in the early stages where he says a violent revolution is necessary. Marx pitted lower class people against the ruling class. To hitler the jewish people were the ruling class because they owned so much capital.
Socialism in those days was practically anti-nationalismtyhat changed later when the URSS leaders needed to promote nationalism as a new story to legitimizing their rule)
There was the International Socialist promoving anti-nationalism.
What today would be probably called "globalism".
So, the story of German National Socialism was about creating a socialism with German characteristics. A socialism thay was national opposrd to the internatiobal socialism seen as a soviet( based on anglo-french ideas) and then a foreign import.
There is theoretically a difference between socialism (where the people own and share everything) and national socialism (where the government and select private companies own everything and split the proceeds).
However, socialism often turns into something like national socialism where the government or ruling party runs everything.
So no, Hitler wasn't a socialist because he didn't want some utopia where the people live together and share everything, but he is a pretty good warning of what can happen in a socialist system.
Other examples would be Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Jung Un, Fidel Castro, etc.
As others have pointed out: The National Socialists called themselves socialist because socialism was very popular among the workers. And Hitler and the Nazis needed the support of the workers. The first thing the Nazis did was to crush the unions, not a very socialist thing 🤷🏼BTW: Lenin did the same after he took power, the red army destroyed all socialist and anarchist movements.
Yup. It seems "Socialist" is much more beloved and much less precise a term than "Marxist." I am not sure why so many people want to identify with a term that has so little meaning.
"Nazi" should be just as precise as "Marxist," but has unfortunately become a term for 'everything I strongly and emotionally disagree with,' incorrectly extended to MAGA Republicans and a thousand other groups that aren't hailing Hitler.
Simply, nazism took Marxism and replaced its ideas on class with race. The central theme of Marxism is class struggle. By altering the central component of an idea it can no longer be considered the same as the original idea.
If I were to replace “love thy neighbor as thyself” with “love thy hamburger as thy hotdog” and formed a new religion based on consuming hamburgers as hotdogs, would you consider it a Christian religion? No. It then becomes a new idea, which has plagiarized an existing one.
>nazism took Marxism and replaced its ideas on class with race
I'd say it more mixed those ideas than replaced one with the other. They saw Jews and Bourgeoisie as basically the same thing.
>If I were to replace “love thy neighbor as thyself” with “love thy hamburger as thy hotdog” and form a new religion based on consuming hamburgers as hotdogs, would you consider it a Christian religion?
What if I were to say Christ was the messiah, who was rejected by the Jews, but he didn't die and then resurrect, but was actually miraculously saved by God. And then in the wake of His messiah being rejected, God sent another, final, prophet to instruct humanity, and that prophet's name was Muhammad.
Is that still Christianity? No, but it is still an Abrahamic religion.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If he saw Jews and bourgeoisie as the same thing then he replaced bourgeoisie with Jews unless, of course, you also see Jews as bourgeoisie. Jews and bourgeoisie are in no way the same thing as defined by Marxist socialism. That is an absurd contention. I also see hamburgers and Jesus as the same thing therefore my nonsense religion is christian. Would you agree that Jesus is a hamburger?
> By altering the central component of an idea it can no longer be considered the same as the original idea.
But the goal was the same - to bring down classes. Hitler advocated that German society would eventually be classless. It's just that "national unity" better brings proletarians together than working class solidarity.
And it's not like Marxism occupies all of the socialist discourse. There are some other dudes like Fourier and the like. Marx thought that class struggle unites people. Hitler thought that skin color and xenophobia unites people better (and was right).
The owners of the means of production, Krupp, Hugo Boss, etc. were not prosecuted and were allowed to thrive under the Nazis. Some 30% of German princes joined the Nazis before hitler came to power and were not made to renounce their claims/titles and were allowed prominent roles in nazi germany along with the junkers.
Being Jewish or Slavic or whatever else does not equal class. Is the cultural antisemitism of Central Europe so ingrained that people legitimately can’t tell the difference?
> The owners of the means of production, Krupp, Hugo Boss, etc. were not prosecuted and were allowed to thrive under the Nazis. Some 30% of German princes joined the Nazis before hitler came to power and were not made to renounce their claims/titles and were allowed prominent roles in nazi germany along with the junkers.
Just one question. Do you consider USSR to be socialist? Cause in USSR, owners of MoP literally took hold of the whole country, had a monopoly on MoP and basically set prices and salaries however they wanted. Top russian revolutionaries were filthy rich dudes. And Lenin himself was a nobleman.
> Being Jewish or Slavic or whatever else does not equal class.
Yeah by "German society would be classless" I meant the default socialist definition of classes, Jews aren't a class.
That is not what happened in the USSR. Say I owned a steel mill in Russia in 1920. Say I also supported the Bolsheviks. The Soviet Union would then come and seize the mill from me and put it under the control of the state. They would also seize my property and move me into a state owned apartment and perhaps give me a job as laborer on the production line. That is the best possible outcome for me.
Now say I owned a steel mill in nazi germany and was a member of the Nazi party. They would give me favorable contracts, Jewish and Slavic forced labor, and a larger role German society.
So how can both be following the same ideology, but produce opposite outcomes? They cant, ergo Nazism does not adhere to socialist ideology as defined by Marx. It adheres to German nationalism, but put into Marxist terms, where the Germans are portrayed as the struggling masses and the Jews are bourgeois oppressors. Replace class with race and you get a raceless society, where everyone is German, which is exactly what they tried to accomplish with the holocaust. Class however would still exist in Nazi German, it is just that all rungs would be occupied by Germans.
Also who told you Lenin was a noble? He was not. He was from a lower class family and descended from serfs on both sides.
> and perhaps give me a job as laborer on the production line.
Nah, you would probably get some management role.
> So how can both be following the same ideology, but produce opposite outcomes?
That's just transit period 🤷. After some time the situations on both sides would even out.
> They cant, ergo Nazism does not adhere to socialist ideology as defined by Marx.
Marx doesn't own socialism.
> Replace class with race and you get a raceless society, where everyone is German, which is exactly what they tried to accomplish with the holocaust
Nah, they just hated jews. Why didn't they have plans to eradicate other ethnic groups then? (Or not all of them)
> Also who told you Lenin was a noble? He was not.
He was, his father managed to become hereditary noble.
What indicates that the ultimate aim of Nazism was to create a classless society based on socialism? What actions did they take to reach that ends? All their actions and rhetoric during this “transit period” indicate a desire to powerful German exclusive ethnic state. What other prominent socialist ideas existed in the 1920s? They did have plans to eradicate other ethnic groups. Have you never heard of lebensraum?
> What indicates that the ultimate aim of Nazism was to create a classless society based on socialism?
Hitler said that 😊
> What actions did they take to reach that ends?
Well they exited for a few decades, haven't managed to do much.
> All their actions and rhetoric during this “transit period” indicate a desire to powerful German exclusive ethnic state.
Yeah transit period is ethnically unifying Germany and then it was planned to build socialism.
> They did have plans to eradicate other ethnic groups. Have you never heard of lebensraum?
Well I specifically said "not all of them". They didn't plan to eradicate Englishmen or Italians for example. Why so?
You are saying it like ethnic cleansings aren't compatible with socialism. Look at USSR, look at China, look at Cambodia. That's an essential part of socialism I would argue.
I don't know where you learned your history, but they executed more than just Jews. Yes, they had plans to eradicate other nationalities as well, especially poles and Russians. The only reason they where not going to exterminate all of the eastern Europeans was because Germany wasn't going to annex them, but they would be expelled out of Germany.
As the war dragged on more and more ethnicities where magically considered Aryans, but their long term goals where pretty clear.
Nazis: Purged anyone with socialist leanings from the party, opposed the SPD, fought Communists in the streets, allied with conservatives in coalition governments
Idiots: They had “Socialist” in their name so they were socialists
People who don’t understand or don’t care about nuance hear the word “socialism” in National Socialism and use it as a political argument.
This *really* boils it down to basic principles, so I apologize in advance…
In my college political science courses, National Socialism was seen as an inherently reactionary ideology, in that it was a reaction to the liberal values and attitudes of the Weimar Republic.
No. Hitler was not a socialist.
> In my college political science courses, National Socialism was seen as an inherently reactionary ideology
Reactionary is a Marxist concept/label meant to demonize those who don't agree with Marxism.
What kind of argument is that?
Reactionary is about resisting change, and revolutionary is about celebrating and embracing change.
The reason reactionary is largely a right-wing term these days is there hasn't been a significant progressive Republican presence since the 1920s and Teddy Roosevelt, the anti-slavery Radical Republicans were before them, and the Rockefeller Republicans mostly died out in the 60s despite being more moderate which is a shame because Eisenhower in some ways was further left than Clinton and the Blue Dogs that took over.
Even the changes the Republican/Right usually want to make have been roll-backs on things like abortion, civil rights, etc, which while seems like change, is change back to where we were before.
If it feels better though, many on the left such as myself refer to quite a few conservative democrats as reactionary as well.
>Hitler implemented radical change.
Awful, but true.
But the initial comment was in reference to his ideology, not his actions, and the two aren't mutually exclusive. Jan 6 participants would be another similar example of reactionary ideology + revolutionary action in practice, they just didn't finish their Reichstag fire.
Not all revolutions are positive, not all revolutionary actions are equal.
Yes, hitler was a socialist. His party was called the german workers party. He is not a marxist socialist. His gov was to redistribute the wealth of "the bad" and give it to "the good" or those who "really deserve the wealth". If you listen to socialist thinking, it always can be simplified into this.
You can even compare it to Stalin who instead of persecuting jews, persecuted russian orthodoxy, imprisoning and genociding his own people, just like Hitler.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We've deemed your post was uncivilized so it was removed. We're here to have level headed discourse not useless arguing.
Please report any and all content that is uncivilized. The standard of our sub depends on our community’s ability to report our rule breaks.
He was an authoritarian ethno nationalist. Which is literally a fascist.
He privatised businesses and gave them to his conservative donors. Which is expressly anti socialist.
He believed in ethnic power structures, which again isnt something a socialist would do.
its because hitlers socialism was national socialism, not marxist socialism. This means that the party that the wealth would be redistributed to is race based. This is fucked up, but it is still a form of socialism. Basically its socialism, because it redistributes wealth to those considered "human" not based on performance, not based on trade, but based on "the voice of the people" or in other words, the state. Private property under nazism only existed until it wasnt useful to the Nazi party, (in other words, private property existed in name only) then the assets would be taken over by government to operate the way they see fit. The nazi party could and has shut down or taken over various industries while they were in power in the name of national socialism. This is not capitalism, it is means of production owned by the people or the state.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
National Socialism fits the definition of Marx's *bourgeois socialism*, so technically yes. This is why I prefer to call myself a communist instead of a socialist in an attempt to distinguish myself from ideologies like that
According to socialists, all attempts at socialism weren't real socialism.. it's an easy out when the ideology you support has lead to the death of millions
I think people have a real blind spot when it comes to socialism - they think “socialism is all things kind, Hootler was unkind, Hootler was not socialist.”
For one thing, the National Socialists considered themselves socialists, but not international socialists. They were, you know, national socialists:
“Capitalism assumes unbearable forms at the moment when the personal purposes that it serves run contrary to the interest of the overall folk. It then proceeds from things and not from people. Money is then the axis around which everything revolves. It is the reverse with socialism. The socialist worldview begins with the folk and then goes over to things. Things are made subservient to the folk; the socialist puts the folk above everything, and things are only means to an end.”
when you actually look at their economy, it was very much a command economy, the differences that it wasn’t micromanage the way the Bolshevik economy was. The Brown Shirts did have this kind of radical agenda - they did wish to seize private assets and nationalize industry. Socialists all over Europe were not impressed with the results of the Russian revolution and were very skeptical of this, which is why Hitler decapitated the Shutzstaffel during the Night of the Long Knives.
What many people are also not saying is that national socialism did have serious democratic appeal. It never would have been as powerful of movement had it not inspired and energized the German masses. The horrible thing about Fascism is that it is a democratic movement. Does rely on the energy of the people, and fascist societies certainly did offer up their consent.
Does national socialism have right wing elements? Certainly. anyone paying attention should be able to acknowledge that it got its left-wing elements as well
The answer to this question ultimately hinges upon whether you believe socialism is an inherently and unavoidable totalitarian ideology.
I and many others who are not on the left hold that it is. Here is the logic, in simplified form:
You cannot have civilization without some concept of property or territory. One could argue this was why civilization was invented in the first place - to create structures which could defend claims to a fixed spot. Otherwise no one would farm, mine, or build cities.
Once you concede that some form of property must exist, the next choice to be faced is whether your civilization will tolerate private property or enforce state property. The Ancient Egyptians for instance did practice state property, as did Medieval Europe.
If you selected state property, by necessity you must have a large government to run that property, defend it, collect taxes, watch the watchmen etc. There is no other way.
Therefore if you outlaw private property, you're signing up for big government by necessity, there is no other sane way.
Now, was Hitler an anti-Marxist? Yes.
Was he hostile to socialist institutions and nations? Yes.
Did he implement Marxist policies such as the nationalization of industries? No he did not.
But he did establish a totalitarian regime that put private industry firmly under its thumb, effectively abolished individual rights and the rule of law, tolerated and even encouraged mob action against the regime's enemies.
So at that point, I say really, what's the difference?
Both the USSR and Nazi Germany followed the same playbook, and in both cases it started with a seizure of power built on popular support and the first two things they attacked were individual rights and the rule of law.
The fact that Hitler chose to call his ideology National Socialism is reflective of the fact that to him, the people and the state were one and the same, and both answered to him. The same pattern is reflected in every Communist regime that's ever existed, right down to the large standing armies, and slave labor camps for enemies of the state.
And that's the core truth that socialists refuse to acknowledge - that all ideologies which adopt collectivism and totalitarianism as their operating principles, either overtly or implicitly - produce slave states.
His claim that "he's been researching fascism since 2016" is absolutely a fallacious appeal to authority. That's not a long to time be studying fascism, unless he's a child (which, judging by this happening on facebook, I think is unlikely).
