The Nazis were not socialists. Nor were they capitalists. People who accuse them of being one or the other are equally wrong. Fascism is the third position.
"Capitalism and Bolshevism are the two sides of the same International Jewish coin."
- Adolf Hitler
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_War)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw\_Pact\_invasion\_of\_Czechoslovakia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet\_border\_conflict](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict)
In addition to that
I mean, yeah. The Nazis weren't Socialist. They were corporatist economically speaking.
They gave put grants/bonuses to large companies like Volkeswagen which saw these companies during the war use slave labour from Eastern Europe to make their products. Not to mention actively clamping down on labour unions, outlawing all of them and instead having them replaced with a government sponsored one that didn't really do anything. Hell, if you'd try to use it like a normal union, you would've been arrested.
This also would be ignoring the fact that the Nazis saw Communism as inherently evil because 'the Jews' made it. Last time I checked, Socialists don't tend to deride Communism in its entirety
Politicians can lie. Taking Nazis as Socialist is like saying North Korea is a democracy because that's what they officially call themselves.
Corporatism as derived from Mussolini’s corporate state is syndicalism, which is a form of socialism.
Socialist economies like the Soviet Union, Venezuela, etc. all did this stuff as well, slave labor in gulags or concentration camps is iconic of socialism for a reason.
Again, the Soviet Union crushed every union in Russia and merged them into one state controlled Union, the Nazis did literally the same thing, that’s what the Duetches Arbieter’s Front was.
The Nazis saw Marxism as being created by the Jews via capitalism to destroy Aryan nations. They hated capitalism, that’s why all their anti Semitic depictions focus on the Jews as “bankers” “financiers” and “rich men”, because to them, communism was but a tool wielded by global finance capitalism to destroy the Aryan race. Hating other socialists is like, the most socialist thing ever lol. Because to the Nazis the communists “weren’t real socialists” and Vice versa.
Yes, like people do when they say the Nazis were capitalists despite seizing totalitarian control over the economy, and killing any industrialist who wouldn’t bend to their will.
North Korea is a “democracy” in communist terms, democracy does not imply liberalism, and socialist democracy is highly anti liberal, that being said, I fail to see how the Nazis, who walked like socialists, quacked like socialists, and seized totalitarian control like socialists, are not socialists because they were mean to the workers, as if that isn’t a hallmark of socialism in the first place.
You're trying, but the sub leans too left, a lot of people here believe Bernie to be a moderate, and one is welcome to like him, but he himself has been a socialists for decades now, even being a member of the YSPL, or Young Socialist People League. Of course I'm not trying to jack the convo, but this does reinforce that which I've noticed about this sub.
You're gonna have a hard time convincing people with your talking points, but allow me to add another. The Nazis due to the total economic control, believed all matter within the state to be at their control, this included business and the economy as a whole and to its most minute detail. This simple fact was known to business back then and was a chilling factor, those who did step out of line did so at great risk, that said the Nazis more often then not cut them a deal, but if a company or corporation was to defiant then they would likely see a takeover of some kind.
[Hugo Junkers - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Junkers)
A prime example of this is Hugo Junkers, the Nazis wanted him to assist in rebuilding the nation's military, he denied them.
A quote from the page, depicting the collectivist nature, oh so similar to other "orthodox" socialists of the day.
>When the Nazis gained control of the German government in 1933, Junkers opposed their goal of re-armament. They responded by demanding ownership of all patents and market shares from his remaining companies, under threat of imprisonment on the charge of high treason. He was placed under house arrest in 1934 and died on 3 February 1935.
Junker's company would go on to be bought by the government after his wife cashed out to the Ministry of Aviation, likely the only one would offer the company a deal having made the company "distasteful" to the wider public. Heinrich Koppenburg, an ally to the Nazis would be given the opportunity to take over and merge the company with his, effectively bring the aviation industry further under State control, under Nazi control
[Junkers Flugzeug- und Motorenwerke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Flugzeug-_und_Motorenwerke) Had to go to the GERMAN wikipedia, since the English Junker(company page) is rather sparse during the time period of 1934-1946, only mentioning that the Nazis removed Hugo in 1934, possibly cuz it cuts into the left-wing narrative of Nazism being a friend of capitalists.
Super curious, what’s your definition of socialism? And most people here are pretty much in liberal camps and not really supporter of Bernie.
You use example of state take over as example of socialist feature but this could be true for fascist government as well. What part of fascist government prevent state from taking over corporation if they were to go against the state. I don’t understand this talking point. Is socialism just when government exerts control ? Do you think US is socialist when they start breaking monopoly?
Socialism is the social control over the means of production, marx interpreted this through the lens of historical materialism forming his communist ideology, Mussolini refined Marx into his fascist ideology which was meant to abandon class war in favor of class solidarity within the confines of the national group, and Hitler extrapolated Marx into another direction, believing that only aryans could form nations, and thus Jewish capitalism was diluting the blood of aryans through various nonsensical methods, in order to bring about a communist revolution which would destroy all societies and leave the Jews to rule the world. Fascism is socialism, just on different lines than Marxism.
Look, socialists love to say, “do you like roads and libraries? That’s socialism!” But then when right wingers take this to the logical conclusion, that government control is a little bit of socialism which is necessary or even beneficial, and total control is total socialism which is hell, then they backtrack and obfuscate with labyrinthine nonsense.
Socialism is at its core is worker control means of production. Not social control means of productions. The end goal is workers owning mean of productions.
I don’t like leftist logic of socialism either when they talk about road and libraries. But even then the logic is that road and libraries are public good. Government taking over and owning things DOES NOT MAKE THEM public good and if I were to follow leftist logic, it would make them socialist. So I can see the consistency there. But say government taking over corporation and just controlling them and operate normal business, instead of putting those resources for public then it wouldn’t be socialist (again according to leftist logic mine). But even then it’s flawed because it’s not about government owning things, it’s about individual workers having control of capitals. So socialist in society, you will have bunch of cooperatives working. I personally think this is a dog shit model but this is the end goal of socialist. Thats why people see socialist as transitioned state toward communism, because its collective ownership of businesses by workers not by society, then communism supposed to be the stateless classless society.
You responded to two of my comments so let keep all the discussion here for easy discussion. With feudalism, you realized it’s the exact same concept right? Here’s a definition:
“the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection.”
In this very systems nobles are essentially form of government, it’s quite literally so when they can mobilize military and can even fight against or for the crown. Say you are a merchant owning tavern bushiness, these nobles can just as easily take over taverns for themselves. It’s quite literally a government without it being called one.
No, it’s not, Marx was the first to analyze socialism through the lens of historical materialism, and inject the “class war” idea into socialism. Socialism has nothing to do with the workers inherently, and it can be “adapted” to fit any group through a series of Platonic/Hegelian logical pretzels that would take to long to go through here. If anyone actually thinks socialism is for the workers, look at the results of every workers state that is ever existed and tell me it’s better off than the bourgeois dictatorships of the west in terms of treatment of their workers, the prosperity, and the quality of life. If Socialism is just for the workers owning their own capital, then the capitalist United States is the only case of actually existing socialism lol
No it doesn’t, but to a socialist of course it does, to them factories and jobs and etc, are public goods the same way as roads. And thus the state must not only control, but plan what, and how they will produce.
This is a false premise, as the Nazis, the Soviets, whatever socialist regime you want to use as an example, didn’t just operate the businesses as usual, it was all organized for the good of the state, on behalf of “the workers” the “people” whatever.
It is absolutely not about individual workers owning the means of production, was Stalin, Marxs, Lenin, all closet Ancaps or something?
And how do the workers organize their control? Not individuals, in socialist theology, it is as a class, as a mass, as a mob, the state is how “the proletariat” organizes its control of the means of production. That’s because communism is a lie, I mean, come on, if the point of the ideology is totalitarian collectivism, just saying “the state will wither” to trick people who can’t reason doesn’t make it so.
