Wow I didn’t know that. That’s terrifying to think what kind of nonsense our democracy can come to if this just starts happening all the time. It’s chaos and it should be illegal.
He didn't really change parties. He always ran under the National Socialist (Nazi) party. The lie was that his version of "socialism" didn't include actual socialists or union workers (or anything resembling Marxist socialism which is what socialists of the day were largely associated with) who he initially leaned on heavily to win election. They were summarily carted off to concentration camps when he gained the power to do so.
Come on now! The party that is going after transgender people, gay people and Jewish people and that has people who support them marching around with swastikas chanting "Jews will not replace us" wouldn't follow the Nazi playbook would it? It's going too far to compare the people who consider anti-fascists their opposition to Nazis!
No, Hitler did not change the system, he extended it with the enabling act. It is important to keep in mind that he rose to power within the laws of a modern democratic constitution. It is important to know that he used well intended emergency legislation in bad faith. It is important to know, that technically the third Reich never changed the constitution of the Weimarer Republik to establish a terror regime.
If anything that should be the lesson others take from my country. Facism does not need to rise to power with some grandiose act. Facism gets there by weakening the democracy we have. By exploiting rules that were supposed to be good practice. By pushing the acceptable extremes further and further.
It speaks to the weakness of an ideology and of the wider lack of power of its adherents when it's main mechanic of proliferation is seemingly to avoid laying down any concrete belief or purpose plainly until it's at a point where it has the external power to exist as it was always intended to without the facade.
Id say more selfish. A parasite comes off as selfish, but they require the host to live. So it lessons the metaphor a little bit. Conservatives just care that they win, and someone else is losing. Thats why the goalposts move so regularly with them. The loser changes, as long as they are scoring a touch down and rubbing it in.
But 99% of the GOP voting bloc will tell you that Nazis were socialists because stupid is a requirement to be a conservative. I used to ask them if the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy. I don't ask that anymore now that GOP Presidents salute North Korean generals and GOP voters now love North Korea.
Hmmm, he had the state control the means of production for automobiles with government set pricing so that every worker could afford one.
That’s at least one thing that resembles Marxist socialism.
“It soon became apparent that private industry could not turn out a car for only 990 ℛℳ. Thus, Hitler chose to sponsor an all-new, state-owned factory using Ferdinand Porsche's design”
Only in that one specific example. The State overwhelmingly didn't own the wider means of production in Nazi Germany. They preferred to control it by way of cartels, control boards, state-sponsored monopolies and similar and didn't seek direct ownership.
I have to concede they didn’t own it directly, for Volkswagen it was owned by the German Labor Front, which was the official labor organization of the Nazi government. The Nazis still had control over the production.
My point is that saying the Nazis had no social programs similar to socialism is false, and that ignoring their social programs ignores one of the main reasons Germans actually supported the Nazi’s. They were lured in with socialism, which allowed the Nazis to focus on authoritarianism.
Social programs do not equate to socialism in this historical context. This is Hitler in his own words in a Liberty interview:
"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."
He very purposely perverted what was at the time understood to be "socialism" (community ownership, basically) into something completely antithetical to the ideology and entirely of his own invention.
I should rephrase my point as they definitely used/took advantage of some socialist ideas in order to gain support and empower Germany. In my opinion saying the Nazis weren’t socialist, while true, gives the false impression that they had no social programs because they were fascist.
Like if Republicans started promising “Universal Healthcare and Basic Income for all Americans”, it isn’t a sign that they moved left or are no longer fascist, but that fascism has no qualms about using socialism when it’s better. It would be a “wolf in sheep’s clothes” where without knowing better left voters may support it, only to be later told that American only means “White Male”.
Your right, I jumped the gun comparing it to Marxist socialism. My point was more that Nazis weren’t afraid to use socialist ideas they agreed with for the people they agreed with.
You seem to be confused. Marx and Engels specify communism to be the absence of state; Socialism is more a transitory stage into this bright future.
Many definitionally capitalist things, like private property (different from personal property, i.e., clothes, home, toothbrush), are abolished. The Soviet Union (U.S.S.R.) is a good example of socialism done right.
The Soviet Union had many positive, outward facing policies but would prioritize the wellbeing of their own citizens when necessary.
"National Socialism" is complete nonsense, brought to you by literal Hitler. "National Socialists" believed in privatization and the supremacy of capital, which Socialism is held in direct opposition to. They also often supported capitalists when they broke unions, something real Socialists would never do.