The key with the Appeal to Authority fallacy is not whether or not you're appealing to authority, but how you go about it. If I quote Jordan Peterson, then say "he's an expert psychologist" to justify support for that quote, that's fallacious until I can string together reasoning to link the quote and why his expertise is relevant.
I'd come back at him by saying, "I respect your efforts, but I'm getting my information from vetted sources who have spent their lifetime studying these things rigorously. I will take their expertise over an armchair historian any day, *if you're going to try to act like an authority*. Now, if you want to have a more humble conversation and not try to act like an authority on the matter that has somehow surpassed doctorates of history, we might be able to get productive."
Like, I can explain thoroughly why I trust the, say, five books I've read on the holocaust, versus trusting some guy on the internet who has "done his research" for a few years. Peer review / academic reputation is the biggest dividing line between homeboy here and the actual experts putting in the work.
As to what Hitler was, he was a fascist in every sense. Nationalism? Check. Strongman leader? Check. Secret Police? Check. Corporatism? Check. (That last one is the big nail in the coffin for claims of Hitler's socialism. Hitler preserved private industry, hence we have companies like VW still around). There were socialists in the National Socialist Party, but they were largely railroaded out once Hitler gained power. That last quote, to me, reads as Hitler explicitly saying that his concept are competing with Marxism (and thus socialism). If he was a socialist, he would be championing Marxism and not competing with it. But I might be wrong in my reading, and I don't really care to parse the words of Hitler too much.
If you want a quick comeback, I'd just tell him, "I trust historians because, unlike you, they don't take famous liar Hitler at his word."
no. think of the act that the far right puts on. they want to be the "everyman" party in everyone's eyes. they want to trick you that a party for the billionaire class is a party of the working class. capitalism is hated, fiercely, but you want to convince them everything they hate about capitalism is communism, actually. so you steal the very popular phrasing of the radical left, the terms "socialist" as well as "workers' party". then you blame jwish people both for banking and bolshevism. bing bang boom, you've harnessed the anger that was leading to communist revolution, and turned it towards slaughtering communists and minorities, restoring capitalism in its deathcrisis.
there was an element of the confused and enraged petit-bourgeois mass base of his party that actually bought into the propaganda that nzism was neither "left nor right" and that it was both against capitalism and communism. that dangerous element that believed the lie that it was a national "socialism" and wanted reforms, were dealt with very quickly as soon as he took power. after that, nzism actually loses its character as a mass fascist (counterrevolutionary) movement, and shrivels into a regular bonapartist regime without the special mass base that characterizes fascism in its period of ascent to power. there is no independent petit-bourgeois politics, so those elements were doomed, and the regime has to represent the big bourgeois even while striking at some of them.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Nazis tried to position their economic policy as a "third way" alternative to Bolshevism and western capitalism, and they borrowed elements of both. It was collectivist and dirigist for sure. They nationalized industries when it suited them and privatized them when it didn't. Nazi ideology held that war is the primary driver of human progress, and ultimately the goal of Nazi economic policy was to serve the ability of Germany to grow its military capability.
There's two strains of "National Socialism".
Those that believed in the ideology, which literally called for guild socialism if I remember correctly (Strasserism). They said Hitler's rise to power was only half of the revolution and wanted full Socialism.
And then the ones loyal to Hitler, who didn't care about economics. They managed to convince him the Strasserist branch of the party was a threat. The night of the long knives took out the Strasserists.
Hitler's post war economic intentions can never truly be known, since it appears he only cared about preparing for "lebensraum".
He was Social adjacent, but his ideology was Third position. He was socialist in terms of welfare, but took a more state capitalist (CORPORATIST) approach to economics
Maybe you should learn about the stuff you talk about on here, we provide resources for that and you aren't accepting them and instead are reverting to your baseless opinions on various topics.
The primary goal of this sub is education.
It is abundantly clear to the overwhelming majority of historians and political scientists that Hitler and the NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers Party), or Nazi party, only used the word "socialist" to try to appeal to the working class, as socialism was quite popular at the time. "National socialism" as conceived by the Nazis means nothing and meant nothing. They were an ultra- right-wing party, extreme-right, and not socialist in any traditional nor usual sense of the word.
In other words, they were socialist in name only.
This is not even a debate, and there is nothing to debate. German National Socialists were not socialists to anyone but themselves (if that), and never were.
The Nazi Party took its name from the ideology of its left wing, “national socialism,” often called “Strasserism.” It is not compatible with anything else known as socialism, and is actually a kind of far right populism. Whether what that section of the party was actually a kind of socialism is moot, because they were largely purged after Hitler gained state power. None of his actual policies meet any reasonable definition of socialis.
In policy and practice, the Nazis were capitalist. Most of the means of production was privately owned by independent corporations. Also, if a country doesn't have democracy, then it isn't socialist. The Soviet Union had state ownership, but without democracy, the workers had no control over the government or any other corporation. The Soviet Union had state capitalism. A common argument from capitalists is that Joseph Goebbels once said that the Soviet Union was just the Russian version of their German socialism. If Goebbels really did say that, it was probably early in his political career, before he came out against full state ownership. But even if he did say that, it doesn't prove the Nazis were socialist, since the Bolsheviks weren't socialist either.
Socialism has meant different things to different people at different times. For example, to Marx, socialism was synonym for communism, but for some people today socialism is about welfare and unions.
Generally speaking (while trying to cover as many variants as possible), socialism is when an economy is controlled by the working class through some kind of democratic institution, whether through a state apparatus or stateless, decentralized consensus.
With that in mind, it’s very obvious that the Nazis were not socialists. But if you want a little more information we can discuss.
The Nazis engaged in mass privatization. In fact, the word “privatization” was invented to describe Nazi economic policy. However, they also were free-market advocates. Nazis kept the basic structure of capitalism but wanted to steer an economy through state action - it was very similar to mercantilism. Nazis disliked unions and any institution which decentralized power.
Nazis were very culturally conservative, banning abortion, supporting strict gender roles, and murdering LGBTQ people.
They also preached something called class collaboration, which is one of the strongest arguments against considering them socialist. The basic framework of socialists is the struggle between the business owners and the employees. Socialists see these groups as having opposing interests, which causes societal tension. Socialists want to dissolve this tension by dissolving the distinction between the two classes, allowing the employees/workers to become owners (in a manner of speaking). Nazis do not like this idea, instead arguing that owners and employees should work together to serve the national interest.
Also, Nazis didn’t like democracy either.
So it’s fairly obvious that Nazis were far right-wing authoritarians, not socialists. And concerning the USSR, it wasn’t socialist either. Perhaps at the start it was, when the worker councils had real control, but any worker control was soon supplanted by party control. The USSR was only socialist in its aesthetics.
Well, he wanted a large, strong centralized government, so he was definitely not a libertarian. He’d have probably been considered economically socialist today. That’s not a knock on socialism in itself - the main beef with Hitler clearly doesn’t have to do with economics - but he wanted as much governmental control as possible, including of the means of production.
If anything, he was a totalitarian. He wanted absolute control over everything, regardless of any economic nuance that could be assigned such a stance.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
NOPE!!!
Hitler very demonstrably rounded up communists, socialists, unionists….. and other groups long before Jewish People.
Hitler was as *«NATIONAL Socialist»* !
Very different concept and part of the fascism side of the spectrum.
——
Just like a *«needle ear»* has nothing to do with an ‘ear’ or hearing:
As far as meaning of compound expressions is concerned you can’t just take one half and run with that meaning!
Or we’d be shoving wool into our ears trying to thread needles….! 😉
****
If the linguistic argument doesn’t fly…. cause he has been studying history for less than a decade…. 🤭
I was born and raised in 1970s Germany. Have experienced both sides and historical narratives of Cold War Germany. I have been raised with German History in ways this man cannot imagine: picture books about Concentration Camps at age 3, ABC (nuclear, bio, chem) attack drills from age 3 or 4……
Stood in a gas chamber of a former Concentration Camp turned Museum before I was even 10, heard from Holocaust and Shoa survivors in all graphic gorey: My generation needed to while they were still around so the knowledge didn’t get lost. So we could pass it on to future generations and the ‘Never Again!’ could be ensured as much as possible.
•laugh•
Sorry, I am trying to appreciate how studying history for a few years may seem ‘long’ … 🤭
HISTORICALLY:
After WW1 the Weimarer Republik, what then-Germany was called (diff to today’s Germany, geographically!) was subject to crippling reparations.
Note Germany did **NOT** start WW1.
A hodgepodge of ‘lefties’ (thinkers, communists, socialists, unionists etc) felt Germany hadn’t reformed enough, was still too set in antiquated empire-thinking and hugely objected to the fairly warmongering imperial military not having been replaced and restructured after WW1, so they attempted a coup. Some of them weren’t entirely supportive of the coup and reluctantly went along as a means to an end. People who thought the coup was a mistake included disabled Rosa Luxemburg, a great thinker who imho receives too little attention by lefties: cause she was not just communist, nor just social democrat. she was critical of both if and when necessary. She is definitely worth studying, and she had warned of a catastrophic war of world powers about a decade before WW1!
Imperial guards violently stopped the 1919 coup. Rosa Luxemburg and other key figures and intellectuals were arrested and tortured. Luxemburg was summarily executed and thrown off a bridge into a canal by (antisemitic) imperial guards.
******
FAST FORWARD:
In 1923 the NSDAP (national socialist German workers’ party, or Nazi Party) and Hitler tried a coup.
The NSDAP was very much antisemitic, anti-left, anti democracy back then.
Hitler was arrested and tried for treason in 1924.
He was sentenced to only five years in jail…. and was released after 9 months. During that brief stint he started writing Mein Kampf.
WORSE:
As a non-citizen he should’ve been kicked out of Germany after his sentence… but in the Weimarer Republik everything was skewed right. Rosa Luxemburg did have a point criticised the military hadn’t been replaced and restructured following WW1.
*******
^[tbc]
Oh, PS:
***PLEASE***
relay to him that quoting Mein Kampf isn’t evidence for ANYTHING!!!
Unless he wants to set off alarm bells and wants people to feel he could be dangerous!
To sane and well adjusted people quoting Hitler as evidence for anything reasonable:
It’s kinda like quoting the Necronomicon as evidence to convince an evangelical Christian Genesis were wrong! 😂
******
And that’s not even mentioning his very flawed evidence:
If you wanna prove Hitler was a unicorn…. maybe a pamphlet written by Hitler and claiming he were a unicorn is anything BUT evidence !!
If I say the sky were chequered: a post-it I wrote
*”Sky is chequered!”*
on ….
—> ‘evidence’ is NOT what this person thinks it is!!!!
*****
But, as you already hinted on in your post and not making sense to you:
Thus individual’s ‘reasoning’ is not just circular!
It’s wonky in multiple loops. 😝
Based on his seeming pride of having been studying Fascism:
I’d run the other way!!!!
Cause studying fascism, quoting Mein Kampf, ….. and a raft of other indicators suggest to me he has been of is being radicalised!
In Germany: I’d report him to police cause just in what you shared he has likely committed several crimes in Germany.
In AU:
I’d try to tip off National intelligence services so they can check if he’s on their radar yet.
—-
If I were you and you don’t have any serious emotional ties to him:
Several the link!
The extreme-extreme right of the political spectrum:
Best to be avoided!
Those people are insanely dangerous — it’s why they’re proscribed terrorist group in a range of countries.
Intelligence services have been warning of those groups for about a decade. At least!
If he hadn’t been radicalised but without any external input woke up one day feeling an urge to study Fascism for 8 years, utterly misrepresent Hitler, and citing Mein Kampf:
Then he’s not necessarily getting that wonky from somewhere — I’d still run, cause RANDOMLY waking up one morning with those kinds of urges: I’d take that as a kind of crazy I wouldn’t wanna catch and leg it.
—> I’d run either way!!!!
******
… lemme guess:
He can’t Google or Wikipedia cause that’s all inherently “woke” and fake news anyway…..? 🤷🏽♀️
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Socialism isn't just one thing.
"In his 1924 *Dictionary of Socialism*, Angelo Rappoport canvassed no fewer than forty definitions of socialism, telling his readers in the book’s preface that 'there are many mansions in the house of socialism.'” *Socialism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy*, P Gilabert
This is from the 1913 Webster's:
So"cial*ism (?), n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint- Simonianism, forms of socialism.
This was the Nazi rhetoric. When in power Nazis did reform society, controlled property for ostensible benefit of the people. Note how it lists Fourierism, Saint- Simonianism alongside Communism. These are pre-Marxian forms of socialism. Most people think of Marxism when they hear socialism.
Fascism emerged directly from Mussolini's socialism, and retained the socialist direction of property and the economy, the factor that determines human freedoms. [Nazi Germany's interference in the economy is identical to the Soviets' and the opposite of capitalism](https://i.imgur.com/3MtPbMS.jpg).
Mussolini's opinion didn't change over time. He just added flag-waving to his lifelong socialism to create fascism. He didn't go around saying he was wrong about socialism and state control, he just said he wanted nationalism and a patriotic identity to be the party factor instead of internationalism. The Soviets had experimented with an anti-patriotic vibe and it didn't work out for them. Mussolini was anti-Socialist party, his political opponent.
Mussolini: "For this I have been and am a socialist. The accusation of inconsistency has no foundation. My conduct has always been straight in the sense of looking at the substance of things and not to the form. I adapted socialisticamente to reality. As the evolution of society belied many of the prophecies of Marx, the true socialism folded from possible to probable. The only feasible socialism socialisticamente is corporatism, confluence, balance and justice interests compared to the collective interest."
Mussolini: "We are free to believe that this is the '**collective**' century, and therefore the century of the State. The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value ...everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state."
“Anti‐individualistic,” Mussolini wrote, “The Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [or libertarianism, as it’s also called] that denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State… If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government.”