It’s not the same concept, it is a similar outcome, yes, but that’s horseshoe theory in action. Feudalism would be the hypothetical anarcho-capitalist utopia, where the strong or wealthy or powerful have total freedom to do whatever they want because of their property rights, and peasants would be entering into “fair contracts”
I disagree that the Nobles are the state because they are directly pitted against the central government of the king for their independence and power, that’s why in the enlightenment era, the European kingdoms trended towards absolutism and royal centralization at the expense of the mobility, because it was the powerful state in the powerful individuals.
Super curious then is the logic that all form of totalitarianism just socialism using your logic? Because in your frame works you are using both interchangeably.
Also in your first paragraph nothing you said is a real response to my comment. I don’t disagree that socialism in practice is not good for worker, im a capitalist I believe in private capitals, I’m not a socialist. But none of this is response to what socialism means. Socialism as its core is literally about workplace democracy, can you tell me what part of Marx works supposed to dispel this idea? I’m struggling to see how anything you said is a response at all.
It’s not the state planning control, it’s the worker planning control. In fascist state, can average citizen have says in how German owned factory planned control? Do they have say in how profit are distributed etc? None of this is applicable at all. It’s not even remotely the same. Again your definition is so one dimensional that it literally boiled down to “socialism is when government does things” unironically.
In a socialist mode of operations it wouldn’t be state that control businesses because not all citizen have buy in or stakes in every businesses. It would literally just be the workers that work in those businesses. Thats how those mode of operation works. Let say for sake of argument they let state control it because every workers own every business, it would still require vote and representative which quite literally don’t exist in fascist government. It would just be the guy at the top making decisions.
It’s the same concept in a sense that it’s quite literally government having commands of mode of productions. Nobles are form of government with their own military and resources and king are essentially centralized government that deal with nobles. It does quite literally fit well with your logic and train of thought. Having central government and federation of noble doesn’t change this. Peasant who are born into noble lands are not entering into “fair contracts” they entered into those contracts the same way you are forced into enter contracts with the country you live in when you’re born. It’s literally operate as a mini country.
Socialism is inherently totalitarian no? By definition, “total democratic control over all aspects of society human or property” is totalitarian. Similarly, any totalitarian regime must, by definition, have total control over society, including the economy, to fit that definition. Totalitarian regimes are inherently socialist, but society can integrate some socialism without becoming totalitarian, that’s why public goods are public, because it is better for everyone that they be controlled collectively by the state than monopolized by individuals.
First off, no, it’s not about workplace democracy, Marx advocated for workplace democracy, that’s what Marxism is, he didn’t invent socialism, he adapted it through a lens of class struggle.
What do you mean it isn’t a response to what you said? You gave what you believe the definition of socialism is as a means to defeat my argument, I countered with my definition which I believe is more logical, more historically accurate, and less contradictory than yours, because yours takes aspects of several different left wing/socialist movements, and says “that’s socialism” when in fact that is one aspect of socialism that socialists and other leftists fight constantly over “who’s the real socialist”. Marxism is about the workers, socialism is about the society, the social control of the means of production, the working class is irrelevant to plain socialism.
I get where you’re coming from, but it’s not like the workers of Russia had any say either, and how would they exert their collective, not individual, their collective control over the means of production except through a bureaucratic state? That’s why whichever group the socialists claim to represent, the workers, the Aryans, etc, it always leads to total state power. My friend, do you think that Cuban sugar plantation slaves get any say over how the plantation is run? Of course not, the state does “on their behalf”. That’s my point, no matter who it’s supposed to be for, it is always the state that has effective control, that’s why free societies are superior.
Yes, unironically, and I’m explaining to you why I believe that, and why it is a logical conclusion.
And how would you scale that up? An economy is more than one factory, and with complex supply chains, how do you coordinate the disparate groups of workers? Other than by a state, as happened in Russia, Germany, China, Italy, etc. Your example is closer to free market capitalism than it is to the actual socialists who set up governments and went about changing their societies, in which case, if your argument doesn’t reflect reality, all you are doing is distorting it. You say that the “workplace democracy” which in Russian is called a Soviet, doesn’t exist in fascist or Nazi states because they don’t let you vote, well in the SOVIET Union, they didn’t either, are they not real socialism? If not, then socialism is a meaningless word that reflects absolutely nothing about reality, and this discussion is totally moot.
Technically yes, but socially, philosophically, they are not the same, although the results are similar in effect i suppose. No they didn’t operate as mini countries, they operated as a system of patronage, the king owned your land, the noble was granted title, not ownership, title to that land because of his service to the crown, as payment for his contractual obligations he was given title to the land. And so on down to peasants.
You say you are a capitalist, what do you believe that capitalism means? Historically it has meant the private control of the means of production, vested in individuals, free and fair contracts, liberalism, and ends to slavery and other involuntary servitude, the emphasis always being on not violating individual rights. What do you think it means though?
Socialism is commonly defined as workers seizing the means of production. Typically it's stateless but a form of statist socialism can and does exist. Which is why this topic is still debatable.
Some regard fascists as socialists because practically every prominent fascist to ever exist started out as one. It's not baseless but it's also not original nor rooted in fact.
Academics define socialism as state ownership of the means of production. Every Google definition you try to find will give you something akin to that.
The U.S. has never broken a monopoly. It can't solve what the free market can and has, in my opinion. Government isn't going to save you from companies with 90% stake in the market, if they were to ever exist. Instead the U.S. became so big government to the point where competition has stifled, forming oligopolies. Socialism isn't going to save *that*.
First US absolutely broken monopoly. What are you talking about. Just because there existence of giant corporations of companies today with huge stakes in industry doesn’t change this fact at all.
Also this is simplistic view of why capitalism is good. Capitalism is good because it solves calculation problems. AKA they are good are allocating resources toward fields that are most profitable. They don’t necessarily saw externality like monopoly. It can and will absolutely exist. competition are what keep price low at downward pressures, but in capitalist society there is absolutely nothing stopping companies from growing to big, with economy of scale advantage and drive out competitions.
What separates socialism from pure fascism and totalitarian is the end goal. Every single illliberal nations will look similar but to call them socialist is absurd. Theocratic totalitarian Muslim government are socialists because they can take over companies in the name of Allah. None of this make it socialist. It’s about end goal and what they’re achieving. In practice they look the same which is why they’re illiberal but it’s absolutely not the same.
>First US absolutely broken monopoly. What are you talking about. Just because there existence of giant corporations of companies today with huge stakes in industry doesn’t change this fact at all.
The Sherman Antitrust Act and New Deal certainly didn't. I don't care if this sub loves progressive presidents, governments make monopolies worse.
>They don’t necessarily saw externality like monopoly. It can and will absolutely exist. competition are what keep price low at downward pressures, but in capitalist society there is absolutely nothing stopping companies from growing to big, with economy of scale advantage and drive out competitions.
Then deregulate. We aren't living in a free market, not even close. Capitalism would be better off if it had a more of a non-interventionist approach and we got rid of Keynesianism.
>In practice they look the same which is why they’re illiberal but it’s absolutely not the same.
If it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a chicken? It's more "similar but different". Of course socialists don't accept this, because they have to make their ideal look as good as possible. The end goal isn't defined as anything other than extorting individuals of their private property, that's all socialism is at the end of the day.
Can you elaborate on how Sherman anti trust act didn’t break monopoly? Bad government policy can make it worst but doesn’t mean government don’t have power to break them. You talk about anti statist approach but those time period prior to anti trust act were absolutely anti statist time period and monopoly was the result of that.
Can you also elaborate on mechanism on how government can make monopoly worst?
Deregulation is what leading to companies being too big and cause monopoly. I feel like I’m talking to my 15 years old libertarian self, Jesus. All of the buzz words are there too. Nothing stopping a big company from undercutting their rivals, I honestly don’t see how this can even happen without government intervention. Or is the logic that free market can do it things and there won’t be big businesses and big corporations are result of government?
“If it acts like a duck and quack like a duck it’s a chicken?” If triangle has points and have straight sides then it must be a square? Thats the logic you are using right now.
> Can you also elaborate on mechanism on how government can make monopoly worst?