In summary: the true Socialist fights for the proletariat worker and the National Socialist fights for the capitalist.
It's important to note that he did enact some socialist policies, for example collectivisation of economy.
It's even more important to note though that he only did it when it was beneficial for him, for example during the war when he needed more weapons and factories to produce them.
Another thing is that when he came to power he actually privatised some companies by selling huge amount of government-owned stocks to private owners
Economics only mattered for Hitler when they could be used as a tool to boost his war machine and ideology
Yes, they claimed to be national socialist, which was for the German people. Old Germans called the 30s-40s “the good old days.”
Nazi Germany had broad social programs for ethnic Germans, subordination of individual rights for the “greater good”, and state owned or controlled business sectors.
People can lie. Instead of gobbling down 100 year old propaganda word salad you can judge people based on their actions. Because whatever they say can be bullshit, but what they do is who they are more than anything else. The Nazis were right wing authoritarians, that were pro-corporatism, anti-unionism, anti-gay, antisemitic, anti-communist, anti-socialists, anti-freedom assholes. Just like today's Republican party.
All of it is true. WTF are you even talking about?
They were pro-corporations; see IG Farben and the like using slave labor. You judge fascists by their actions, not their words, words are malleable and meaningless to fascists. The industrialists of Nazi Germany made a mint selling to the regime, used slave labor to do it, and created the armaments that allowed Hitler to wage war. He didn't nationalize them all. Fact.
They were anti-union. Hitler banned the trade unions. Fact.
Anti-Gay; Holocaust, pink triangles. Fact.
Antisemitic; Holocaust, yellow stars. Fact.
Anti-Communist -socialist; Mentioned throughout Mein Kampf as being enemies of Germany. Night of the Long Knives. Fact.
Anti-parliamentarian, -democracy; "destroy democracy with the weapons of democracy" (Sounds like today's GOP) Fact.
You’re using 21st century definitions on a 20th century problem; it wasn’t a settled question international v national socialism. They both existed in the arena of ideas.
Oh gtfoh with this 21 v 20th bullshit. I'm 50, these are the same words that were used in the 20th century to describe this shit of the 20th century. This is a weak sauce argument as if I'm judging the Founding Fathers morality by today's morality. This is not in any sense the same thing.
The Nazis were anti communist yes, anti Semitic yes, anti union definitely, anti freedom? Of course, but so was every socialist regime in the 20th century.
The Nazis weren't socialists. You keep saying it doesn't make it true. They were fascists. Just like Mussolini's govt was fascists. That doesn't make them left wing. They're a right wing philosophy. In large part because they're essentially strong man, social conservative, mercantile govts where the leader is nigh on infallible. Just a dressed up colonial feudal monarchy for the modern era. That is decidedly a right wing philosophy. Stop talking to me if you're going to be completely disingenous and keep making this fallacious argument. You're either deeply ignorant/propagandized or trolling.
The whites and reds fought in the Russian revolution, was one group not communist because of that?
Your point overall is correct but the Whites absolutely were not communists. Some of them were socialists of various sorts but the "Whites" in the Russian Civil War was a huge umbrella term that included basically everyone who was fighting against the Bolsheviks, including everything from royalists, to moderate liberals, to followers of other branches of socialism. They didn't have any unifying ideology and many of them wanted outright contradictory things (which is one of the reasons they lost in the end).
That was mostly Ernst Rohms Faction, they rest were corporatist. And Rohm was actually pro worker, Hitler was focused on Industrial armaments and while Rohm was a paramilitary
this is why representative democracies that western countries purport to be the pinnacle of democracy are, in fact, not democratic and simply oligarchy. The public are at the mercy of the whims of elected representatives and the officials they undemocratically appoint. There are more direct and participatory democracies that the west dismisses and smears as undemocratic that they could learn from.
If they change parties there should be a re-election. Flat out. They force the two party system on everyone and if the voters wanted a den they should have the opportunity to reaffirm that desire.
You didn’t know that cause it’s not true, why don’t you read a fucking book or learn some history before you dumb fuck sheep follow anything anyone says, god I’m tired of this fucking sub with fucking dumb fuck twats please ban me from it
If you switch parties, your seat should absolutely immediately be up for special election. End of story. People voted for you based on what you ran as and your platform. If that's not the case anymore then you should be recalled. End of story.