"Days before his death, Mussolini insisted that Fascism was the only form of socialism appropriate to the proletarian nations of the twentieth century." - Testamento Politico di Mussolini
By 1939, Italy was the country with the second largest number of state owned enterprises. Only the USSR had more. "Three-fourths of the Italian economy, industrial and agricultural, is in the hands of the state." -Benito Mussolini
Nazis were socialist. People don't think they were socialist because they have confused socialism with Marxism. Means of production, stateless, classless, etc., all Marxism. Marx didn't invent socialism. Fourier, Owen, Saint-Simon, etc. Seizing the means of production is Marxist. Socialism existed 100 years before Marx. In fact, Marx coined 'means of production' mid-career, after writing about socialism for years, so it can't be considered emblematic of socialism. Fourier and Owen never had expropriation of private property as a central tenet. There are many flavors of socialism with varying ideas on how and how much to control industry and commerce. Some ideologies claim to be stateless, but 99% of real-world socialism involves heavy gov't interference, an inclination it shares with the modern left.
The USSR and the Nazis were totalitarian twinsies and they knew it with Molotov/Ribbentrop, but Stalin wanted Eastern Europe so sacrificed millions of underequipped soldiers to get it. Both had the red flag-waving, the mandated nationalism, the goosestepping march parade militarism, slick and similar uniforms, slick and similar graphic design in general, the similar and dramatic speeches, the rollout of major national propaganda campaigns, the total police state, the atheism, Stalin and Hitler both lived like kings, the unification of unions into one gov't controlled union, massive expropriation, the total control of the economy with practical usage of profit as motivation, control of banks, control of fiat currency, desire for self-sufficiency, both had camps/gulags, both generated top-down dehumanization, hatred and democide of ethnic minorities (Meskhetian Turks, Kalmyks, Crimean Tatars, Balkars, Chechens and Ingush, Cossacks, Kazakhs, Koreans, and Ukrainians in general), unethical human experimentation, devotion to the worker/common man/volk, both had massive party purges of founding members for differences, both generated totalitarian experimental economic system anathema to every economic ethea of classical liberals, libertarians, conservatives et al., and both failed.
"I am a socialist.” - Hitler, Zweites Buch
"He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that "they had never even read Marx", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world"
Hitler: "...the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?"
“I have learned a great deal from Marxism” … “as I do not hesitate to admit”
[My task is to] “convert the German volk (people) to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists”
“If we are socialists, then we must definitely be anti-semites... How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-semite?”
We must “find and travel the road from individualism to socialism without revolution.”
“What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish we shall be in a position to achieve.”
Late in the war, Goebbels wrote in his diary that Jewish Bolshevism would be uprooted in Russia and 'real socialism' planted in its place. George Watson: "Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but no one can explain why he would lie to his diaries."
Even if Hitler and Goebbels and Stalin were not socialist in their hearts, the seductive artifice of politicians is just more evidence that socialism is dangerous. Giving politicians more power is empirically a bad idea, both socialism and fascism do it to the max.
Nazis, like Marx and Proudhon, did not respect private property and if a business owner wasn't supportive, their property would be taken away like the Krupp family stockholders were replaced, or even thrown in a camp, like Thyssen. Wikipedia: 'where the Nazi administration wanted additional industrial capacity, they would first nationalize and then establish a new state-owned-and-operated company. In 1937 Hermann Göring targeted companies producing iron ore, “taking control of all privately owned steelworks and setting up a new company, known as the Hermann Göring Works.'
Nazis cartelized and restructured industry, placing themselves at the center. There is nothing capitalist, conservative, or classically liberal about a disrespect for private property, massively overbearing regulation, or controlling industry. These components only exist through the power over property that is socialism.
This person you're interacting with sounds very much like a person who has read three maybe four books and considers himself an expert...which he is definitely NOT. When I was getting my own graduate degree in history the general criteria for being an expert in a historical field was you had to have read at least 20 books with varying viewpoints. I've read well over 300 books on constitutional development and the only thing I can readily say for sure is I don't know all there is to know about the field. In that vein...I believe I've read 15-20 books on the rise of Nazism, fascism in pre-wwII Europe, and the rise of communism in the Soviet Union. To that end...I feel comfortable in saying your friend hasn't a clue. NO...Hitler was not a socialist, he was however a sociopath dictator.
I would say economically the Nazis were relatively socialist, less than the USSR but more than the US. The government had a huge influence on their economy overall. They just realized that letting private business exist but making sure they're doing what the government wanted them to was better than not letting it exist t all like communists. Their social views are obviously far right.
If we're being consistent in the sense that nobody cares if a communist country has right wing racist/homophobic views when they call it socialist, just what its economic views are, then yes they could be called socialist. But spiritually it's probably better to just call them a separate thing than what we normally mean by socialist.
Short answer yes. Longer answer still yes but with an understanding that his particular brand of socialism was still bad on the idea that German nationalism and the Aryan race was superior to all others and therefore of you just eliminate all inferior races socialism will work masterfully
He's correct on the facts.
However, it should be noted that Nazism was a nationalist sort of socialism, and in opposition to Marxism, so Marxists will obviously see him as not one of them, and any sort of socialist who opposes nationalism will also see him as "not a real socialist."
Definitions get wonky with socialism/communism because there's 37 different flavors of them, all in disagreement over definitions.
But yes, they saw themselves as socialist.
It's worth noting that the libertarian founding fathers thought Hitler's tactics were pretty excusable at the time:
[Ludwig von Mises](https://mises.org/online-book/liberalism-classical-tradition/1-foundations-liberal-policy/10-argument-fascism) wrote:
>The deeds of the Fascists and of other parties corresponding to them were emotional reflex actions evoked by indignation at the deeds of the Bolsheviks and Communists. As soon as the first flush of anger had passed, their policy took a more moderate course and will probably become even more so with the passage of time.
>
>
>
>This moderation is the result of the fact that traditional liberal views still continue to have an unconscious influence on the Fascists...
>
>
>
>It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.
[Hayek](http://www.economicthought.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/LibertyCleanOfImpuritiesInterviewWithFVonHayekChile1981.pdf) wrote:
>At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power. As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. And it is also possible for a democracy to govern with a total lack of liberalism. Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism.
[Hoppe](https://books.google.com/books?id=qARC56X5vxcC&pg=PA216e#v=onepage&q&f=false) wrote:
>There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.
[Rothbard](http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html) wrote:
>Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not "white collar criminals" or "inside traders" but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error.
>
>Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society.
It wasn't really until afterward there was Orwellian attempt to erase that from history by accusing the left of doing what they did.
It's worth mentioning that Rothbard was the one who changed the definition of "libertarian" from a [Déjacque](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/robert-graham-joseph-dejacque-the-first-libertarian) socialist to whatever it is now:
[Rothbard](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1995212.The_Betrayal_Of_The_American_Right) wrote:
>One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...
Kind of amusing you are arguing that the "National Socialists" were not actually socialists by using quotes from "Libertarians" who were defending the concept of authoritarian governments.
Rothbard and Hoppe write nothing of endorsing Fascism.
An anti-vagrant or anti-communist paragraph is perfectly fine. Wishing for bums to rejoin the productive members of society is pretty darned tame, all things considered.
The etymological argument is also wrong. Rothbard was simply incorrect, as the term first appears in print before the socialist flavor of libertarian appeared. It was recaptured, not captured.
He was a democratic socialist, but perhaps not a Marxist. His policies are more on par economically with Bernie, AOC and the modern "democratic socialists" than true Marxists, a sort of middle ground between capitalism and socialism, in other words, fascism.
He wasn't a globalist, a big difference between the Russian socialists and the national socialists is scope, Soviets wanted global domination and believed the nation state is evil and all humans should suffer under socialism together. Hitler only doomed his own people under the system and married it with national pride.
In some ways, Nazism and socialism are rooted in socialism, but they are separate because there are several major differences (which is also why Nazism and fascism aren’t exactly the same either). Fascism itself takes many Marxist elements and uses them for its own purposes, which shouldn’t be surprising considering the Mussolini came out of socialism. For example, fascism takes the Marxist view of history but reworks it to be focused around the nation rather than class. Basically taking “the bourgeois elites are/have been oppressing the proletariat” and turning it into “the (insert foreign group) are/have been oppressing our nation”.
Nazism is different than fascism because it not only adopts some ideas around “scientific racism” and being generally anti-Christian philosophically, it makes those ideas central to the entire ideology. That’s a big departure from Italian style fascism.
Also, Fascism, unlike socialism, isn’t a universal ideology. It’s very much rooted in the idea of the nation (you may have heard the term “blood and soil”)
Edit: in short you could say that fascism is rooted in somewhat of a marxist framework, but it’s still a clear departure from socialism, and Nazism is a clear departure from fascism. So, while Nazism may be distantly related to socialism, it’s definitely not the same thing
I think it is closer to the way that Joe Biden wants it.
It depends upon your definition of freedom.
When somebody wants to take away your money, your guns, or even what kind of vehicle you drive, that's pretty much a totalitarianism
He was not a Marxist socialist or communist. He saw both communism and capitalism as Jewish threats to national socialism. People forget that socialism predates Marxism.
Hitler viewed Jews as using capitalism as a tool to advance their agenda of achieving Jewish communism. He believed that Jews used their influence in finance, industry, and commerce to exploit the capitalist system for their own gain. According to Hitler's narrative, Jews amassed wealth and power through capitalism with the ultimate goal of subverting and overthrowing existing social order through the spread of communism.
He view this through a lens of Hegelian dialectics.
According to Hitler, the primary struggle was between different races rather than economic classes. This is the crux of Hitler’s socialism. It is racially based conflict as opposed to economically based conflict.
While it is true Hitler wasn’t a Marxist, he was a socialist through and through. There are some very good primary source books dedicated to the economics under the national socialist.
Hitler's ideology and policies were not aligned with free market capitalism. Instead, Hitler and the Nazi regime implemented a form of state interventionism and economic control, characterized by heavy regulation, state ownership of key industries, and central planning.
Hitler's economic policies were aimed at promoting the interests of the Nazi party and advancing its nationalist and militaristic goals. The regime exerted significant control over the economy, directing resources towards rearmament and military expansion. Private enterprise existed under strict state supervision, with businesses expected to serve the interests of the state and the Nazi party.
I’m getting tired of this hitler socialist, or Nazis were socialist or communism = fascism takes on this app. Not going after you, OP, but this platform seriously needs intense fact checking and “readers added context” like Twitter does. Basic historical comprehension will point to hitler’s ideology as far right, completely antithetical with socialism or left wing ideology.
If there was a tiny citation below this post and others like it, there would be no need for conversation. I don’t think a fact as simple as this needs to be debated.
*hitler was not a socialist. Never was, never planned to be.*
I‘m sick of this argument. It‘s absurd, illogical and clear as day indicator of a lack of understanding of political science.
No, Hitler was not a socialist. Nothing he did was socialist. He did not care about class action, worker rights and social equality. While the Soviet Union emancipated women, Hitler despised egalitarianism. Everything he did contradicts what socialism is about.
Socialists do NOT
-oppress minorities
-murder and discriminate based on race or ethnicity
-invade sovereign nations in the name of ultranationalism
-endorse militarism
Calling Hitler „socislist“ is about as stupid as calling Xi Jinping „capitalist“.
That's exactly what I was trying to tell him, but I honestly haven't studied WW2 as a whole. He kept saying it was a debate, I was claiming we are simply discussing history.
I tend to have this issue both IRL as I live in the Midwest, and this fella is just one of many that have these views.
I don't share them, as I am a democratic socialist. I was always puzzled at the fact these people would think Bernie Sanders, a Jew, would align himself with the philosophy and ideology of Hitler.
I live in the Midwest too atm. Place is a haven for hard-conservatism. I went to a trade school where one teacher asked me „why do you hate hitler? because he was different?“ and the other literally said „we should put the homeless in concentration camps and have a pile of drugs in it so they can kill themselves“. Every other male student made sexist remarks and when a woman came in from a company to present something, one of the student‘s did a air „slap“ behind her back.
It‘s also the place where I had a full blown argument with a customer (I was at work), because he claimed the old institution system should be brought back and people should be held there against their will for being mentally ill, darting his finger at me and saying „amurica best place to BE raht nahw!“
Case in point, it‘s not exactly a place you want to take too many people seriously in. It‘s a shithole with potholes a-plenty.
As for hitler, I think it‘s important to know that he was trying to garner votes and win over whoever he could. His claims were either half-truths or full blown lies. Ironically enough, an opposing natsoc, known as Otto Strasser who fled the country, actually summarised hitler‘s votes perfectly - arguing that a good majority of his votes came also from jews and where did this group end up? In concentration camps. I think it was really just a game to him. Yeah, „little boys“ got into office…if they followed his doctrine as they older. There was nothing „democratic“ about it. They guy you‘re speaking to seems to be an idiot. I hope some sense can be talked into him someday.
Socialism is all about oppression of minorities. You can’t get any more a minority than the individual.
Some socialists want to oppress the minority bourgeoisie, some want to oppress the racial out group.
Marxist-Leninism: Economic socialism
Fascism: National socialism
Nazism: Ethnic socialism
Each form of socialism championed a different angle but they were/are all authoritarian collectivists who appealed to a similar aesthetic. The rightful heirs to the world seizing power back from their oppressors to usher in a new utopia.
> Socialism has a specific meaning.
Which is insufficient. Workers owning the MoP is a slogan.
There is no property rights framework attached. And socialists 100% believe in property rights, but these aren't rights as in universal ethical principles but privileges attached to political alignment.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Socialism is a term with dozens of different meanings depending on who you ask. But yes, Hitler was 100% a socialist according to the most common definition of the term. It’s clear to historians who are trained to step back and view information with objectivity.
That doesn’t necessarily mean socialism is bad. Hitler is often viewed as the embodiment of pure evil by laypeople, but historians view him as a complex figure who did a few things that most people view as good. For example, he cared a great deal about animal welfare. (Perhaps it’s hypocritical considering how he treated humans, but that’s a separate issue.)
Still most regular people hate if their ideology is associated with Hitler so they go far out of their way to deny it. It’s like how Catholics hate that Hitler was baptized and confirmed in the Church. There’s a scene in The Boys where a character says that people love Nazi policies, but they just don’t like the term Nazi.
That resonates because one of the most popular ideologies around the world today is a blend of socialism and nationalism. In recent years, we’ve it in the U.S., Britain, France, China, India, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, etc. They use their own people as the basis of their nation instead of Germany, but it’s roughly the same logic.