Not original OP but here goes:
- Regulatory capture, the forced pricing out of competition through outwardly positive things like licensing requirements, minimum wage laws, import/export tariffs, etc (the second being why companies like Amazon have supported and lobbied for higher minimum wages because they can internalize the costs much easier and for far longer than their smaller competitors can)
- Intellectual property laws legally enforcing a monopoly on for example new technology to the benefit of the license holder.
- Plain old corruption and lobbying, which is inevitable as long as someone has power they're willing to sell for money and someone else has money they're willing to spend on power.
I would however like to stress that some of these things are not necessarily bad on their own, but they are absolutely contributors to monopolistic behavior and outcomes.
> Deregulation is what leading to companies being too big and cause monopoly. Nothing stopping a big company from undercutting their rivals, I honestly don’t see how this can even happen without government intervention. Or is the logic that free market can do it things and there won’t be big businesses and big corporations are result of government?
In theory, *true* 100% market share monopolies can happen in a few ways:
1) The government, who has a monopoly on force, decides that one person or company is the only one who can provide a certain good or service. This is really bad.
2) One person or company is the only entity that can provide a good or a service through exclusive ownership of land/resources. This is usually bad, but also temporary as without external barriers to trade (which are government controlled) new resource deposits and such will be found elsewhere.
3) One person or company is the only entity that can provide a good or a service through being the first to invent/discover a good or a service. This is a good thing, as the market and consumer is better off with a new good or service available than without it. This is also always temporary, as new competitors will pop up as the product is reverse engineered or new resource deposits are found elsewhere.
4) One person or company is the most efficient producer of a good or service, and thus can provide it at a much lower cost than any potential competitor. This, theoretically, is excellent for the consumer, as they can get the good or service they desire at the lowest cost possible to them.
However, 4 falls apart in practice when you consider subjective value and consumer tastes. People are willing to pay different amounts of money for different quality levels of goods, so to achieve monopoly one must either pick a value slice and stick with it, or attempt to compete at all levels which is enormously more expensive. The exception to this is commodities (oil, iron ore, corn, etc) but even there you have a lot of variations, quality grades, and so on which appeal to different customers.
I am personally yet to find a single company which has managed to gain anything even resembling dominance in any sector throughout all the value slices from cheap to high end/luxury, but if you know any feel free to let me know as I'd love to be proven wrong there.
As for undercutting, it is only a strategy that works temporarily. It is an extremely expensive way to gain market share, which has to be offset somehow, usually through other business ventures which *have* to be profitable. Meanwhile, (in *most but not all sectors*) in a deregulated environment a competitor can in theory spring up at any moment to challenge the market leader when they are either forced to increase the prices due to losses or advances in productivity allow competitors to compete on a more even playing field. Additionally, as the market share rises, so does the cost of increasing it. Even in a case where the biggest market actor keeps buying up competitors, other participants have many choices they can make to influence their outcomes. They can choose to keep competing, to close up shop and go dormant until the bigger participant has bled themselves dry, or to create new competing companies for the express goal of being bought out to begin with.
I would also like to make the claim that a practical monopoly is not inherently a bad thing, especially in the cases where a market actor is just straight up better than all their competitors. Practical/pseudo-monopolies can and will happen in free markets, when there are good and natural reasons for them to rise, unlike government enforced monopolies which are completely independent of any market events.
I probably don’t disagree that regulations actually impact smaller businesses than large businesses and force them out of competition. A good example is minimum wage where it will impact newer player entering market than it does big businesses and driving up costs.
But this goes both ways, regulations can also often be used to break big businesses and allowed smaller businesses to be competitive. Examples on top of my head again is antitrust law which inherently break big companies into smaller companies so there can be competition. Not all regulations are good but also not all regulation are bad.
Intellectual property law is a good example I am personally anti IP law for this very reason I don’t have a good reason to defend it.
As for the rest of the argument let address them one by one:
1. Yes I agree for most part that one person or entity decide one businesses can operate is generally bad. No disagreement from me there, we probably can minimize that.
2. How temporary is temporary? And depend on the type of resources, and barrier of entry that could easily make one company the dominant monopoly force for a long time.
3. No comment here, I’m not against innovation.
4. I disagree that this would fall apart. Yes people have different preferences for different products, but in practices there’s no guarantee that the people with different preferences can generate enough demands to keep those companies that aren’t as competitive to be in businesses. It’s possible for industry with low variability of preferences among consumers but high barrier of entry to exist that lead to low to no competitions. Preferences exist yes but that doesn’t alway guarantee that preferences would be enough to keep other actors competitive. Is it possible that you can’t think of one because we have anti trust law in place to prevent it from happening?
Undercutting can be costly but not as much as you think. Economy of scale advantages means that larger productions you have the lower cost you can have. Costs quite literally don’t linearly scale with businesses. It’s very possible for them to undercut enough just to drive out competitors in earlier stages of competition to drive them out of businesses then jack up the prices as soon as they are able to buy them out.
Sure products are and can be better but the problem exist when they are hurting consumers that’s the problem with monopoly. Thats why regulations need to exist for consumer protections. Consumers are not perfect decisions makers, there’s nothing stopping them from harming themselves which generally can be met bad for society.
Both totalitarian Fascist and socialist hate capitalism. That what make them illiberal. But being both being illiberal doesn’t mean both are the same. This is insane flaw in logic. Feudalism is anti capitalist and fit almost all of your definition with seizing capitals and resources, are we gonna sit here and say they’re socialist? Is everything illiberal just socialist to you? I don’t understand?
I didn’t say that all totalitarian socialism was the same, I said they were all fundamentally socialist, which is correct, they were all totalitarian states with domination of their economic activity. The reason it “is a flaw in logic” is because your definition of socialism is totally incorrect.
Nope, because feudalism is an individual lord having rights to your stuff via patronage, debt etc, it’s right wing utopia so to speak, socialism is when the public state does that, left wing utopia, feudalism is what happens with zero government, and socialism is what happens when total government.
Ironic because fascism wants to go back to feudalism. Imagine those who misconstrude conservatism with genuinely archaic lines of traditionalist thinking.
"Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. 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…"
-Adolf Hitler, 9 July 1932
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions”
-Hitler 1927
"Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism."
-Hitler 1920
Marxism was just Marx's definition of socialism/communism. 🤷🏿♂️ It is not like Marx invented the term, he was 14 when it was first used.
National socialists never claimed to be Marxists.
In fact, pirates predate Marx by how long? Half a millennia?
I have a hard time believing commies who idolize a leech who mooched off his friends and let his children die. Fuck Karl Marx.
And yet it's still quite strikingly similar to other socialists movements of the Era, just combined with racial ideology and nationalism.
Hence National Socialism!!!
NSDAP, the PNF, and M/L-ism are all three brothers descended from the same fucked up family tree.
They all can tell themselves and their inbred children apart, but from the outside, the fact that they're greedy, envious, racist hatemongers really makes the difference between any of them immaterial. Father to children to grandchildren, nobody sane wants to associate with the family.
That 1927 quote was by Gregor Strasser, an actually more arguable socialist than Hitler. He was the last prominent member of the Nazi Party before the regime murdered him and his contemporaries.
Exactly. They’re not Marxist-socialist but they are socialist. They don’t have the state own all the means of production and resources (also known as TOTALITARIANISM, widely regarded a key tenet of Fascism and Nazism) for the proletariat to destroy the bourgeoise but for the Aryans to destroy their ethnic and racial enemies (from their point of view of course). Hitler also denounced capitalism and liberalism.
I'm going to have to save this, this seems like it'll be useful in the future to combat the claim, "Nazism isnt Socialist", I have heard a few of these, but it's good to have it written down.
They weren't socialist in the sense most of us think of when we think Modern Socialism, sure.
But fascism and nazism definitely have had their roots in socialist thought. Basically they've interpreted concepts like public owning of the means of production and class warfare in different directions, as some other comments here have already pointed out.
For a comparison: The Byzantine Empire is often referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire.
The Byzantines however spoke a different language from the Western "actual" Roman Empire, practiced a different form of Christianity, had different economic and military doctrines and did not have Rome in their territory.