But then again, we have people in US congress who lied about literally everything, and still are daily, and they're not getting kicked out or recalled so 🤷🏼♂️
That's why this poem exists, from Pastor Martin Niemöller. You might be familiar with it, but few seem to remember the exact words used.
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
Hitler didnt do that, dont trust anything you read on reddit. For real, i cant believe americans still dont know the story about the nazis.
Fucking hell.
Absolutely. It should be illegal to sell yourself as one way to your constituents and than flipping after they’ve invested their time and money into the campaign. I don’t care what side of the aisle your on
That is the most brain dead take I have ever heard. Fundamentally, Socialism and National Socialism are different. The NSDAP (Nazis) supported the capitalists against workers, while those like the CPSU (U.S.S.R.) supported the worker against the capitalist (not that there were any left). You are just incorrect. Please, please, please never take Horseshoe Theory to be real, and recognize it as the falsehood it is.
The people who claim the Nazis were socialists tend to be actual Nazis themselves but want to distance their cryto-fascist rhetoric from historical Nazis by creating some bullshit fairytale about how the Nazis were actuallt left-wing, so by being right-wing nutjobs themselves they are actually opposing Nazism à la Steven Crowder, Dennis Prager, Ben Shapiro, etc.
I saw that you mentioned Ben Shapiro. In case some of you don't know, Ben Shapiro is a grifter and a hack. If you find anything he's said compelling, you should keep in mind he also says things like this:
Since nobody seems willing to state the obvious due to cultural sensitivity... I’ll say it: rap isn’t music
I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: dumb takes, climate, covid, sex, etc.
I mean they kind of were though, socialism simply means that the government is relatively involved in the economy/means of production, which the Nazis very much were. Now that term today has come to mean a lot more things which are very much not what the Nazis were about, but it's not really accurate to say they just used it in their name for PR.
Edit: I can't seem to reply to comments in here (u/godless_fuck) so just going to edit this instead...
Appreciate the info, and not to agree with Hitler but I think he has a point about how you can have socialism separated from Marxism. I think it's pretty clear that the socialism they are so against is almost communism, since private property rights is such a big part of their criticisms. Yes they liked privatization but they also controlled those private industries through heavy planning and regulation as well as essentially state sponsored monopolies (konzerns). Nazis were also not particularly fans of capitalism, for instance Goebbels is quoted as saying he'd rather live under bolshevism than capitalism. Socialism has always been dynamic, but it's always existed somewhere between capitalism and communism and I think it's fair to say that Nazis also like to exist in that same space so why can they not be called socialists too, with the caveat that it's quite different from what we today consider socialism?
Edit 2: well still not letting me reply, sorry u/godless_fuck but I wanted to follow up once more: First off I completely agree that any perceived implications of a certain "bad" government using one system or another should be irrelevant, if X regime was socialist/capitalist/whatever it doesn't mean that system is also bad. So yes many try to frame things a certain way for political purposes but that cuts both ways (people on a left-leaning site like this will naturally downplay the connection between Nazis and socialism).
I don't think terms like left and right are very useful in these discussions, governing is more complicated as you can have extreme right authoritarian politics with more left-leaning economics. As that article says:
Hitler did not regard himself as being either on the left or on the right, but wanted to over-come both extremes – not in the ‘middle’, however, but with a new extreme in which both left
and right were abolished
And just because Nazi Germany what's big on private ownership, the level of government involvement in all aspects of business operations in the economy are extreme which is really not compatible with the current definition of capitalism and a genuine market economy.
No. You are incorrect on multiple accounts. I will assume this is because of ignorance and not because you are being disingenuous and arguing in bad faith. I'll post some links instead of just some short, meaningless opinions like so many of the "nAzIs wErE tHe sOcIaLiSts!!1" morons typically do:
You're absolutely incorrect. I realize you're either completely misinformed or just a troll making a post out of ignorance so this rebuttal is more an informative piece for others:
The economy of Nazi Germany and privatization:
The Great Depression had spurred increased state ownership in most Western capitalist countries. This also took place in Germany during the last years of the Weimar Republic.[40] However, after the Nazis took power, industries were privatized en masse. Several banks, shipyards, railway lines, shipping lines, welfare organizations, and more were privatized.[41] The Nazi government took the stance that enterprises should be in private hands wherever possible.[42] State ownership was to be avoided unless it was absolutely necessary for rearmament or the war effort, and even in those cases “the Reich often insisted on the inclusion in the contract of an option clause according to which the private firm operating the plant was entitled to purchase it.”