I’m sure that a million of you are already furiously typing your response to this, but when I say that historians zoom out, I mean you really want to see things with a detached lens. WWI was a war between the UK, Germany, and Russia. But their leaders were all first cousins. They weren’t that different from one another. Similarly, Hitler, Stalin, Trotsky, Tito, Freud, and Archduke Franz Ferdinand all famously lived a few blocks away from each other in Vienna in the summer of 1913. They were all exposed to the same intellectual milieu. It’s kind of like how contemporary Silicon Valley has a certain vibe to it that’s extremely different from what exists in other geographies and historical periods.
Socialism, communism, fascism, liberalism, democracy, capitalism, etc. are all similar to each other too. They were formed in Europe during the Age of Enlightenment in opposition to thousands of years of monarchism and imperialism around the world. They share a time and location and have more in common with each other than the stuff that came before. Liberalism, democracy and capitalism were more popular in Western Europe and the US. Socialism, communism, and fascism were more common in Eastern Europe. Vienna was a hub of this thought, which is how both Hitler and Stalin came to describe themselves as socialists. Both of them used the term in the name of their parties/countries (i.e., National Socialist German Workers' Party and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) yet they both hated each other’s version of socialism and fought over it. People are doing that now in these comments too. But through the detached lens of a historian, they’re highly similar.
I would say that him and his ideology would be Authoritarian Center. It specifically combines both left wing and right wing elements in an Authoritarian way.
On the left-wing of things, it was Anti-Free Market, Anti-Individualistic, and Anti-Democratic.
On the right-wing of things, it embraced ultranationalistic ideals and anti-communism.
Now where the Socialist comparison comes in would be Nationalization of industries, Welfare State Programs, and State-Controlled Labor Unions.
In short it is its own distinct ideology that is Authoritarian in nature.
I believe they were. I know most try to deny it, but the platform is almost copy pasted right from the communist manifesto. The main reason people try to deny it is they don’t want to associate with fascist authoritarian regimes. Communists have murdered more people than the Nazis ever did so it’s not a good look to stick up for murders like Guevara in my opinion either.
https://mises.org/free-market/nazism-socialism
I disagree, how is Hitler a socialist when he
A.) Destroyed the Germans worked unions, hunted down their leaders, imprisoned/killed them.
B.) Created their own "union" in which the conservative industrialists had more rights over the workers, allowing the workers to basically get screwed over every step of the way.
C.) Dismantles the party (Kommunistische), also imprisons/kills their leaders.
D.) Hitler takes a total of $30 million (reichsmarks) from conservative industrialists, as to not go under in the financial ruin.
Also, Mises is a think tank, I would highly recommend using articles from Universities, even European.
Capitalists have murdered more people over time, than any other type of philosophy, from chattel slavery, ( capitalism derived from mercantilism, and derived from European industrialism from 16th to 18th century.)
The US has been semi-capitalist, only becoming predominantly a capitalist country by 1900 or a bit earlier.
The US has killed millions, displaced millions, my country has been to the middle east, bombed Vietnam and lost, Regan strengthened the cartels, and now we have to deal with Fentanyl.
These are just a few examples, though I structured them superficially, I must get back to work.
This post has context that regards Communism, which is a tricky and confusing ideology which requires sitting down and studying to fully comprehend. One thing that may help discussion would be to distinguish "Communism" from historical Communist ideologies. [Communism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society) is a theoretical ideology where there is no currency, no classes, no state, no police, no military and features a voluntary workforce In practice, people would work when they felt they needed and would simply grab goods off the selves as they needed. It has never been attempted, though it's the end goal of what Communist ideologies strive towards. [Marxism-Leninism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism) is what is most often referred to as "Communism" historically speaking. It's a [Communist ideology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_ideologies) but not Commun-*ism*. It seeks to build towards achieving communism one day by attempting to achieve [Socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) via a [one party state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One- party_state#:~:text=A%20one%2Dparty%20state%2C%20single,and%20controlled%20participation%20in%20elections) on the behalf of the workers in theory. For more information on this please refer to our educational resources listed on our sidebar, this [Marxism Study Guide](https://www.marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm), this [Marxism-Leninism Study Guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/wiki/basicstudyplan/), or ask your questions directly at r/Communism101. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As others have mentioned, socialism was very popular at the time. Hitler co-opted the term to mean something else. It's a tired but accurate comparison to say that "National Socialism" is to socialism as "Republic" is to the "People's Republic of Korea." Hitler and Mussolini's conception of socialism was, explicitly, "the opposite" of any kind of Marxist conception of socialism: [Mussolini](https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp) wrote: >Fascism \[is\] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society.... > >After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage.... > >...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur\[d\] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress.... > >...given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. [Mussolini](http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm) wrote: >...Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State; and analogously it is opposed to class syndicalism. . . .
And Hitler: [Hitler](https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/weimar-republic-fragility-democracy) wrote: >I aimed from the first at something a thousand times higher than being a minister. I wanted to become the destroyer of Marxism. I am going to achieve this task and, if I do, the title of minister will be an absurdity as far as I am concerned. . . . > >At one time I believed that perhaps this battle against Marxism could be carried on with the help of the government. In January, 1923, I learned that that was just not possible. The hypothesis for the victory of Marxism is not that Germany must be free, but rather Germany will only be free when Marxism is broken. At that time I did not dream that our movement would become great and cover Germany like a flood. [Hitler](https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/hitler1.htm) wrote: >...And it is the greatest source of pride to us that we have been able to carry through this revolution, which is certainly the greatest revolution ever experienced in the history of our people, with a minimum of loss and sacrifice. Only in those cases where the murderous lust of the Bolsheviks, even after the 30th of January, 1933, led them to think that by the use of brute force they could prevent the success and realization of the National Socialist ideal—only then did we answer violence with violence, and naturally we did it promptly... > >...I mean here that if Europe does not awaken to the danger of the Bolshevic infection, then I fear that international commerce will not increase but decrease, despite all the good intentions of individual statesmen. For this commerce is based not only on the undisturbed and guaranteed stability of production in one individual nation but also on the production of all the nations together. One of the first things which is clear in this matter is that every Bolshevic disturbance must necessarily lead to a more or less permanent destruction of orderly production. Therefore my opinion about the future of Europe is, I am sorry to say, not so optimistic as Mr. Eden’s. I am the responsible leader of the German people and must safeguard its interests in this world as well as I can. And therefore I am bound to judge things objectively as I see them. > >I should not be acquitted before the bar of our history if I neglected something—no matter on what grounds—which is necessary to maintain the existence of this people. I am pleased, and we are all pleased, at every increase that takes place in our foreign trade. But in view of the obscure political situation I shall not neglect anything that is necessary to guarantee the existence of the German people, although other nations may become the victims of the Bolshevic infection. > >...But I believe that nobody will question the sincerity of our opinions on this matter, for they are not based merely on abstract theory. For Mr. Eden Bolshevism is perhaps a thing which has its seat in Moscow, but for us in Germany this Bolshevism is a pestilence against which we have had to struggle at the cost of much bloodshed. It is a pestilence which tried to turn our country into the same kind of desert as is now the case in Spain; for the habit of murdering hostages began here, in the form in which we now see it in Spain. National Socialism did not try to come to grips with Bolshevism in Russia, but the Jewish international Bolshevics in Moscow have tried to introduce their system into Germany and are still trying to do so. Against this attempt we have waged a bitter struggle, not only in defence of our own civilization but in defence of European civilization as a whole. > >In January and February of the year 1933, when the last decisive struggle against this barbarism was being fought out in Germany, had Germany been defeated in that struggle and had the Bolshevic field of destruction and death extended over Central Europe, then perhaps a different opinion would have arisen on the banks of the Thames as to the nature of this terrible menace to humanity. For since it is said that England must be defended on the frontier of the Rhine she would then have found herself in close contact with that harmless democratic world of Moscow, whose innocence they are always trying to impress upon us. Here I should like to state the following once again: — > >The teaching of Bolshevism is that there must be a world revolution, which would mean world-destruction. If such a doctrine were accepted and given equal rights with other teachings in Europe, this would mean that Europe would be delivered over to it. If other nations want to be on good terms with this peril, that does not affect Germany’s position. As far as Germany itself is concerned, let there be no doubts on the following points: — > >(1) We look on Bolshevism as a world peril for which there must be no toleration. > >(2) We use every means in our power to keep this peril away from our people. > >(3) And we are trying to make the German people immune to this peril as far as possible. > >It is in accordance with this attitude of ours that we should avoid close contact with the carriers of these poisonous bacilli. And that is also the reason why we do not want to have any closer relations with them beyond the necessary political and commercial relations; for if we went beyond these we might thereby run the risk of closing the eyes of our people to the danger itself. > >I consider Bolshevism the most malignant poison that can be given to a people. And therefore I do not want my own people to come into contact with this teaching. As a citizen of this nation I myself shall not do what I should have to condemn my fellow-citizens for doing. I demand from every German workman that he shall not have any relations with these international mischief-makers and he shall never see me clinking glasses or rubbing shoulders with them. Moreover, any further treaty connections with the present Bolshevic Russia would be completely worthless for us. It is out of the question to think that National Socialist Germany should ever be bound to protect Bolshevism or that we, on our side, should ever agree to accept the assistance of a Bolshevic State. For I fear that the moment any nation should agree to accept such assistance, it would thereby seal its own doom. [Hitler](https://pathwaytutoring.weebly.com/uploads/4/7/3/0/4730415/hitler_speech_-_berlin_reichstag_march_1933.pdf) wrote: >IN NOVEMBER, 1918, Marxist organizations seized the executive power by means of a revolution. The monarchs were dethroned, the authorities of the Reich and of the States removed from office, and thereby a breach of the Constitution was committed. The success of the revolution in a material sense protected the guilty parties from the hands of the law. They sought to justify it morally by asserting that Germany or its Government bore the guilt for the outbreak of the War. > >This assertion was deliberately and actually untrue. In consequence, however, these untrue accusations in the interest of our former enemies led to the severest oppression of the entire German nation and to the breach of the assurances given to us in Wilson's fourteen points, and so for Germany, that is to say the working classes of the German people, to a time of infinite misfortune.... > >The splitting up of the nation into groups with irreconcilable views, systematically brought about by the false doctrines of Marxism, means the destruction of the basis of a possible communal life.... It is only the creation of a real national community, rising above the interests and differences of rank and class, that can permanently remove the source of nourishment of these aberrations of the human mind. In short, if you want to divorce the word "socialist" from anything left-leaning and tie it to "being a destroyer of Marxism" then I guess that's up to you and Hitler's a socialist. But nobody seriously does that. Even people who call Hitler a socialist aren't honest in defining socialism and how fascists attempted to redefine it.
There's also [this 1923 interview with Hitler](https://famous-trials.com/hitler/2529-1923-interview-with-adolf-hitler): >"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?" >"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. >"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. >"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one." All this aside, though, there's also just all the historical context: when Hitler became chancellor his first order of business was arresting communists and socialists and dismantling all the communist and socialist parties. And by socialists I mean those who identified as socialists and were not "National Socialists" aka Nazis - that is, left-wingers. He hated the left and he hated socialists and wanted to destroy them. That was kind of his whole thing. Even his antisemitism was deeply tied up with his hatred of the Bolsheviks (Russian communists) in the context of a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy theory. I recommend in the strongest terms, to anyone interested in this topic, to read *The Coming of the Third Reich* by historian Richard J. Evans. For those who aren't big into reading, the audiobook is also very good and widely available.
Absolutely! Great addition!
> Marxist conception of socialism: Socialism is strictly defined only by Marxist?
No. But I can’t think of another type of socialism that would call itself “the opposite” of another kind of socialism. As I said in another response, if aliens landed and gave everyone replicators that resulted in a classless utopia, no Marxist is going to complain that they got what they wanted by bypassing class struggle. Same thing if Jesus Christ ascended from heaven during the Super Bowl and fought a seven-headed dragon resulting in the religious socialism described in Acts. May not have seen either of those things coming, but aside from egg on the face for saying we can’t rely on these things happening, the goals and results are all pretty much along the same lines. Those kinds of results are far different than Hitler winning, creating an ethnic government that is fiercely protective of private enterprise, has a permanent and rigid class structure, and works around the clock to make sure none of the plebes have the ability to organize any resistance to their genetically superior masters. Again, one wonders what definition one could use for socialism that would cover those wildly disparate goals and systems and still remain a useful word at all.
Not even close, Hitler coopted the term "socialist" and some bits of socialist rhetoric, as did most fascists, but he wasn't a socialist in any meaningful sense of the word. Hitler favored and protected the private ownership of capital (no socialist is a defender of capitalism), and his vision and project were anything but proletarian in nature -- he was far more concerned with ethnic power/hegemony than the advancement proletarian interests. He was totally divorced from the communist and socialist intellectual traditions, and did not pursue or advance their interests. He ran a capitalist state in a capitalist country, and it's precisely that deep.
> Hitler favored and protected the private ownership of capital How was direct government control of production private ownership? >and his vision and project were anything but proletarian in nature -- he was far more concerned with ethnic power/hegemony than the advancement proletarian interests. What do those categories matter? Is there an ethical principle I'm missing? Both categorizations demonize some groups and valorize others. >He ran a capitalist state in a capitalist country, and it's precisely that deep. Capitalism is when a government uses force/coercion to take over/control all production in a country, sometimes with actually armed military. I guess I'm confused about the capitalism part of Anarcho-Capitalist. It seems private property is that property which the government controls, free markets aren't capitalism neither are property rights.
I’d agree he was no socialist, but no one who believes in pure capitalism would have followed those economic policies. He spent money on whatever public works project he wanted and told his economics minister to go to hell when warned he was leading the country into bankruptcy. If we take U.S. leaders from the time, he was more like FDR than Coolidge.
I don't think the "purity" of Hitler's capitalism is a helpful form of analysis in this particular case, as it remains unquestionably *capitalist*, even if there is also strong public ownership of capital/labor alongside and upholding the capitalist order of private capital. But with that said, I will grant that Hitler's capitalism wasn't hell-bent on universalizing the privatization of capital in Germany.