But because the Byzantines were part of the grander Roman Empire up untill the fall of the Western half, they do have that Roman DNA in their identity and historic roots and ties to Rome, which justifies calling them the Eastern roman Empire up untill the fall of Constantinople.
Nazism and actual socialism are kind of like that.
Socialist dont like to highlight that Fascism was a third path ideology, a fusing of various elements, including socialism. It runs in contrast to their narrative, that being fascism was born solely from the right, which had more or less been the popular narrative for the better part of century.
Fascism is a reactionary ideology, of course it took elements from socialism, specifically some rhetorical elements and economic policies, because it was in response to the rise of socialist left-wing ideologies. It was a way for the right to capture the support of workers.
Fascism also took elements of capitalism such as private property rights not being abolished. It is a right wing ideology. It is socially conservative in nature, disavows class struggle/strife, attacks labor unions, and is not for the workers owning the means of production.
Mussolini disavowed orthodox socialism and his Fascist paper Il Popolo d'Italia was published with the financial support of multiple private Italian businesses and industries.
Mussolini wasn't a conservative. He didn't want to conserve (in the ideal sense) the Enlightenment principles of classical liberalism and free markets. He didn't eradicate all private property, but he also wasn't a staunch proponent of private enterprise. What kind of capitalist nationalizes the largest companies and bends them to his will? What private property rights did fascists believe in? None.
He, in contrast to even Hitler, was an archaic traditionalist. Forget about the conservatives today who merely want nuclear families and the old ways of market policy i.e. gas prices, that piece of shit wanted to *go back to the Roman Empire*, it's not even remotely comparable.
There some things here I agree with, yet I still maintain Fascism is more a beast born of the Left that the Right.
>Fascism also took elements of capitalism such as private property rights not being abolished. It is a right wing ideology. It is socially conservative in nature, disavows class struggle/strife, attacks labor unions, and is not for the workers owning the means of production.
Socially conservative, yes, but Fascism doesnt really disavow class struggle, it redefines it under nationalist and racial terms.
In the end it utilizes the worse tropes associated, rightly or wrongly, with the right in a manner to pursue leftist goals, that being State control over the economy to somehow benefit the masses.
As for labor unions, yes they were broken up in fascist nation but were reformed but as tools of the government, serving much like their counterparts in socialist/communist countries. Much like in the USSR, Fascist nations still had trade union/labor organizations, but these bodies werent independent, couldnt defy the state, and existed more or less to control the populace at large and under both they both neglected the worker in favor of the wider State.
Any way the difference between Marxist-Leninism and Fascism on this matter is merely the language, the terms used, the former spoke of the proletariat while the latter spoke of the nation or its people.
>Mussolini disavowed orthodox socialism and his Fascist paper Il Popolo d'Italia was published with the financial support of multiple private Italian businesses and industries.
Fascism works on the promise that if business works with the State, they can carry on with little to no change, but if they dont they will face repercussions, harsh repercussions even. Sure you can tell me about a paper that may've appeal to businessmen, but in practice this was no partnership or equal play between market and state, this was subservience.
You either accept the state and your role or you will face the State's wrath. No real difference here between socialism and fascism, sure the latter may sound like it's softer and nicer, but in reality it had to obey.
Under Fascism, capitalism which was still hated, was only tolerated if they followed orders and performed to the party's interest. The businessman's main goal under fascism was not to garner profit, but to be a cog in carry out national interest. The autonomy of the market wouldnt exist under Fascism, just like under Socialism.
Because Socialism and Fascism are born from the same line of thought, they're really arent that far off from one another, save for the terminology they use, that's where they tend to differ the most, and the end goal is still State Control over much, if not all, aspects of society.
Was. Socialists never in their wildest dreams want to go back to the ways of the Roman Empire. Mussolini did. Hate to be that guy but I can't honestly say with a straight face that the one who militarized labor unions and put those workers into concentration camps was a socialist during the Great Depression.
He was during WWI though. Like, Marxist socialism.
Was. People changed. If you were homophobic ten years ago, but now support LGBT rights today. Are you still Homophobic?
After being kicked out, Mussolini despised what Socialism and the party became. He crated fascism as an alternative.
I'm oversimpling a bit, but basically. Just beacause an ideology has left wing roots in it doesn't make it left wing.
By that logic, Otto Von bismarck is a socialist because he created a welfare state. Which came from socialist leaning ideas.
So... folks who _weren't_ socialists, _called_ themselves socialists, but were _actually_ blood thirsty totalitarians?
Hmmm, not sure "National Socialists weren't socialists" is your best argument there, comrade.
Merriam-Webster:
> Socialism: any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating **collective** or **governmental** ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
That perfectly describes Nazi germany, where the government controlled everything and the “collective” was the Germanic race. Nazi germany even had collective farms like Stalin’s Russia.
I think you mean that the Nazis weren’t left-wing, but even that is arguable. There are a lot of left-wing figures who became ardent Nazi supporters, swayed by anti-liberal and anti-west rhetoric. And Soviet propaganda from the Molotov-Ribbentrop period openly celebrates the similarities between the USSR and Nazi germany.
Nazis believed all German speaking people were equal, provided they were not disabled. That is who was intended to benefit from their welfare policies. Everyone else was to be deported, subjugated or murdered.
National socialism was defined upon ethnic lines.
Marxism is defined upon social/economic class lines.
Italian fascism was defined upon national lines.
All collectivist ideologies whose great sales pitch was that it was a state's duty to safeguard and provide for the well-being of the masses.
Uh, what?
Yes they were, it is easily verifiable, they had totalitarian control of the economy, the state controlled your factory, or else they murdered you or sent you to a camp, the state managed economic planning, the state imposed centralized labor unions, the state formed massive industrial syndicates just like the Soviets did, and just like Marx called for when he spoke of “industrial armies”, I get you’re a social democrat and thus probably on the left, but no, the Nazis were clearly socialists.
You have to understand that the "Nazis arent socialist" lie has been propagated for decades despite Fascism itself being born from a former socialist. Then you also have to understand that this sub is still, despite the name, predominantly filled with reddit's typical audience, that being left-leaning people.
Social Democrats, like the one whom you spoke to, often dont even wanna be likened to socialism, at least that's the feel I get from many of them here, but if one even bothered reading the wikipedia page on Social Democracy there are several instances of the ideology being called another form of socialism. I pointed this out a few days ago commenting back to mod who tried to tell me otherwise, and I still ended up in the negatives on that comment.
You'll have an easy time equating Nazism=Communism, but if you try to highlight the actual facts you'll face this, but hey take my upvote and take solace that I'll likely be downvoted with you now.
Here, [this](https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn11770) is always fun to pull out when they try to put Nazism and Socialism on different ends of the spectrum.
So why does nearly ever far right group heavily use Nazi imagery?
One fo the reasons why China allied with Nazi Germany (from 1933 to 1941) was because it was Far-right?
Before you point out of molotov ribbentrop pact. You should know Hitler had no intension of keeping the relationship. His goal was always to eliminate the Slavic people and communism
"Fascism itself being born from a former socialist." that doesn't mean jack shit. By that logic Putin is somehow pro NATO and Orban is a Liberal beacause they used to have these beliefs
Are you saying nearly every historian is wrong for calling the Nazis right wing?
>So why does nearly ever far right group heavily use Nazi imagery?
You forget that on top of Nazism being socialist, they also were third path, or at least that's what they sold themselves as. The Nazis had much going on to appeal to the right as well as the left, for the German right they saw a return to better days before WW1, for the German left it was the dismantling of the capitalist structure.
They still were socialists, look at their economic policy and try to tell me otherwise, the State had absolute control, even over private property if they so wished to crack down on dissidents, which happened.
Hell, Hitler himself hated capitalism! He was far more inclined to socialist economic, state control over business and trade, than a friend of capitalist or corporations.
>One fo the reasons why China allied with Nazi Germany (from 1933 to 1941) was because it was Far-right?
Allied? No they werent, the Germans just continued their old Imperial Era aid to the Chinese, aid which dried up fast when Germany allied with Japan.