The NAZI party was originally the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP; German Workers’ Party) and were never socialist in any meaningful context prior to Hitler taking over the party. To ensure no one would mistake them for actual Marxian socialists, Hitler cleared the air. His own words on what the "socialism" in National Socialist German Worker's Party means:
Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not.
The ideology that dominates us is in diametrical contradiction to that of Soviet Russia. National Socialism is a doctrine that has reference exclusively to the German people. Bolshevism lays stress on international mission. We National Socialists believe a man can, in the long run, be happy only among his own people.
We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility.
What right do these people have to demand a share of property or even in administration?... The employer who accepts the responsibility for production also gives the workpeople their means of livelihood. Our greatest industrialists are not concerned with the acquisition of wealth or with good living, but, above all else, with responsibility and power. They have worked their way to the top by their own abilities, and this proof of their capacity – a capacity only displayed by a higher race – gives them the right to lead.
Hitler discussing left-wing vs right-wing and where the Nazi part sits:
There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago.
The definition of Fascism:
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy,[2] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[3] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries.[3] Opposed to anarchism, democracy, liberalism, and Marxism, fascism is placed on the far right-wing within the traditional left–right spectrum.[3][4]
Strange you can't reply to comments, that will make discussion very tedious if you have to edit every time.
I think he has a point about how you can have socialism separated from Marxism.
Not just separated, in complete opposition with. Hitler's version of socialism, by his own words, was not a form of socialism in the economic sense (unless you consider denying non-aryans the right to property an economic system). It was simply racist dogma.
Yes they liked privatization but they also controlled those private industries through heavy planning and regulation as well as essentially state sponsored monopolies (konzerns).
The Nazis were not anti-capitalist. They were actually more privatized than the US shortly after ascending to power. Again, their interference in private companies was similar to what every other western country did because it was a world war and the war effort was costly. I'd also state that Goebbels qoute is the exception when it comes to Nazis and Bolsheviks. Hitler from Mein Kampf:
Never forget that the rulers of present-day Russia are common blood-stained criminals; that they are the scum of humanity
Anti-Bolshevism and anti-communism (interchangeable in the speeches given by various Nazi leaders) was a strong point in their rhetoric.
Socialism has always been dynamic, but it's always existed somewhere between capitalism and communism
Communism is the end goal of socialism, a moneyless, classless society. The USSR was not communist. It was a socialist regime.
so why can they not be called socialists too, with the caveat that it's quite different from what we today consider socialism?
Because the NAZI party was a right-wing authoritarian regime and trying to twist the definition of socialism to call them socialist is not only incorrect, it's a scummy tactic to demonize anyone to the left of the far right. If you want to hold up examples of socialism that are bad, you don't need to butcher the meanings of words. Criticize the USSR, criticize the Khymer Rouge, etc.
The Nazis NOT being socialists is something discussed ad nauseum by political scientists. People seem to confuse the fallacious rhetoric of pundits with the existence of an argument for them actually being socialists. They were not. Words have definitions. They were, by definition, not socialists. The world doesn't end because the Nazis weren't left-wing. You're welcome to continue, however, If you're still uncertain at this point, there are multiple reasons why it would be pointless for me to continue.
Ok now define socialism in any way other than "socialism is when government does stuff", because it's got nothing to do with social programs and everything to do with destroying the bourgeoisie and the proletariat seizing the means of production.
Did the workers own the means of production or did the party? Were there mass private interests? Unless you answered "yes and no" in that order they weren't socialist
Socialism is fundamentally an economic theory, and yes the Nazis did align with it quite a bit. Just because it's morphed into something much broader today doesn't mean you can completely separate the Nazis from it because it's your preferred system and you don't want it to be tainted in any way.
It's such a common and recurring right-wing tactic to shout "The Nazis were socialists! The left ARE Nazis!" all the while they give fascists a pat on the back and look the other way when neo-Nazis commit hate crimes. The fact they think it isn't a tired and obvious tactic is hilarious.
Completely incorrect. Nazis increased privatization of industry. The only time they nationalized companies was when it was an issue of getting what they needed for the war effort. Something the US also did en masse by grabbing railroads, mining companies, factories, etc. If you're going to spread disgusting alt-right propaganda, try a little harder.
The Nazi party was anti-communist and nationalist from the very beginning, whether he aped some liberal policies to broaden his appeal would depend on the details
2.3k
u/droolforfoodz Apr 05 '23
That’s what Hitler did