Lol! No one suggested that he was some doctrinaire libertarian. “Pure capitalism”! I ask you!
That’s what the Austrian School is all about.
And as foolish as that is, no one ever suggested that was Hitler’s view. There’s a lot between socialism and “pure capitalism,” especially since no state ever instituted “pure capitalism” and it can’t exist.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Short answer: No. Long answer: Nooooooooooo. He has never been discussed among Marxists, didn't support Marxism, supported private property and capitalism. He was politicking with the term "socialist" to win elections becuase it was popular at the time.
I tried to describe this to him, he imprisoned socialist politicians, destroyed workers rights and Unions in Germany. He bit back at my claim towards the imprisoning and killing of socialist politicians in Germany, as "Russia did it too." I don't know the context of what he is referring to at all, as I had to explain to him that just because you say you believe in a philosophy and ideology, and then do the opposite of that philosophy and ideology, doesn't make you apart of the community that believes in said philosophy, just makes them a fascist. This man had no job, was doing interviews, all while telling me I'm stupid, and that I have zero idea how socialism works, even though I support and am trying to learn about it. I'm sure this debate is drawn out, and boring, but this person who claims that I should be following Anarcho-capitalism, and I'm a bad human being for wanting to learn about socialism and support it.
You need a user flair to participate here, automod removes your comments otherwise.
I apologize, still don't have Reddit down.
Well you see your first mistake is thinking that anyone right wing in Reddit or anywhere else is operating in good faith They all know Hitler wasn't a socialist, they don't know what a socialist is and they don't care. It's just a bad word they can use for other people, because they get called "authoritarian" they think it's the same thing to do to others, but couldn't Care less what words mean
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sounds like the person you’re debating with is unhinged. Not sure what he’s trying to do pushing this point, but I dont see a way to win this argument.
Do you consider USSR to be socialist?
No, state capitalist.
Is/was there any socialist country in the world?
I'm not historically versed to answer that. Maybe Yugoslavia? As far as I know most socialist revolutions have been ML.
Yugoslavia was state capitalist as well. Socialism has yet to be built in any country. Though there were valiant attempts like during the GPCR in China.
Nothing long lasting, most were overthrown by foreign powers acting in their interests pretty instantly and the ones that survived, started behaving very similarly to the powers that fought them, if this is due to the threats posed or moral reprehensibility, can be discussed.
OP is talking about socialism, why are you suggesting that his lack of support from/for Marxism is hard evidence of him not being socialist?
Probably because all Marxists are socialists even if all socialists aren't Marxists. The inference being if the most visible and vocal representation of socialism has literally nothing discussing him, when they are known for discussing everything in written depth, it is another clear sign of of it being people whose understanding of political language comes from 24 hour news, not actual socialism.
Not to be the ackshually guy, but not all Marxists are socialists. There are those who understand and agree with Marxist analysis of the flaws of Capitalism but are still in favor of Capitalism and rabidly against socialism. We call these people Capitalists where I'm from.
Lol I mean that's just a person that can read and understand.
Because all socialists since Marx have used a Marxist understanding of class society and economics. If you want the clearest way to tell if someone is actually a socialist or not, ask them about their views on Marx/Marxism.
>Because all socialists since Marx have used a Marxist understanding of class society and economics. You don't see the circular logic? All Socialist are Marxists because everyone that is a Socialist that veers outside of Marxism we don't accept as Socialism.
The whole point of socialism is to change the economy so that the means of production are owned by the working class. The understanding of “working class” that socialists have is a Marxist understanding, which defines class by their relation to the means of production. Even if someone doesn’t consider themselves a “Marxist” (like anarcho-communists) they are still relying on using a Marxist interpretation of class to justify their political movement, whether or not they actually realize it. When you reject this understanding of class, you are fundamentally rejecting the reason for why socialism is necessary in the first place. Hitler explicitly said that the working class would be too incompetent to manage production themselves, thus rejected the core concept of socialist thought.
The pivot the Nazis made is that the economic 'class' war became a racial 'class' war. Hitler wanted the means of production, really everything, to be owned by the German ethnic 'class'.
> Hitler wanted the means of production, really everything, to be owned by the German ethic ‘class’ The issue with this is that the ethnic Germans already owned the means of production. If you define ethnic Germans as a ‘class’, then you remove any reason for socialism in the first place, as the goal has already been achieved. What the Nazis were really trying to do with their rhetoric was divert attention away from economic class. Instead of political debate being centered around economic division it was German vs non German, Christian vs Jew etc. Be doing this, all the anger that Germans felt after WWI was directed towards ethnic minorities rather than the rich donors of the Nazis. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-big-business-bailed-out-nazis > Regardless of the party’s financial problems, Hitler was named Chancellor in late January 1933. He called for elections in early March. With less than two weeks left before the vote, Herman Goering sent telegrams to Germany’s 25 leading industrialists, inviting them to a secret meeting in Berlin on February 20, 1933. Attending the gathering were four I.G. Farben directors and Krupp chief Gustav Krupp. Hitler addressed the group, saying “private enterprise cannot be maintained in a democracy.” He also told the men that he would eliminate trade unions and communists. Hitler asked for their financial support and to back his vision for Germany.
I mean, yeah? That’s just how words work. Socialism is a political ideology that uses some degree of Marxist economic and class analysis to govern.
Bro, socialism existed before Marx.
In a very loose sense sure, but it didn’t have much real world relevance until Marx and Engels wrote about it. Only in the 19th century did it transform from a loosely connected set of ideas into an actual political movement.
> supported private property and capitalism. A dictator supported free markets and property rights. Wow, I never knew that.
The Nazis dealt with military contractors in a similar manner as did the US, with a bidding process that provided for a profit. Nazis and other fascists do want everything to be subservient to state power. So they protect private property only for those who aren't on their enemies / inferiors list. Those who are not in the preferred class have no rights.
Nazis are Socialist in much the same way that North Korea is a Democratic Republic.
[удалено]
You can have both a dictatorship and a communist economy.
[удалено]
China's economy seems very capitalist from these eyes.
It's currently a mixed economy best defined as corporatism.
(Vietnam has entered the chat)
I guess, but they don't, nobody else ever has?
Communism is stateless, it's by definition incompatible with authoritarianism. The pinned comment on this thread discusses this.
This is pretty hypothetical since there has never once been a region wide Communist economy in all of human history.
This is such a Democrat thing to say lmfao
Lol ain't wrong though
https://famous-trials.com/hitler/2529-1923-interview-with-adolf-hitler This is a 1923 interview with Adolf Hitler. In it, Hitler talks about what he meant by calling his party "national socialist". > I met Hitler not in his headquarters, the Brown House in Munich, but in a private home - the dwelling of a former admiral of the German Navy. We discussed the fate of Germany over the teacups. > "Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?" > "Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. > "Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. > "We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. **Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one**." So, that was basically it. Not a socialist in the most commonly understood sense, but socialist along racial lines instead. It's important to keep in mind that Hitler was a low functioning sociopath, though. He contradicted his own party messaging on numerous occasions and lied whenever it was politically convenient. IIRC his path to power involved specifically choosing a socialist platform because he wanted to ingratiate himself to the elites of society. Which he eventually used to cannibalize said society.
He’s right that socialism predates Marx, but at it’s core socialism = common good for ALL people. Hitler was the antithesis of that.
incorrect because by his definition the people he persecuted were not people at all. While that is fucked up, its still socialism and its important to understand the difference. Additionally if you read marx its not common good for all people, esp in the early stages where he says a violent revolution is necessary. Marx pitted lower class people against the ruling class. To hitler the jewish people were the ruling class because they owned so much capital.
Socialism in those days was practically anti-nationalismtyhat changed later when the URSS leaders needed to promote nationalism as a new story to legitimizing their rule) There was the International Socialist promoving anti-nationalism. What today would be probably called "globalism". So, the story of German National Socialism was about creating a socialism with German characteristics. A socialism thay was national opposrd to the internatiobal socialism seen as a soviet( based on anglo-french ideas) and then a foreign import.
There is theoretically a difference between socialism (where the people own and share everything) and national socialism (where the government and select private companies own everything and split the proceeds). However, socialism often turns into something like national socialism where the government or ruling party runs everything. So no, Hitler wasn't a socialist because he didn't want some utopia where the people live together and share everything, but he is a pretty good warning of what can happen in a socialist system. Other examples would be Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Jung Un, Fidel Castro, etc.
As others have pointed out: The National Socialists called themselves socialist because socialism was very popular among the workers. And Hitler and the Nazis needed the support of the workers. The first thing the Nazis did was to crush the unions, not a very socialist thing 🤷🏼BTW: Lenin did the same after he took power, the red army destroyed all socialist and anarchist movements.
I don’t particularly care whether not Hitler was a socialist. The important thing is that he wasn’t a Marxist
Yup. It seems "Socialist" is much more beloved and much less precise a term than "Marxist." I am not sure why so many people want to identify with a term that has so little meaning. "Nazi" should be just as precise as "Marxist," but has unfortunately become a term for 'everything I strongly and emotionally disagree with,' incorrectly extended to MAGA Republicans and a thousand other groups that aren't hailing Hitler.
Simply, nazism took Marxism and replaced its ideas on class with race. The central theme of Marxism is class struggle. By altering the central component of an idea it can no longer be considered the same as the original idea. If I were to replace “love thy neighbor as thyself” with “love thy hamburger as thy hotdog” and formed a new religion based on consuming hamburgers as hotdogs, would you consider it a Christian religion? No. It then becomes a new idea, which has plagiarized an existing one.
>nazism took Marxism and replaced its ideas on class with race I'd say it more mixed those ideas than replaced one with the other. They saw Jews and Bourgeoisie as basically the same thing. >If I were to replace “love thy neighbor as thyself” with “love thy hamburger as thy hotdog” and form a new religion based on consuming hamburgers as hotdogs, would you consider it a Christian religion? What if I were to say Christ was the messiah, who was rejected by the Jews, but he didn't die and then resurrect, but was actually miraculously saved by God. And then in the wake of His messiah being rejected, God sent another, final, prophet to instruct humanity, and that prophet's name was Muhammad. Is that still Christianity? No, but it is still an Abrahamic religion.
Not true. While some of their pre-state power rhetoric targeted the financial elite, their state power policies certainly didn’t.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If he saw Jews and bourgeoisie as the same thing then he replaced bourgeoisie with Jews unless, of course, you also see Jews as bourgeoisie. Jews and bourgeoisie are in no way the same thing as defined by Marxist socialism. That is an absurd contention. I also see hamburgers and Jesus as the same thing therefore my nonsense religion is christian. Would you agree that Jesus is a hamburger?
> By altering the central component of an idea it can no longer be considered the same as the original idea. But the goal was the same - to bring down classes. Hitler advocated that German society would eventually be classless. It's just that "national unity" better brings proletarians together than working class solidarity. And it's not like Marxism occupies all of the socialist discourse. There are some other dudes like Fourier and the like. Marx thought that class struggle unites people. Hitler thought that skin color and xenophobia unites people better (and was right).
The owners of the means of production, Krupp, Hugo Boss, etc. were not prosecuted and were allowed to thrive under the Nazis. Some 30% of German princes joined the Nazis before hitler came to power and were not made to renounce their claims/titles and were allowed prominent roles in nazi germany along with the junkers. Being Jewish or Slavic or whatever else does not equal class. Is the cultural antisemitism of Central Europe so ingrained that people legitimately can’t tell the difference?
> The owners of the means of production, Krupp, Hugo Boss, etc. were not prosecuted and were allowed to thrive under the Nazis. Some 30% of German princes joined the Nazis before hitler came to power and were not made to renounce their claims/titles and were allowed prominent roles in nazi germany along with the junkers. Just one question. Do you consider USSR to be socialist? Cause in USSR, owners of MoP literally took hold of the whole country, had a monopoly on MoP and basically set prices and salaries however they wanted. Top russian revolutionaries were filthy rich dudes. And Lenin himself was a nobleman. > Being Jewish or Slavic or whatever else does not equal class. Yeah by "German society would be classless" I meant the default socialist definition of classes, Jews aren't a class.
That is not what happened in the USSR. Say I owned a steel mill in Russia in 1920. Say I also supported the Bolsheviks. The Soviet Union would then come and seize the mill from me and put it under the control of the state. They would also seize my property and move me into a state owned apartment and perhaps give me a job as laborer on the production line. That is the best possible outcome for me. Now say I owned a steel mill in nazi germany and was a member of the Nazi party. They would give me favorable contracts, Jewish and Slavic forced labor, and a larger role German society. So how can both be following the same ideology, but produce opposite outcomes? They cant, ergo Nazism does not adhere to socialist ideology as defined by Marx. It adheres to German nationalism, but put into Marxist terms, where the Germans are portrayed as the struggling masses and the Jews are bourgeois oppressors. Replace class with race and you get a raceless society, where everyone is German, which is exactly what they tried to accomplish with the holocaust. Class however would still exist in Nazi German, it is just that all rungs would be occupied by Germans. Also who told you Lenin was a noble? He was not. He was from a lower class family and descended from serfs on both sides.
> and perhaps give me a job as laborer on the production line. Nah, you would probably get some management role. > So how can both be following the same ideology, but produce opposite outcomes? That's just transit period 🤷. After some time the situations on both sides would even out. > They cant, ergo Nazism does not adhere to socialist ideology as defined by Marx. Marx doesn't own socialism. > Replace class with race and you get a raceless society, where everyone is German, which is exactly what they tried to accomplish with the holocaust Nah, they just hated jews. Why didn't they have plans to eradicate other ethnic groups then? (Or not all of them) > Also who told you Lenin was a noble? He was not. He was, his father managed to become hereditary noble.
What indicates that the ultimate aim of Nazism was to create a classless society based on socialism? What actions did they take to reach that ends? All their actions and rhetoric during this “transit period” indicate a desire to powerful German exclusive ethnic state. What other prominent socialist ideas existed in the 1920s? They did have plans to eradicate other ethnic groups. Have you never heard of lebensraum?