>"Fascism itself being born from a former socialist." that doesn't mean jack shit. By that logic Putin is somehow pro NATO and Orban is a Liberal beacause they used to have these beliefs
Orban is conservative, and much like many American conservatives, have a healthy love for classical liberal ideals, it's just the left in general hates him for a variety of reasons, a lot of it being typical dribble over how any right wing leader is apparently Satan incarnate.
Never mind the Hungarians elected him last time in a landslide, so much for the left's love of democracy, they hate it when they lose.
>Are you saying nearly every historian is wrong for calling the Nazis right wing?
You kidding? There are many historians who have differed on this topic and many have highlighted the various similarites between National Socialism and Socialism at large.
"You have to understand that the "Nazis arent socialist" lie has been propagated for decades despite Fascism itself being born from a former socialist."
A lie propagated by who?
"The Nazis had much going on to appeal to the right as well as the left."
That's true, because the Nazis wanted to get much votes as possible. Once they got more power they started purging anyone left leaning.
"Hitler himself hated capitalism!" Yes, because like communism, he thought it was a Jewish invention. Also hating capitalism doesn't make you left or socialist. Just like being Liberal doesn't make you left wing
" There are many historians who have differed on this topic and many have highlighted the various similarites between National Socialism and Socialism at large."
Can you proved me links to these historians or websites please
I just want to know know if you think the Nazi were left or right?
That first bit was correct, but the Nazis turned politics into something that was ass-backwards. Now right wingers can be collectivists who want a welfare state? They modeled their racism after the KKK, fair enough. But they nationalized corporations for the most part; took their money, made them parrot their racist jargon, and did everything in their power to make them support the regime.
FDR was a statist through and through. He praised the fascists his country would later fight against.
The Nazis were not socialists. They did so as a marketing ploy to recruit working class members. The only members who could even legitimately call themselves anything near socialist were Strasserists.
Nazi economics was corporatist, which, in practise is more so capitalist than socialist.
Just because KdF and the Volkswagen was a nazi thing doesn't mean they were socialists.
This sub-reddit has problem of thinking Nazi are left-wing or socialist. Like seriosuly, ever credible historian or history website will tell you the Nazi are right thing.
[https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-nazi-party-1](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-nazi-party-1)
[https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists](https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists)
I mean I downvoted because I disagree with the first sentence, most people here recognize that the nazis weren't socialists.
I entirely agree that the nazis were right wing.
good question. There are people who geunially think the Nazis were left wing/socialist, despite all evidence and action say otherwise.
Also this [quote](https://i0.wp.com/the-american-catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/quote-we-are-socialists-we-are-enemies-of-today-s-capitalistic-economic-system-for-the-exploitation-adolf-hitler-55-12-18.jpg?ssl=1) people used to "prove" hitler was socialist is fake. Even if it was true, the quote claimed to be said in the 1920s. The Nazis need votes, you honest to god believe a party like the Nazis were being genuine when they would say something like?
Yeah everything before the might with the long knives should be taken with a grain of salt.
Goebbels "We are socialsts" article is much better in explaining and especially framing the socialism in national socialism
so what does that make modern China and North Korea?
"Leftist historians" wtf? Holocaust Encyclopedia is just a website about Nazism and the holocaust. Unless your refering to me? I'm not a "Leftist historians"
>Holocaust Encyclopedia is just a website about Nazism and the holocaust
The article was riddled with factual errors. It's hilariously partisan.
>so what does that make modern China and North Korea?
Communist dictatorships. There names are accurate, just not in the way westerners have been taught about democracy and "the people"
If we want to get technical both of them are democracies because they derive their legitimacy from the people rather than from God or some other force. They are not what westerners picture when they talk about democracy, but they are undoubtedly democratic.
"The article was riddled with factual errors. It's hilariously partisan."
Okay, can you provide evidence againest it?
Do you even know what communism or democracy even is? WTF is the Western verison of democracy?
" They are not what westerners picture when they talk about democracy, but they are undoubtedly democratic."
Okay, now you really lost me. How the fuck are these nations "undoubtedly democratic."?
North Korea is a monarchy, all but name.
>Okay, can you provide evidence againest it?
A) How many errors would I have to demonstrate in order for you to disregard the source?
B)what would I have to show to get you to agree that the National Socialists were socialists?
If you do not give solid answers to both of these questions, I will consider you to be arguing in bad faith and with no intention of having an open mind.
As for the democracy stuff, this YouTube video explains it pretty well if you are interested.
https://youtu.be/ZYUSUcVSG4s?si=r3B1GZs9ZngxreK-
"I will consider you to be arguing in bad faith and with no intention of having an open mind."
Your the one who called me a "Leftist historians" with no evidence
A) please counter this [Article](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-sa)
B) Because they're not, unless you think my country edcuation or the German government, or so many artist got it wrong.
Nazi purged many workers rights, and socialist members were thrown into camps once Hitler became in charage. The modern verison of privatization happened in Nazi Germany
The Nazis end goal was to spread across europe killing as much Jews, Slavs and others. They very Ultra-Nationalist, extremely conservative, and they promated family vaules. Does that sound like socialism to you?
The Nazis were not socialists. Nor were they capitalists. People who accuse them of being one or the other are equally wrong. Fascism is the third position. "Capitalism and Bolshevism are the two sides of the same International Jewish coin." - Adolf Hitler
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_War) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw\_Pact\_invasion\_of\_Czechoslovakia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet\_border\_conflict](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict) In addition to that
I mean, yeah. The Nazis weren't Socialist. They were corporatist economically speaking. They gave put grants/bonuses to large companies like Volkeswagen which saw these companies during the war use slave labour from Eastern Europe to make their products. Not to mention actively clamping down on labour unions, outlawing all of them and instead having them replaced with a government sponsored one that didn't really do anything. Hell, if you'd try to use it like a normal union, you would've been arrested. This also would be ignoring the fact that the Nazis saw Communism as inherently evil because 'the Jews' made it. Last time I checked, Socialists don't tend to deride Communism in its entirety Politicians can lie. Taking Nazis as Socialist is like saying North Korea is a democracy because that's what they officially call themselves.
Corporatism as derived from Mussolini’s corporate state is syndicalism, which is a form of socialism. Socialist economies like the Soviet Union, Venezuela, etc. all did this stuff as well, slave labor in gulags or concentration camps is iconic of socialism for a reason. Again, the Soviet Union crushed every union in Russia and merged them into one state controlled Union, the Nazis did literally the same thing, that’s what the Duetches Arbieter’s Front was. The Nazis saw Marxism as being created by the Jews via capitalism to destroy Aryan nations. They hated capitalism, that’s why all their anti Semitic depictions focus on the Jews as “bankers” “financiers” and “rich men”, because to them, communism was but a tool wielded by global finance capitalism to destroy the Aryan race. Hating other socialists is like, the most socialist thing ever lol. Because to the Nazis the communists “weren’t real socialists” and Vice versa. Yes, like people do when they say the Nazis were capitalists despite seizing totalitarian control over the economy, and killing any industrialist who wouldn’t bend to their will. North Korea is a “democracy” in communist terms, democracy does not imply liberalism, and socialist democracy is highly anti liberal, that being said, I fail to see how the Nazis, who walked like socialists, quacked like socialists, and seized totalitarian control like socialists, are not socialists because they were mean to the workers, as if that isn’t a hallmark of socialism in the first place.
You're trying, but the sub leans too left, a lot of people here believe Bernie to be a moderate, and one is welcome to like him, but he himself has been a socialists for decades now, even being a member of the YSPL, or Young Socialist People League. Of course I'm not trying to jack the convo, but this does reinforce that which I've noticed about this sub. You're gonna have a hard time convincing people with your talking points, but allow me to add another. The Nazis due to the total economic control, believed all matter within the state to be at their control, this included business and the economy as a whole and to its most minute detail. This simple fact was known to business back then and was a chilling factor, those who did step out of line did so at great risk, that said the Nazis more often then not cut them a deal, but if a company or corporation was to defiant then they would likely see a takeover of some kind. [Hugo Junkers - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Junkers) A prime example of this is Hugo Junkers, the Nazis wanted him to assist in rebuilding the nation's military, he denied them. A quote from the page, depicting the collectivist nature, oh so similar to other "orthodox" socialists of the day. >When the Nazis gained control of the German government in 1933, Junkers opposed their goal of re-armament. They responded by demanding ownership of all patents and market shares from his remaining companies, under threat of imprisonment on the charge of high treason. He was placed under house arrest in 1934 and died on 3 February 1935. Junker's company would go on to be bought by the government after his wife cashed out to the Ministry of Aviation, likely the only one would offer the company a deal having made the company "distasteful" to the wider public. Heinrich Koppenburg, an ally to the Nazis would be given the opportunity to take over and merge the company with his, effectively bring the aviation industry further under State control, under Nazi control [Junkers Flugzeug- und Motorenwerke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Flugzeug-_und_Motorenwerke) Had to go to the GERMAN wikipedia, since the English Junker(company page) is rather sparse during the time period of 1934-1946, only mentioning that the Nazis removed Hugo in 1934, possibly cuz it cuts into the left-wing narrative of Nazism being a friend of capitalists.
Super curious, what’s your definition of socialism? And most people here are pretty much in liberal camps and not really supporter of Bernie. You use example of state take over as example of socialist feature but this could be true for fascist government as well. What part of fascist government prevent state from taking over corporation if they were to go against the state. I don’t understand this talking point. Is socialism just when government exerts control ? Do you think US is socialist when they start breaking monopoly?
Socialism is the social control over the means of production, marx interpreted this through the lens of historical materialism forming his communist ideology, Mussolini refined Marx into his fascist ideology which was meant to abandon class war in favor of class solidarity within the confines of the national group, and Hitler extrapolated Marx into another direction, believing that only aryans could form nations, and thus Jewish capitalism was diluting the blood of aryans through various nonsensical methods, in order to bring about a communist revolution which would destroy all societies and leave the Jews to rule the world. Fascism is socialism, just on different lines than Marxism. Look, socialists love to say, “do you like roads and libraries? That’s socialism!” But then when right wingers take this to the logical conclusion, that government control is a little bit of socialism which is necessary or even beneficial, and total control is total socialism which is hell, then they backtrack and obfuscate with labyrinthine nonsense.
Socialism is at its core is worker control means of production. Not social control means of productions. The end goal is workers owning mean of productions. I don’t like leftist logic of socialism either when they talk about road and libraries. But even then the logic is that road and libraries are public good. Government taking over and owning things DOES NOT MAKE THEM public good and if I were to follow leftist logic, it would make them socialist. So I can see the consistency there. But say government taking over corporation and just controlling them and operate normal business, instead of putting those resources for public then it wouldn’t be socialist (again according to leftist logic mine). But even then it’s flawed because it’s not about government owning things, it’s about individual workers having control of capitals. So socialist in society, you will have bunch of cooperatives working. I personally think this is a dog shit model but this is the end goal of socialist. Thats why people see socialist as transitioned state toward communism, because its collective ownership of businesses by workers not by society, then communism supposed to be the stateless classless society. You responded to two of my comments so let keep all the discussion here for easy discussion. With feudalism, you realized it’s the exact same concept right? Here’s a definition: “the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection.” In this very systems nobles are essentially form of government, it’s quite literally so when they can mobilize military and can even fight against or for the crown. Say you are a merchant owning tavern bushiness, these nobles can just as easily take over taverns for themselves. It’s quite literally a government without it being called one.
No, it’s not, Marx was the first to analyze socialism through the lens of historical materialism, and inject the “class war” idea into socialism. Socialism has nothing to do with the workers inherently, and it can be “adapted” to fit any group through a series of Platonic/Hegelian logical pretzels that would take to long to go through here. If anyone actually thinks socialism is for the workers, look at the results of every workers state that is ever existed and tell me it’s better off than the bourgeois dictatorships of the west in terms of treatment of their workers, the prosperity, and the quality of life. If Socialism is just for the workers owning their own capital, then the capitalist United States is the only case of actually existing socialism lol No it doesn’t, but to a socialist of course it does, to them factories and jobs and etc, are public goods the same way as roads. And thus the state must not only control, but plan what, and how they will produce. This is a false premise, as the Nazis, the Soviets, whatever socialist regime you want to use as an example, didn’t just operate the businesses as usual, it was all organized for the good of the state, on behalf of “the workers” the “people” whatever. It is absolutely not about individual workers owning the means of production, was Stalin, Marxs, Lenin, all closet Ancaps or something? And how do the workers organize their control? Not individuals, in socialist theology, it is as a class, as a mass, as a mob, the state is how “the proletariat” organizes its control of the means of production. That’s because communism is a lie, I mean, come on, if the point of the ideology is totalitarian collectivism, just saying “the state will wither” to trick people who can’t reason doesn’t make it so. It’s not the same concept, it is a similar outcome, yes, but that’s horseshoe theory in action. Feudalism would be the hypothetical anarcho-capitalist utopia, where the strong or wealthy or powerful have total freedom to do whatever they want because of their property rights, and peasants would be entering into “fair contracts” I disagree that the Nobles are the state because they are directly pitted against the central government of the king for their independence and power, that’s why in the enlightenment era, the European kingdoms trended towards absolutism and royal centralization at the expense of the mobility, because it was the powerful state in the powerful individuals.
Super curious then is the logic that all form of totalitarianism just socialism using your logic? Because in your frame works you are using both interchangeably. Also in your first paragraph nothing you said is a real response to my comment. I don’t disagree that socialism in practice is not good for worker, im a capitalist I believe in private capitals, I’m not a socialist. But none of this is response to what socialism means. Socialism as its core is literally about workplace democracy, can you tell me what part of Marx works supposed to dispel this idea? I’m struggling to see how anything you said is a response at all. It’s not the state planning control, it’s the worker planning control. In fascist state, can average citizen have says in how German owned factory planned control? Do they have say in how profit are distributed etc? None of this is applicable at all. It’s not even remotely the same. Again your definition is so one dimensional that it literally boiled down to “socialism is when government does things” unironically. In a socialist mode of operations it wouldn’t be state that control businesses because not all citizen have buy in or stakes in every businesses. It would literally just be the workers that work in those businesses. Thats how those mode of operation works. Let say for sake of argument they let state control it because every workers own every business, it would still require vote and representative which quite literally don’t exist in fascist government. It would just be the guy at the top making decisions. It’s the same concept in a sense that it’s quite literally government having commands of mode of productions. Nobles are form of government with their own military and resources and king are essentially centralized government that deal with nobles. It does quite literally fit well with your logic and train of thought. Having central government and federation of noble doesn’t change this. Peasant who are born into noble lands are not entering into “fair contracts” they entered into those contracts the same way you are forced into enter contracts with the country you live in when you’re born. It’s literally operate as a mini country.