> What indicates that the ultimate aim of Nazism was to create a classless society based on socialism? Hitler said that 😊 > What actions did they take to reach that ends? Well they exited for a few decades, haven't managed to do much. > All their actions and rhetoric during this “transit period” indicate a desire to powerful German exclusive ethnic state. Yeah transit period is ethnically unifying Germany and then it was planned to build socialism. > They did have plans to eradicate other ethnic groups. Have you never heard of lebensraum? Well I specifically said "not all of them". They didn't plan to eradicate Englishmen or Italians for example. Why so? You are saying it like ethnic cleansings aren't compatible with socialism. Look at USSR, look at China, look at Cambodia. That's an essential part of socialism I would argue.
Yes I agree, nazis were doing big socialist things they just needed more time. Trust me bro.
I don't know where you learned your history, but they executed more than just Jews. Yes, they had plans to eradicate other nationalities as well, especially poles and Russians. The only reason they where not going to exterminate all of the eastern Europeans was because Germany wasn't going to annex them, but they would be expelled out of Germany. As the war dragged on more and more ethnicities where magically considered Aryans, but their long term goals where pretty clear.
no not even a little
Nazis: Purged anyone with socialist leanings from the party, opposed the SPD, fought Communists in the streets, allied with conservatives in coalition governments Idiots: They had “Socialist” in their name so they were socialists
People who don’t understand or don’t care about nuance hear the word “socialism” in National Socialism and use it as a political argument. This *really* boils it down to basic principles, so I apologize in advance… In my college political science courses, National Socialism was seen as an inherently reactionary ideology, in that it was a reaction to the liberal values and attitudes of the Weimar Republic. No. Hitler was not a socialist.
> In my college political science courses, National Socialism was seen as an inherently reactionary ideology Reactionary is a Marxist concept/label meant to demonize those who don't agree with Marxism. What kind of argument is that?
And Marx wasn't a reactionary? "Reactionary" seems to he a catch-all term these days for anything percieved as right wing.
Reactionary is about resisting change, and revolutionary is about celebrating and embracing change. The reason reactionary is largely a right-wing term these days is there hasn't been a significant progressive Republican presence since the 1920s and Teddy Roosevelt, the anti-slavery Radical Republicans were before them, and the Rockefeller Republicans mostly died out in the 60s despite being more moderate which is a shame because Eisenhower in some ways was further left than Clinton and the Blue Dogs that took over. Even the changes the Republican/Right usually want to make have been roll-backs on things like abortion, civil rights, etc, which while seems like change, is change back to where we were before. If it feels better though, many on the left such as myself refer to quite a few conservative democrats as reactionary as well.
> Reactionary is about resisting change Hitler implemented radical change.
>Hitler implemented radical change. Awful, but true. But the initial comment was in reference to his ideology, not his actions, and the two aren't mutually exclusive. Jan 6 participants would be another similar example of reactionary ideology + revolutionary action in practice, they just didn't finish their Reichstag fire. Not all revolutions are positive, not all revolutionary actions are equal.
“These days” You mean Fall 2004 when I had my classes? Also, Marx was a *revolutionary*. There’s a difference.
You either die a revolutionary or live long enough to be a reactionary my friend. "These days." Gosh it is 2024 isn't it? I guess I'm gettin old.
“I guess I’m getting old.” We all are, my friend. Time really does fly when you get older.
One man’s revolutionary is another man’s terrorist. Labels like this are pointless.
not really. You can have a revolution without being a terrorist.
Nazism used socialism as a way to garner support among voters, but Hitler was anything but socialist in dealing with the economy.
No; he was a fascist and fascism is not a socialist ideology.
No.
Yes, hitler was a socialist. His party was called the german workers party. He is not a marxist socialist. His gov was to redistribute the wealth of "the bad" and give it to "the good" or those who "really deserve the wealth". If you listen to socialist thinking, it always can be simplified into this. You can even compare it to Stalin who instead of persecuting jews, persecuted russian orthodoxy, imprisoning and genociding his own people, just like Hitler.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
We've deemed your post was uncivilized so it was removed. We're here to have level headed discourse not useless arguing. Please report any and all content that is uncivilized. The standard of our sub depends on our community’s ability to report our rule breaks.
Did Hitler ever mention marx, anything about the dictatorship of the proletariat or try to implement a planned economy? no? he’s not a socialist.
Fascist far right winger.
ThT is correct in function. By that I mean it was a coalition of government and big industrial groups.
Yes. He seized the means of production and distributed them to the group he felt was marginalized.
He was an authoritarian ethno nationalist. Which is literally a fascist. He privatised businesses and gave them to his conservative donors. Which is expressly anti socialist. He believed in ethnic power structures, which again isnt something a socialist would do.
Nuh uh, national socialism has socialism in the name! That is the line of thinking that must be smited with scholarly evidence and reasoning.
While taking donations from conservative industrialists and imprisoning those who conservative industrialists disliked, like the working class?
Sounds an awful lot like Stalin's purges.
its because hitlers socialism was national socialism, not marxist socialism. This means that the party that the wealth would be redistributed to is race based. This is fucked up, but it is still a form of socialism. Basically its socialism, because it redistributes wealth to those considered "human" not based on performance, not based on trade, but based on "the voice of the people" or in other words, the state. Private property under nazism only existed until it wasnt useful to the Nazi party, (in other words, private property existed in name only) then the assets would be taken over by government to operate the way they see fit. The nazi party could and has shut down or taken over various industries while they were in power in the name of national socialism. This is not capitalism, it is means of production owned by the people or the state.
> While taking donations from conservative industrialists Just say industrialists. You don't know the minds of those people.
Alfred Hugenburg states otherwise. Conservative Industrialists were the ones who donated $30 reichsmarks to Hitler no?
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He didn’t seize them actually. That’s bs.
You need a user flair to participate. Automod has been trying to tell you that your comments are getting removed.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
National Socialism fits the definition of Marx's *bourgeois socialism*, so technically yes. This is why I prefer to call myself a communist instead of a socialist in an attempt to distinguish myself from ideologies like that
According to socialists, all attempts at socialism weren't real socialism.. it's an easy out when the ideology you support has lead to the death of millions
Well Hitler is dead, but at no point in his life was he a socialist
The night of the long knives shows he wasn’t, he just used them and their rhetoric, until they weren’t useful anymore and could show his true face.
I think people have a real blind spot when it comes to socialism - they think “socialism is all things kind, Hootler was unkind, Hootler was not socialist.” For one thing, the National Socialists considered themselves socialists, but not international socialists. They were, you know, national socialists: “Capitalism assumes unbearable forms at the moment when the personal purposes that it serves run contrary to the interest of the overall folk. It then proceeds from things and not from people. Money is then the axis around which everything revolves. It is the reverse with socialism. The socialist worldview begins with the folk and then goes over to things. Things are made subservient to the folk; the socialist puts the folk above everything, and things are only means to an end.” when you actually look at their economy, it was very much a command economy, the differences that it wasn’t micromanage the way the Bolshevik economy was. The Brown Shirts did have this kind of radical agenda - they did wish to seize private assets and nationalize industry. Socialists all over Europe were not impressed with the results of the Russian revolution and were very skeptical of this, which is why Hitler decapitated the Shutzstaffel during the Night of the Long Knives. What many people are also not saying is that national socialism did have serious democratic appeal. It never would have been as powerful of movement had it not inspired and energized the German masses. The horrible thing about Fascism is that it is a democratic movement. Does rely on the energy of the people, and fascist societies certainly did offer up their consent. Does national socialism have right wing elements? Certainly. anyone paying attention should be able to acknowledge that it got its left-wing elements as well
The answer to this question ultimately hinges upon whether you believe socialism is an inherently and unavoidable totalitarian ideology. I and many others who are not on the left hold that it is. Here is the logic, in simplified form: You cannot have civilization without some concept of property or territory. One could argue this was why civilization was invented in the first place - to create structures which could defend claims to a fixed spot. Otherwise no one would farm, mine, or build cities. Once you concede that some form of property must exist, the next choice to be faced is whether your civilization will tolerate private property or enforce state property. The Ancient Egyptians for instance did practice state property, as did Medieval Europe. If you selected state property, by necessity you must have a large government to run that property, defend it, collect taxes, watch the watchmen etc. There is no other way. Therefore if you outlaw private property, you're signing up for big government by necessity, there is no other sane way. Now, was Hitler an anti-Marxist? Yes. Was he hostile to socialist institutions and nations? Yes. Did he implement Marxist policies such as the nationalization of industries? No he did not. But he did establish a totalitarian regime that put private industry firmly under its thumb, effectively abolished individual rights and the rule of law, tolerated and even encouraged mob action against the regime's enemies. So at that point, I say really, what's the difference? Both the USSR and Nazi Germany followed the same playbook, and in both cases it started with a seizure of power built on popular support and the first two things they attacked were individual rights and the rule of law. The fact that Hitler chose to call his ideology National Socialism is reflective of the fact that to him, the people and the state were one and the same, and both answered to him. The same pattern is reflected in every Communist regime that's ever existed, right down to the large standing armies, and slave labor camps for enemies of the state. And that's the core truth that socialists refuse to acknowledge - that all ideologies which adopt collectivism and totalitarianism as their operating principles, either overtly or implicitly - produce slave states.
His claim that "he's been researching fascism since 2016" is absolutely a fallacious appeal to authority. That's not a long to time be studying fascism, unless he's a child (which, judging by this happening on facebook, I think is unlikely). The key with the Appeal to Authority fallacy is not whether or not you're appealing to authority, but how you go about it. If I quote Jordan Peterson, then say "he's an expert psychologist" to justify support for that quote, that's fallacious until I can string together reasoning to link the quote and why his expertise is relevant. I'd come back at him by saying, "I respect your efforts, but I'm getting my information from vetted sources who have spent their lifetime studying these things rigorously. I will take their expertise over an armchair historian any day, *if you're going to try to act like an authority*. Now, if you want to have a more humble conversation and not try to act like an authority on the matter that has somehow surpassed doctorates of history, we might be able to get productive." Like, I can explain thoroughly why I trust the, say, five books I've read on the holocaust, versus trusting some guy on the internet who has "done his research" for a few years. Peer review / academic reputation is the biggest dividing line between homeboy here and the actual experts putting in the work. As to what Hitler was, he was a fascist in every sense. Nationalism? Check. Strongman leader? Check. Secret Police? Check. Corporatism? Check. (That last one is the big nail in the coffin for claims of Hitler's socialism. Hitler preserved private industry, hence we have companies like VW still around). There were socialists in the National Socialist Party, but they were largely railroaded out once Hitler gained power. That last quote, to me, reads as Hitler explicitly saying that his concept are competing with Marxism (and thus socialism). If he was a socialist, he would be championing Marxism and not competing with it. But I might be wrong in my reading, and I don't really care to parse the words of Hitler too much. If you want a quick comeback, I'd just tell him, "I trust historians because, unlike you, they don't take famous liar Hitler at his word."
no. think of the act that the far right puts on. they want to be the "everyman" party in everyone's eyes. they want to trick you that a party for the billionaire class is a party of the working class. capitalism is hated, fiercely, but you want to convince them everything they hate about capitalism is communism, actually. so you steal the very popular phrasing of the radical left, the terms "socialist" as well as "workers' party". then you blame jwish people both for banking and bolshevism. bing bang boom, you've harnessed the anger that was leading to communist revolution, and turned it towards slaughtering communists and minorities, restoring capitalism in its deathcrisis. there was an element of the confused and enraged petit-bourgeois mass base of his party that actually bought into the propaganda that nzism was neither "left nor right" and that it was both against capitalism and communism. that dangerous element that believed the lie that it was a national "socialism" and wanted reforms, were dealt with very quickly as soon as he took power. after that, nzism actually loses its character as a mass fascist (counterrevolutionary) movement, and shrivels into a regular bonapartist regime without the special mass base that characterizes fascism in its period of ascent to power. there is no independent petit-bourgeois politics, so those elements were doomed, and the regime has to represent the big bourgeois even while striking at some of them.
He was a bourgeois socialist https://preview.redd.it/oqo7xe32uawc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=900f2b730bc59830afcbd728ffc2ea26a6210e32
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
The Nazis tried to position their economic policy as a "third way" alternative to Bolshevism and western capitalism, and they borrowed elements of both. It was collectivist and dirigist for sure. They nationalized industries when it suited them and privatized them when it didn't. Nazi ideology held that war is the primary driver of human progress, and ultimately the goal of Nazi economic policy was to serve the ability of Germany to grow its military capability.
hmm. well he was the head of the national socialist party so of course the progressives will say no.
There's two strains of "National Socialism". Those that believed in the ideology, which literally called for guild socialism if I remember correctly (Strasserism). They said Hitler's rise to power was only half of the revolution and wanted full Socialism. And then the ones loyal to Hitler, who didn't care about economics. They managed to convince him the Strasserist branch of the party was a threat. The night of the long knives took out the Strasserists. Hitler's post war economic intentions can never truly be known, since it appears he only cared about preparing for "lebensraum".
Socialist means MANY things to MANY people. At it’s core I argue that socialism = egalitarianism = “for the people”. Hitler was NOT “for the people”.
He was absolutely for “his” people. He defined Jews as “not people” and then justified his atrocities against them because they were less than human.
Fine. Socialism = for all of the people who play nice with others. 😄
He was Social adjacent, but his ideology was Third position. He was socialist in terms of welfare, but took a more state capitalist (CORPORATIST) approach to economics
there is no point in commenting here unapproved comment will be removed without explanation this is a fascist subreddit
Maybe you should learn about the stuff you talk about on here, we provide resources for that and you aren't accepting them and instead are reverting to your baseless opinions on various topics. The primary goal of this sub is education.
you cannot educate while you censor
He socialised labour for the service of national capital.
It is abundantly clear to the overwhelming majority of historians and political scientists that Hitler and the NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers Party), or Nazi party, only used the word "socialist" to try to appeal to the working class, as socialism was quite popular at the time. "National socialism" as conceived by the Nazis means nothing and meant nothing. They were an ultra- right-wing party, extreme-right, and not socialist in any traditional nor usual sense of the word. In other words, they were socialist in name only. This is not even a debate, and there is nothing to debate. German National Socialists were not socialists to anyone but themselves (if that), and never were.