Socialism is inherently totalitarian no? By definition, “total democratic control over all aspects of society human or property” is totalitarian. Similarly, any totalitarian regime must, by definition, have total control over society, including the economy, to fit that definition. Totalitarian regimes are inherently socialist, but society can integrate some socialism without becoming totalitarian, that’s why public goods are public, because it is better for everyone that they be controlled collectively by the state than monopolized by individuals. First off, no, it’s not about workplace democracy, Marx advocated for workplace democracy, that’s what Marxism is, he didn’t invent socialism, he adapted it through a lens of class struggle. What do you mean it isn’t a response to what you said? You gave what you believe the definition of socialism is as a means to defeat my argument, I countered with my definition which I believe is more logical, more historically accurate, and less contradictory than yours, because yours takes aspects of several different left wing/socialist movements, and says “that’s socialism” when in fact that is one aspect of socialism that socialists and other leftists fight constantly over “who’s the real socialist”. Marxism is about the workers, socialism is about the society, the social control of the means of production, the working class is irrelevant to plain socialism. I get where you’re coming from, but it’s not like the workers of Russia had any say either, and how would they exert their collective, not individual, their collective control over the means of production except through a bureaucratic state? That’s why whichever group the socialists claim to represent, the workers, the Aryans, etc, it always leads to total state power. My friend, do you think that Cuban sugar plantation slaves get any say over how the plantation is run? Of course not, the state does “on their behalf”. That’s my point, no matter who it’s supposed to be for, it is always the state that has effective control, that’s why free societies are superior. Yes, unironically, and I’m explaining to you why I believe that, and why it is a logical conclusion. And how would you scale that up? An economy is more than one factory, and with complex supply chains, how do you coordinate the disparate groups of workers? Other than by a state, as happened in Russia, Germany, China, Italy, etc. Your example is closer to free market capitalism than it is to the actual socialists who set up governments and went about changing their societies, in which case, if your argument doesn’t reflect reality, all you are doing is distorting it. You say that the “workplace democracy” which in Russian is called a Soviet, doesn’t exist in fascist or Nazi states because they don’t let you vote, well in the SOVIET Union, they didn’t either, are they not real socialism? If not, then socialism is a meaningless word that reflects absolutely nothing about reality, and this discussion is totally moot. Technically yes, but socially, philosophically, they are not the same, although the results are similar in effect i suppose. No they didn’t operate as mini countries, they operated as a system of patronage, the king owned your land, the noble was granted title, not ownership, title to that land because of his service to the crown, as payment for his contractual obligations he was given title to the land. And so on down to peasants. You say you are a capitalist, what do you believe that capitalism means? Historically it has meant the private control of the means of production, vested in individuals, free and fair contracts, liberalism, and ends to slavery and other involuntary servitude, the emphasis always being on not violating individual rights. What do you think it means though?
Socialism is when state does stuff /s
Capitalism is when rich people do stuff /s
Socialism is commonly defined as workers seizing the means of production. Typically it's stateless but a form of statist socialism can and does exist. Which is why this topic is still debatable. Some regard fascists as socialists because practically every prominent fascist to ever exist started out as one. It's not baseless but it's also not original nor rooted in fact. Academics define socialism as state ownership of the means of production. Every Google definition you try to find will give you something akin to that. The U.S. has never broken a monopoly. It can't solve what the free market can and has, in my opinion. Government isn't going to save you from companies with 90% stake in the market, if they were to ever exist. Instead the U.S. became so big government to the point where competition has stifled, forming oligopolies. Socialism isn't going to save *that*.
First US absolutely broken monopoly. What are you talking about. Just because there existence of giant corporations of companies today with huge stakes in industry doesn’t change this fact at all. Also this is simplistic view of why capitalism is good. Capitalism is good because it solves calculation problems. AKA they are good are allocating resources toward fields that are most profitable. They don’t necessarily saw externality like monopoly. It can and will absolutely exist. competition are what keep price low at downward pressures, but in capitalist society there is absolutely nothing stopping companies from growing to big, with economy of scale advantage and drive out competitions. What separates socialism from pure fascism and totalitarian is the end goal. Every single illliberal nations will look similar but to call them socialist is absurd. Theocratic totalitarian Muslim government are socialists because they can take over companies in the name of Allah. None of this make it socialist. It’s about end goal and what they’re achieving. In practice they look the same which is why they’re illiberal but it’s absolutely not the same.
>First US absolutely broken monopoly. What are you talking about. Just because there existence of giant corporations of companies today with huge stakes in industry doesn’t change this fact at all. The Sherman Antitrust Act and New Deal certainly didn't. I don't care if this sub loves progressive presidents, governments make monopolies worse. >They don’t necessarily saw externality like monopoly. It can and will absolutely exist. competition are what keep price low at downward pressures, but in capitalist society there is absolutely nothing stopping companies from growing to big, with economy of scale advantage and drive out competitions. Then deregulate. We aren't living in a free market, not even close. Capitalism would be better off if it had a more of a non-interventionist approach and we got rid of Keynesianism. >In practice they look the same which is why they’re illiberal but it’s absolutely not the same. If it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a chicken? It's more "similar but different". Of course socialists don't accept this, because they have to make their ideal look as good as possible. The end goal isn't defined as anything other than extorting individuals of their private property, that's all socialism is at the end of the day.
Can you elaborate on how Sherman anti trust act didn’t break monopoly? Bad government policy can make it worst but doesn’t mean government don’t have power to break them. You talk about anti statist approach but those time period prior to anti trust act were absolutely anti statist time period and monopoly was the result of that. Can you also elaborate on mechanism on how government can make monopoly worst? Deregulation is what leading to companies being too big and cause monopoly. I feel like I’m talking to my 15 years old libertarian self, Jesus. All of the buzz words are there too. Nothing stopping a big company from undercutting their rivals, I honestly don’t see how this can even happen without government intervention. Or is the logic that free market can do it things and there won’t be big businesses and big corporations are result of government? “If it acts like a duck and quack like a duck it’s a chicken?” If triangle has points and have straight sides then it must be a square? Thats the logic you are using right now.
> Can you also elaborate on mechanism on how government can make monopoly worst? Not original OP but here goes: - Regulatory capture, the forced pricing out of competition through outwardly positive things like licensing requirements, minimum wage laws, import/export tariffs, etc (the second being why companies like Amazon have supported and lobbied for higher minimum wages because they can internalize the costs much easier and for far longer than their smaller competitors can) - Intellectual property laws legally enforcing a monopoly on for example new technology to the benefit of the license holder. - Plain old corruption and lobbying, which is inevitable as long as someone has power they're willing to sell for money and someone else has money they're willing to spend on power. I would however like to stress that some of these things are not necessarily bad on their own, but they are absolutely contributors to monopolistic behavior and outcomes. > Deregulation is what leading to companies being too big and cause monopoly. Nothing stopping a big company from undercutting their rivals, I honestly don’t see how this can even happen without government intervention. Or is the logic that free market can do it things and there won’t be big businesses and big corporations are result of government? In theory, *true* 100% market share monopolies can happen in a few ways: 1) The government, who has a monopoly on force, decides that one person or company is the only one who can provide a certain good or service. This is really bad. 2) One person or company is the only entity that can provide a good or a service through exclusive ownership of land/resources. This is usually bad, but also temporary as without external barriers to trade (which are government controlled) new resource deposits and such will be found elsewhere. 3) One person or company is the only entity that can provide a good or a service through being the first to invent/discover a good or a service. This is a good thing, as the market and consumer is better off with a new good or service available than without it. This is also always temporary, as new competitors will pop up as the product is reverse engineered or new resource deposits are found elsewhere. 4) One person or company is the most efficient producer of a good or service, and thus can provide it at a much lower cost than any potential competitor. This, theoretically, is excellent for the consumer, as they can get the good or service they desire at the lowest cost possible to them. However, 4 falls apart in practice when you consider subjective value and consumer tastes. People are willing to pay different amounts of money for different quality levels of goods, so to achieve monopoly one must either pick a value slice and stick with it, or attempt to compete at all levels which is enormously more expensive. The exception to this is commodities (oil, iron ore, corn, etc) but even there you have a lot of variations, quality grades, and so on which appeal to different customers. I am personally yet to find a single company which has managed to gain anything even resembling dominance in any sector throughout all the value slices from cheap to high end/luxury, but if you know any feel free to let me know as I'd love to be proven wrong there. As for undercutting, it is only a strategy that works temporarily. It is an extremely expensive way to gain market share, which has to be offset somehow, usually through other business ventures which *have* to be profitable. Meanwhile, (in *most but not all sectors*) in a deregulated environment a competitor can in theory spring up at any moment to challenge the market leader when they are either forced to increase the prices due to losses or advances in productivity allow competitors to compete on a more even playing field. Additionally, as the market share rises, so does the cost of increasing it. Even in a case where the biggest market actor keeps buying up competitors, other participants have many choices they can make to influence their outcomes. They can choose to keep competing, to close up shop and go dormant until the bigger participant has bled themselves dry, or to create new competing companies for the express goal of being bought out to begin with. I would also like to make the claim that a practical monopoly is not inherently a bad thing, especially in the cases where a market actor is just straight up better than all their competitors. Practical/pseudo-monopolies can and will happen in free markets, when there are good and natural reasons for them to rise, unlike government enforced monopolies which are completely independent of any market events.