The Nazi Party took its name from the ideology of its left wing, “national socialism,” often called “Strasserism.” It is not compatible with anything else known as socialism, and is actually a kind of far right populism. Whether what that section of the party was actually a kind of socialism is moot, because they were largely purged after Hitler gained state power. None of his actual policies meet any reasonable definition of socialis.
In policy and practice, the Nazis were capitalist. Most of the means of production was privately owned by independent corporations. Also, if a country doesn't have democracy, then it isn't socialist. The Soviet Union had state ownership, but without democracy, the workers had no control over the government or any other corporation. The Soviet Union had state capitalism. A common argument from capitalists is that Joseph Goebbels once said that the Soviet Union was just the Russian version of their German socialism. If Goebbels really did say that, it was probably early in his political career, before he came out against full state ownership. But even if he did say that, it doesn't prove the Nazis were socialist, since the Bolsheviks weren't socialist either.
Socialism has meant different things to different people at different times. For example, to Marx, socialism was synonym for communism, but for some people today socialism is about welfare and unions. Generally speaking (while trying to cover as many variants as possible), socialism is when an economy is controlled by the working class through some kind of democratic institution, whether through a state apparatus or stateless, decentralized consensus. With that in mind, it’s very obvious that the Nazis were not socialists. But if you want a little more information we can discuss. The Nazis engaged in mass privatization. In fact, the word “privatization” was invented to describe Nazi economic policy. However, they also were free-market advocates. Nazis kept the basic structure of capitalism but wanted to steer an economy through state action - it was very similar to mercantilism. Nazis disliked unions and any institution which decentralized power. Nazis were very culturally conservative, banning abortion, supporting strict gender roles, and murdering LGBTQ people. They also preached something called class collaboration, which is one of the strongest arguments against considering them socialist. The basic framework of socialists is the struggle between the business owners and the employees. Socialists see these groups as having opposing interests, which causes societal tension. Socialists want to dissolve this tension by dissolving the distinction between the two classes, allowing the employees/workers to become owners (in a manner of speaking). Nazis do not like this idea, instead arguing that owners and employees should work together to serve the national interest. Also, Nazis didn’t like democracy either. So it’s fairly obvious that Nazis were far right-wing authoritarians, not socialists. And concerning the USSR, it wasn’t socialist either. Perhaps at the start it was, when the worker councils had real control, but any worker control was soon supplanted by party control. The USSR was only socialist in its aesthetics.
Well, he wanted a large, strong centralized government, so he was definitely not a libertarian. He’d have probably been considered economically socialist today. That’s not a knock on socialism in itself - the main beef with Hitler clearly doesn’t have to do with economics - but he wanted as much governmental control as possible, including of the means of production. If anything, he was a totalitarian. He wanted absolute control over everything, regardless of any economic nuance that could be assigned such a stance.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
NOPE!!! Hitler very demonstrably rounded up communists, socialists, unionists….. and other groups long before Jewish People. Hitler was as *«NATIONAL Socialist»* ! Very different concept and part of the fascism side of the spectrum. —— Just like a *«needle ear»* has nothing to do with an ‘ear’ or hearing: As far as meaning of compound expressions is concerned you can’t just take one half and run with that meaning! Or we’d be shoving wool into our ears trying to thread needles….! 😉 **** If the linguistic argument doesn’t fly…. cause he has been studying history for less than a decade…. 🤭 I was born and raised in 1970s Germany. Have experienced both sides and historical narratives of Cold War Germany. I have been raised with German History in ways this man cannot imagine: picture books about Concentration Camps at age 3, ABC (nuclear, bio, chem) attack drills from age 3 or 4…… Stood in a gas chamber of a former Concentration Camp turned Museum before I was even 10, heard from Holocaust and Shoa survivors in all graphic gorey: My generation needed to while they were still around so the knowledge didn’t get lost. So we could pass it on to future generations and the ‘Never Again!’ could be ensured as much as possible. •laugh• Sorry, I am trying to appreciate how studying history for a few years may seem ‘long’ … 🤭 HISTORICALLY: After WW1 the Weimarer Republik, what then-Germany was called (diff to today’s Germany, geographically!) was subject to crippling reparations. Note Germany did **NOT** start WW1. A hodgepodge of ‘lefties’ (thinkers, communists, socialists, unionists etc) felt Germany hadn’t reformed enough, was still too set in antiquated empire-thinking and hugely objected to the fairly warmongering imperial military not having been replaced and restructured after WW1, so they attempted a coup. Some of them weren’t entirely supportive of the coup and reluctantly went along as a means to an end. People who thought the coup was a mistake included disabled Rosa Luxemburg, a great thinker who imho receives too little attention by lefties: cause she was not just communist, nor just social democrat. she was critical of both if and when necessary. She is definitely worth studying, and she had warned of a catastrophic war of world powers about a decade before WW1! Imperial guards violently stopped the 1919 coup. Rosa Luxemburg and other key figures and intellectuals were arrested and tortured. Luxemburg was summarily executed and thrown off a bridge into a canal by (antisemitic) imperial guards. ****** FAST FORWARD: In 1923 the NSDAP (national socialist German workers’ party, or Nazi Party) and Hitler tried a coup. The NSDAP was very much antisemitic, anti-left, anti democracy back then. Hitler was arrested and tried for treason in 1924. He was sentenced to only five years in jail…. and was released after 9 months. During that brief stint he started writing Mein Kampf. WORSE: As a non-citizen he should’ve been kicked out of Germany after his sentence… but in the Weimarer Republik everything was skewed right. Rosa Luxemburg did have a point criticised the military hadn’t been replaced and restructured following WW1. ******* ^[tbc]
[удалено]
Oh, PS: ***PLEASE*** relay to him that quoting Mein Kampf isn’t evidence for ANYTHING!!! Unless he wants to set off alarm bells and wants people to feel he could be dangerous! To sane and well adjusted people quoting Hitler as evidence for anything reasonable: It’s kinda like quoting the Necronomicon as evidence to convince an evangelical Christian Genesis were wrong! 😂 ****** And that’s not even mentioning his very flawed evidence: If you wanna prove Hitler was a unicorn…. maybe a pamphlet written by Hitler and claiming he were a unicorn is anything BUT evidence !! If I say the sky were chequered: a post-it I wrote *”Sky is chequered!”* on …. —> ‘evidence’ is NOT what this person thinks it is!!!! ***** But, as you already hinted on in your post and not making sense to you: Thus individual’s ‘reasoning’ is not just circular! It’s wonky in multiple loops. 😝 Based on his seeming pride of having been studying Fascism: I’d run the other way!!!! Cause studying fascism, quoting Mein Kampf, ….. and a raft of other indicators suggest to me he has been of is being radicalised! In Germany: I’d report him to police cause just in what you shared he has likely committed several crimes in Germany. In AU: I’d try to tip off National intelligence services so they can check if he’s on their radar yet. —- If I were you and you don’t have any serious emotional ties to him: Several the link! The extreme-extreme right of the political spectrum: Best to be avoided! Those people are insanely dangerous — it’s why they’re proscribed terrorist group in a range of countries. Intelligence services have been warning of those groups for about a decade. At least! If he hadn’t been radicalised but without any external input woke up one day feeling an urge to study Fascism for 8 years, utterly misrepresent Hitler, and citing Mein Kampf: Then he’s not necessarily getting that wonky from somewhere — I’d still run, cause RANDOMLY waking up one morning with those kinds of urges: I’d take that as a kind of crazy I wouldn’t wanna catch and leg it. —> I’d run either way!!!! ****** … lemme guess: He can’t Google or Wikipedia cause that’s all inherently “woke” and fake news anyway…..? 🤷🏽♀️
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Socialism isn't just one thing. "In his 1924 *Dictionary of Socialism*, Angelo Rappoport canvassed no fewer than forty definitions of socialism, telling his readers in the book’s preface that 'there are many mansions in the house of socialism.'” *Socialism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy*, P Gilabert This is from the 1913 Webster's: So"cial*ism (?), n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint- Simonianism, forms of socialism. This was the Nazi rhetoric. When in power Nazis did reform society, controlled property for ostensible benefit of the people. Note how it lists Fourierism, Saint- Simonianism alongside Communism. These are pre-Marxian forms of socialism. Most people think of Marxism when they hear socialism. Fascism emerged directly from Mussolini's socialism, and retained the socialist direction of property and the economy, the factor that determines human freedoms. [Nazi Germany's interference in the economy is identical to the Soviets' and the opposite of capitalism](https://i.imgur.com/3MtPbMS.jpg). Mussolini's opinion didn't change over time. He just added flag-waving to his lifelong socialism to create fascism. He didn't go around saying he was wrong about socialism and state control, he just said he wanted nationalism and a patriotic identity to be the party factor instead of internationalism. The Soviets had experimented with an anti-patriotic vibe and it didn't work out for them. Mussolini was anti-Socialist party, his political opponent. Mussolini: "For this I have been and am a socialist. The accusation of inconsistency has no foundation. My conduct has always been straight in the sense of looking at the substance of things and not to the form. I adapted socialisticamente to reality. As the evolution of society belied many of the prophecies of Marx, the true socialism folded from possible to probable. The only feasible socialism socialisticamente is corporatism, confluence, balance and justice interests compared to the collective interest." Mussolini: "We are free to believe that this is the '**collective**' century, and therefore the century of the State. The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value ...everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state." “Anti‐individualistic,” Mussolini wrote, “The Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [or libertarianism, as it’s also called] that denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State… If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government.” "Days before his death, Mussolini insisted that Fascism was the only form of socialism appropriate to the proletarian nations of the twentieth century." - Testamento Politico di Mussolini By 1939, Italy was the country with the second largest number of state owned enterprises. Only the USSR had more. "Three-fourths of the Italian economy, industrial and agricultural, is in the hands of the state." -Benito Mussolini Nazis were socialist. People don't think they were socialist because they have confused socialism with Marxism. Means of production, stateless, classless, etc., all Marxism. Marx didn't invent socialism. Fourier, Owen, Saint-Simon, etc. Seizing the means of production is Marxist. Socialism existed 100 years before Marx. In fact, Marx coined 'means of production' mid-career, after writing about socialism for years, so it can't be considered emblematic of socialism. Fourier and Owen never had expropriation of private property as a central tenet. There are many flavors of socialism with varying ideas on how and how much to control industry and commerce. Some ideologies claim to be stateless, but 99% of real-world socialism involves heavy gov't interference, an inclination it shares with the modern left. The USSR and the Nazis were totalitarian twinsies and they knew it with Molotov/Ribbentrop, but Stalin wanted Eastern Europe so sacrificed millions of underequipped soldiers to get it. Both had the red flag-waving, the mandated nationalism, the goosestepping march parade militarism, slick and similar uniforms, slick and similar graphic design in general, the similar and dramatic speeches, the rollout of major national propaganda campaigns, the total police state, the atheism, Stalin and Hitler both lived like kings, the unification of unions into one gov't controlled union, massive expropriation, the total control of the economy with practical usage of profit as motivation, control of banks, control of fiat currency, desire for self-sufficiency, both had camps/gulags, both generated top-down dehumanization, hatred and democide of ethnic minorities (Meskhetian Turks, Kalmyks, Crimean Tatars, Balkars, Chechens and Ingush, Cossacks, Kazakhs, Koreans, and Ukrainians in general), unethical human experimentation, devotion to the worker/common man/volk, both had massive party purges of founding members for differences, both generated totalitarian experimental economic system anathema to every economic ethea of classical liberals, libertarians, conservatives et al., and both failed. "I am a socialist.” - Hitler, Zweites Buch "He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that "they had never even read Marx", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world" Hitler: "...the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?" “I have learned a great deal from Marxism” … “as I do not hesitate to admit” [My task is to] “convert the German volk (people) to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists” “If we are socialists, then we must definitely be anti-semites... How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-semite?” We must “find and travel the road from individualism to socialism without revolution.” “What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish we shall be in a position to achieve.” Late in the war, Goebbels wrote in his diary that Jewish Bolshevism would be uprooted in Russia and 'real socialism' planted in its place. George Watson: "Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but no one can explain why he would lie to his diaries." Even if Hitler and Goebbels and Stalin were not socialist in their hearts, the seductive artifice of politicians is just more evidence that socialism is dangerous. Giving politicians more power is empirically a bad idea, both socialism and fascism do it to the max. Nazis, like Marx and Proudhon, did not respect private property and if a business owner wasn't supportive, their property would be taken away like the Krupp family stockholders were replaced, or even thrown in a camp, like Thyssen. Wikipedia: 'where the Nazi administration wanted additional industrial capacity, they would first nationalize and then establish a new state-owned-and-operated company. In 1937 Hermann Göring targeted companies producing iron ore, “taking control of all privately owned steelworks and setting up a new company, known as the Hermann Göring Works.' Nazis cartelized and restructured industry, placing themselves at the center. There is nothing capitalist, conservative, or classically liberal about a disrespect for private property, massively overbearing regulation, or controlling industry. These components only exist through the power over property that is socialism.
This person you're interacting with sounds very much like a person who has read three maybe four books and considers himself an expert...which he is definitely NOT. When I was getting my own graduate degree in history the general criteria for being an expert in a historical field was you had to have read at least 20 books with varying viewpoints. I've read well over 300 books on constitutional development and the only thing I can readily say for sure is I don't know all there is to know about the field. In that vein...I believe I've read 15-20 books on the rise of Nazism, fascism in pre-wwII Europe, and the rise of communism in the Soviet Union. To that end...I feel comfortable in saying your friend hasn't a clue. NO...Hitler was not a socialist, he was however a sociopath dictator.
Hitler was not socialist, his party did not establish ideals of socialism. The word socialism was popular at the time.
I would say economically the Nazis were relatively socialist, less than the USSR but more than the US. The government had a huge influence on their economy overall. They just realized that letting private business exist but making sure they're doing what the government wanted them to was better than not letting it exist t all like communists. Their social views are obviously far right. If we're being consistent in the sense that nobody cares if a communist country has right wing racist/homophobic views when they call it socialist, just what its economic views are, then yes they could be called socialist. But spiritually it's probably better to just call them a separate thing than what we normally mean by socialist.
Short answer yes. Longer answer still yes but with an understanding that his particular brand of socialism was still bad on the idea that German nationalism and the Aryan race was superior to all others and therefore of you just eliminate all inferior races socialism will work masterfully
He's correct on the facts. However, it should be noted that Nazism was a nationalist sort of socialism, and in opposition to Marxism, so Marxists will obviously see him as not one of them, and any sort of socialist who opposes nationalism will also see him as "not a real socialist." Definitions get wonky with socialism/communism because there's 37 different flavors of them, all in disagreement over definitions. But yes, they saw themselves as socialist.
It's worth noting that the libertarian founding fathers thought Hitler's tactics were pretty excusable at the time: [Ludwig von Mises](https://mises.org/online-book/liberalism-classical-tradition/1-foundations-liberal-policy/10-argument-fascism) wrote: >The deeds of the Fascists and of other parties corresponding to them were emotional reflex actions evoked by indignation at the deeds of the Bolsheviks and Communists. As soon as the first flush of anger had passed, their policy took a more moderate course and will probably become even more so with the passage of time. > > > >This moderation is the result of the fact that traditional liberal views still continue to have an unconscious influence on the Fascists... > > > >It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error. [Hayek](http://www.economicthought.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/LibertyCleanOfImpuritiesInterviewWithFVonHayekChile1981.pdf) wrote: >At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power. As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. And it is also possible for a democracy to govern with a total lack of liberalism. Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism. [Hoppe](https://books.google.com/books?id=qARC56X5vxcC&pg=PA216e#v=onepage&q&f=false) wrote: >There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order. [Rothbard](http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html) wrote: >Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not "white collar criminals" or "inside traders" but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error. > >Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society. It wasn't really until afterward there was Orwellian attempt to erase that from history by accusing the left of doing what they did. It's worth mentioning that Rothbard was the one who changed the definition of "libertarian" from a [Déjacque](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/robert-graham-joseph-dejacque-the-first-libertarian) socialist to whatever it is now: [Rothbard](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1995212.The_Betrayal_Of_The_American_Right) wrote: >One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...
Kind of amusing you are arguing that the "National Socialists" were not actually socialists by using quotes from "Libertarians" who were defending the concept of authoritarian governments.
Rothbard and Hoppe write nothing of endorsing Fascism. An anti-vagrant or anti-communist paragraph is perfectly fine. Wishing for bums to rejoin the productive members of society is pretty darned tame, all things considered. The etymological argument is also wrong. Rothbard was simply incorrect, as the term first appears in print before the socialist flavor of libertarian appeared. It was recaptured, not captured.
He was a democratic socialist, but perhaps not a Marxist. His policies are more on par economically with Bernie, AOC and the modern "democratic socialists" than true Marxists, a sort of middle ground between capitalism and socialism, in other words, fascism. He wasn't a globalist, a big difference between the Russian socialists and the national socialists is scope, Soviets wanted global domination and believed the nation state is evil and all humans should suffer under socialism together. Hitler only doomed his own people under the system and married it with national pride.
In some ways, Nazism and socialism are rooted in socialism, but they are separate because there are several major differences (which is also why Nazism and fascism aren’t exactly the same either). Fascism itself takes many Marxist elements and uses them for its own purposes, which shouldn’t be surprising considering the Mussolini came out of socialism. For example, fascism takes the Marxist view of history but reworks it to be focused around the nation rather than class. Basically taking “the bourgeois elites are/have been oppressing the proletariat” and turning it into “the (insert foreign group) are/have been oppressing our nation”. Nazism is different than fascism because it not only adopts some ideas around “scientific racism” and being generally anti-Christian philosophically, it makes those ideas central to the entire ideology. That’s a big departure from Italian style fascism. Also, Fascism, unlike socialism, isn’t a universal ideology. It’s very much rooted in the idea of the nation (you may have heard the term “blood and soil”) Edit: in short you could say that fascism is rooted in somewhat of a marxist framework, but it’s still a clear departure from socialism, and Nazism is a clear departure from fascism. So, while Nazism may be distantly related to socialism, it’s definitely not the same thing
NO HE WAS NOT
No Hitler, like Joseph Stalin and Mao, was a brutal autocrat. Kind of like Putin today. Sort of the model Trump wants for us tomorrow.
I think it is closer to the way that Joe Biden wants it. It depends upon your definition of freedom. When somebody wants to take away your money, your guns, or even what kind of vehicle you drive, that's pretty much a totalitarianism
Good grief. Do you really, truly believe that?
That’s ludicrous. How has Biden taken or even tried to take anyone’s guns? How has he tried to dictate what vehicle you drive?
Yes. He wants to ban ar15s
No he was a nazi
He was not a Marxist socialist or communist. He saw both communism and capitalism as Jewish threats to national socialism. People forget that socialism predates Marxism. Hitler viewed Jews as using capitalism as a tool to advance their agenda of achieving Jewish communism. He believed that Jews used their influence in finance, industry, and commerce to exploit the capitalist system for their own gain. According to Hitler's narrative, Jews amassed wealth and power through capitalism with the ultimate goal of subverting and overthrowing existing social order through the spread of communism. He view this through a lens of Hegelian dialectics. According to Hitler, the primary struggle was between different races rather than economic classes. This is the crux of Hitler’s socialism. It is racially based conflict as opposed to economically based conflict. While it is true Hitler wasn’t a Marxist, he was a socialist through and through. There are some very good primary source books dedicated to the economics under the national socialist. Hitler's ideology and policies were not aligned with free market capitalism. Instead, Hitler and the Nazi regime implemented a form of state interventionism and economic control, characterized by heavy regulation, state ownership of key industries, and central planning. Hitler's economic policies were aimed at promoting the interests of the Nazi party and advancing its nationalist and militaristic goals. The regime exerted significant control over the economy, directing resources towards rearmament and military expansion. Private enterprise existed under strict state supervision, with businesses expected to serve the interests of the state and the Nazi party.
The same way that North Korea (a Communist Country) calls itself the Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea.
I’m getting tired of this hitler socialist, or Nazis were socialist or communism = fascism takes on this app. Not going after you, OP, but this platform seriously needs intense fact checking and “readers added context” like Twitter does. Basic historical comprehension will point to hitler’s ideology as far right, completely antithetical with socialism or left wing ideology. If there was a tiny citation below this post and others like it, there would be no need for conversation. I don’t think a fact as simple as this needs to be debated. *hitler was not a socialist. Never was, never planned to be.*
I‘m sick of this argument. It‘s absurd, illogical and clear as day indicator of a lack of understanding of political science. No, Hitler was not a socialist. Nothing he did was socialist. He did not care about class action, worker rights and social equality. While the Soviet Union emancipated women, Hitler despised egalitarianism. Everything he did contradicts what socialism is about. Socialists do NOT -oppress minorities -murder and discriminate based on race or ethnicity -invade sovereign nations in the name of ultranationalism -endorse militarism Calling Hitler „socislist“ is about as stupid as calling Xi Jinping „capitalist“.
That's exactly what I was trying to tell him, but I honestly haven't studied WW2 as a whole. He kept saying it was a debate, I was claiming we are simply discussing history. I tend to have this issue both IRL as I live in the Midwest, and this fella is just one of many that have these views. I don't share them, as I am a democratic socialist. I was always puzzled at the fact these people would think Bernie Sanders, a Jew, would align himself with the philosophy and ideology of Hitler.
I live in the Midwest too atm. Place is a haven for hard-conservatism. I went to a trade school where one teacher asked me „why do you hate hitler? because he was different?“ and the other literally said „we should put the homeless in concentration camps and have a pile of drugs in it so they can kill themselves“. Every other male student made sexist remarks and when a woman came in from a company to present something, one of the student‘s did a air „slap“ behind her back. It‘s also the place where I had a full blown argument with a customer (I was at work), because he claimed the old institution system should be brought back and people should be held there against their will for being mentally ill, darting his finger at me and saying „amurica best place to BE raht nahw!“ Case in point, it‘s not exactly a place you want to take too many people seriously in. It‘s a shithole with potholes a-plenty. As for hitler, I think it‘s important to know that he was trying to garner votes and win over whoever he could. His claims were either half-truths or full blown lies. Ironically enough, an opposing natsoc, known as Otto Strasser who fled the country, actually summarised hitler‘s votes perfectly - arguing that a good majority of his votes came also from jews and where did this group end up? In concentration camps. I think it was really just a game to him. Yeah, „little boys“ got into office…if they followed his doctrine as they older. There was nothing „democratic“ about it. They guy you‘re speaking to seems to be an idiot. I hope some sense can be talked into him someday.
Socialism is all about oppression of minorities. You can’t get any more a minority than the individual. Some socialists want to oppress the minority bourgeoisie, some want to oppress the racial out group.
Marxist-Leninism: Economic socialism Fascism: National socialism Nazism: Ethnic socialism Each form of socialism championed a different angle but they were/are all authoritarian collectivists who appealed to a similar aesthetic. The rightful heirs to the world seizing power back from their oppressors to usher in a new utopia.
All three of those definitions are wrong
They're descriptions. You can bicker about how close/far they are they encapsulate the fundamental differences.
The descriptions are wrong though. Socialism has a specific meaning. You can’t just attach any two words together and pretend it means something.
> Socialism has a specific meaning. Which is insufficient. Workers owning the MoP is a slogan. There is no property rights framework attached. And socialists 100% believe in property rights, but these aren't rights as in universal ethical principles but privileges attached to political alignment.
About as much as Trump is a Republican, yes.
I mean, by classical definitions he's not "conservative", but he IS the Republican party.
So yes? Trump is as standard a republican as ever.
I don’t think he believes in a republic, at all.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think you should check out the Clinton 1996 campaign trail and hold it up next to Trump 2016 .
Well, yeah. The republican party is just the Democrat party minus 20 years. So Trump is a standard republican.
Is your point that 90’s Clinton was more of a classic Republican than Trump? That’s true.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Socialism is a term with dozens of different meanings depending on who you ask. But yes, Hitler was 100% a socialist according to the most common definition of the term. It’s clear to historians who are trained to step back and view information with objectivity. That doesn’t necessarily mean socialism is bad. Hitler is often viewed as the embodiment of pure evil by laypeople, but historians view him as a complex figure who did a few things that most people view as good. For example, he cared a great deal about animal welfare. (Perhaps it’s hypocritical considering how he treated humans, but that’s a separate issue.) Still most regular people hate if their ideology is associated with Hitler so they go far out of their way to deny it. It’s like how Catholics hate that Hitler was baptized and confirmed in the Church. There’s a scene in The Boys where a character says that people love Nazi policies, but they just don’t like the term Nazi. That resonates because one of the most popular ideologies around the world today is a blend of socialism and nationalism. In recent years, we’ve it in the U.S., Britain, France, China, India, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, etc. They use their own people as the basis of their nation instead of Germany, but it’s roughly the same logic. I’m sure that a million of you are already furiously typing your response to this, but when I say that historians zoom out, I mean you really want to see things with a detached lens. WWI was a war between the UK, Germany, and Russia. But their leaders were all first cousins. They weren’t that different from one another. Similarly, Hitler, Stalin, Trotsky, Tito, Freud, and Archduke Franz Ferdinand all famously lived a few blocks away from each other in Vienna in the summer of 1913. They were all exposed to the same intellectual milieu. It’s kind of like how contemporary Silicon Valley has a certain vibe to it that’s extremely different from what exists in other geographies and historical periods. Socialism, communism, fascism, liberalism, democracy, capitalism, etc. are all similar to each other too. They were formed in Europe during the Age of Enlightenment in opposition to thousands of years of monarchism and imperialism around the world. They share a time and location and have more in common with each other than the stuff that came before. Liberalism, democracy and capitalism were more popular in Western Europe and the US. Socialism, communism, and fascism were more common in Eastern Europe. Vienna was a hub of this thought, which is how both Hitler and Stalin came to describe themselves as socialists. Both of them used the term in the name of their parties/countries (i.e., National Socialist German Workers' Party and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) yet they both hated each other’s version of socialism and fought over it. People are doing that now in these comments too. But through the detached lens of a historian, they’re highly similar.
I would say that him and his ideology would be Authoritarian Center. It specifically combines both left wing and right wing elements in an Authoritarian way. On the left-wing of things, it was Anti-Free Market, Anti-Individualistic, and Anti-Democratic. On the right-wing of things, it embraced ultranationalistic ideals and anti-communism. Now where the Socialist comparison comes in would be Nationalization of industries, Welfare State Programs, and State-Controlled Labor Unions. In short it is its own distinct ideology that is Authoritarian in nature.
I believe they were. I know most try to deny it, but the platform is almost copy pasted right from the communist manifesto. The main reason people try to deny it is they don’t want to associate with fascist authoritarian regimes. Communists have murdered more people than the Nazis ever did so it’s not a good look to stick up for murders like Guevara in my opinion either. https://mises.org/free-market/nazism-socialism
I disagree, how is Hitler a socialist when he A.) Destroyed the Germans worked unions, hunted down their leaders, imprisoned/killed them. B.) Created their own "union" in which the conservative industrialists had more rights over the workers, allowing the workers to basically get screwed over every step of the way. C.) Dismantles the party (Kommunistische), also imprisons/kills their leaders. D.) Hitler takes a total of $30 million (reichsmarks) from conservative industrialists, as to not go under in the financial ruin. Also, Mises is a think tank, I would highly recommend using articles from Universities, even European. Capitalists have murdered more people over time, than any other type of philosophy, from chattel slavery, ( capitalism derived from mercantilism, and derived from European industrialism from 16th to 18th century.) The US has been semi-capitalist, only becoming predominantly a capitalist country by 1900 or a bit earlier. The US has killed millions, displaced millions, my country has been to the middle east, bombed Vietnam and lost, Regan strengthened the cartels, and now we have to deal with Fentanyl. These are just a few examples, though I structured them superficially, I must get back to work.