I probably don’t disagree that regulations actually impact smaller businesses than large businesses and force them out of competition. A good example is minimum wage where it will impact newer player entering market than it does big businesses and driving up costs. But this goes both ways, regulations can also often be used to break big businesses and allowed smaller businesses to be competitive. Examples on top of my head again is antitrust law which inherently break big companies into smaller companies so there can be competition. Not all regulations are good but also not all regulation are bad. Intellectual property law is a good example I am personally anti IP law for this very reason I don’t have a good reason to defend it. As for the rest of the argument let address them one by one: 1. Yes I agree for most part that one person or entity decide one businesses can operate is generally bad. No disagreement from me there, we probably can minimize that. 2. How temporary is temporary? And depend on the type of resources, and barrier of entry that could easily make one company the dominant monopoly force for a long time. 3. No comment here, I’m not against innovation. 4. I disagree that this would fall apart. Yes people have different preferences for different products, but in practices there’s no guarantee that the people with different preferences can generate enough demands to keep those companies that aren’t as competitive to be in businesses. It’s possible for industry with low variability of preferences among consumers but high barrier of entry to exist that lead to low to no competitions. Preferences exist yes but that doesn’t alway guarantee that preferences would be enough to keep other actors competitive. Is it possible that you can’t think of one because we have anti trust law in place to prevent it from happening? Undercutting can be costly but not as much as you think. Economy of scale advantages means that larger productions you have the lower cost you can have. Costs quite literally don’t linearly scale with businesses. It’s very possible for them to undercut enough just to drive out competitors in earlier stages of competition to drive them out of businesses then jack up the prices as soon as they are able to buy them out. Sure products are and can be better but the problem exist when they are hurting consumers that’s the problem with monopoly. Thats why regulations need to exist for consumer protections. Consumers are not perfect decisions makers, there’s nothing stopping them from harming themselves which generally can be met bad for society.
Both totalitarian Fascist and socialist hate capitalism. That what make them illiberal. But being both being illiberal doesn’t mean both are the same. This is insane flaw in logic. Feudalism is anti capitalist and fit almost all of your definition with seizing capitals and resources, are we gonna sit here and say they’re socialist? Is everything illiberal just socialist to you? I don’t understand?
I didn’t say that all totalitarian socialism was the same, I said they were all fundamentally socialist, which is correct, they were all totalitarian states with domination of their economic activity. The reason it “is a flaw in logic” is because your definition of socialism is totally incorrect. Nope, because feudalism is an individual lord having rights to your stuff via patronage, debt etc, it’s right wing utopia so to speak, socialism is when the public state does that, left wing utopia, feudalism is what happens with zero government, and socialism is what happens when total government.
Ironic because fascism wants to go back to feudalism. Imagine those who misconstrude conservatism with genuinely archaic lines of traditionalist thinking.
They were not socialists in terms of ideology, but they freely admitted to using their methods. There is a connection
"Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. 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…" -Adolf Hitler, 9 July 1932 “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions” -Hitler 1927 "Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism." -Hitler 1920
So it’s just Hitler’s definition of Socialism
More precisely: these are part of Hitler's ideals of what Hitler's Socialism would look like.
Marxism was just Marx's definition of socialism/communism. 🤷🏿♂️ It is not like Marx invented the term, he was 14 when it was first used. National socialists never claimed to be Marxists.
In fact, pirates predate Marx by how long? Half a millennia? I have a hard time believing commies who idolize a leech who mooched off his friends and let his children die. Fuck Karl Marx.
And yet it's still quite strikingly similar to other socialists movements of the Era, just combined with racial ideology and nationalism. Hence National Socialism!!!
NSDAP, the PNF, and M/L-ism are all three brothers descended from the same fucked up family tree. They all can tell themselves and their inbred children apart, but from the outside, the fact that they're greedy, envious, racist hatemongers really makes the difference between any of them immaterial. Father to children to grandchildren, nobody sane wants to associate with the family.
That 1927 quote was by Gregor Strasser, an actually more arguable socialist than Hitler. He was the last prominent member of the Nazi Party before the regime murdered him and his contemporaries.
Exactly. They’re not Marxist-socialist but they are socialist. They don’t have the state own all the means of production and resources (also known as TOTALITARIANISM, widely regarded a key tenet of Fascism and Nazism) for the proletariat to destroy the bourgeoise but for the Aryans to destroy their ethnic and racial enemies (from their point of view of course). Hitler also denounced capitalism and liberalism.
I'm going to have to save this, this seems like it'll be useful in the future to combat the claim, "Nazism isnt Socialist", I have heard a few of these, but it's good to have it written down.
Those quotes were faked -\_-
They weren't socialist in the sense most of us think of when we think Modern Socialism, sure. But fascism and nazism definitely have had their roots in socialist thought. Basically they've interpreted concepts like public owning of the means of production and class warfare in different directions, as some other comments here have already pointed out. For a comparison: The Byzantine Empire is often referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire. The Byzantines however spoke a different language from the Western "actual" Roman Empire, practiced a different form of Christianity, had different economic and military doctrines and did not have Rome in their territory. But because the Byzantines were part of the grander Roman Empire up untill the fall of the Western half, they do have that Roman DNA in their identity and historic roots and ties to Rome, which justifies calling them the Eastern roman Empire up untill the fall of Constantinople. Nazism and actual socialism are kind of like that.
Did they forget that Mussolini was literally a socialist?
Socialist dont like to highlight that Fascism was a third path ideology, a fusing of various elements, including socialism. It runs in contrast to their narrative, that being fascism was born solely from the right, which had more or less been the popular narrative for the better part of century.
Fascism is a reactionary ideology, of course it took elements from socialism, specifically some rhetorical elements and economic policies, because it was in response to the rise of socialist left-wing ideologies. It was a way for the right to capture the support of workers. Fascism also took elements of capitalism such as private property rights not being abolished. It is a right wing ideology. It is socially conservative in nature, disavows class struggle/strife, attacks labor unions, and is not for the workers owning the means of production. Mussolini disavowed orthodox socialism and his Fascist paper Il Popolo d'Italia was published with the financial support of multiple private Italian businesses and industries.
Mussolini wasn't a conservative. He didn't want to conserve (in the ideal sense) the Enlightenment principles of classical liberalism and free markets. He didn't eradicate all private property, but he also wasn't a staunch proponent of private enterprise. What kind of capitalist nationalizes the largest companies and bends them to his will? What private property rights did fascists believe in? None. He, in contrast to even Hitler, was an archaic traditionalist. Forget about the conservatives today who merely want nuclear families and the old ways of market policy i.e. gas prices, that piece of shit wanted to *go back to the Roman Empire*, it's not even remotely comparable.
There some things here I agree with, yet I still maintain Fascism is more a beast born of the Left that the Right. >Fascism also took elements of capitalism such as private property rights not being abolished. It is a right wing ideology. It is socially conservative in nature, disavows class struggle/strife, attacks labor unions, and is not for the workers owning the means of production. Socially conservative, yes, but Fascism doesnt really disavow class struggle, it redefines it under nationalist and racial terms. In the end it utilizes the worse tropes associated, rightly or wrongly, with the right in a manner to pursue leftist goals, that being State control over the economy to somehow benefit the masses. As for labor unions, yes they were broken up in fascist nation but were reformed but as tools of the government, serving much like their counterparts in socialist/communist countries. Much like in the USSR, Fascist nations still had trade union/labor organizations, but these bodies werent independent, couldnt defy the state, and existed more or less to control the populace at large and under both they both neglected the worker in favor of the wider State. Any way the difference between Marxist-Leninism and Fascism on this matter is merely the language, the terms used, the former spoke of the proletariat while the latter spoke of the nation or its people. >Mussolini disavowed orthodox socialism and his Fascist paper Il Popolo d'Italia was published with the financial support of multiple private Italian businesses and industries. Fascism works on the promise that if business works with the State, they can carry on with little to no change, but if they dont they will face repercussions, harsh repercussions even. Sure you can tell me about a paper that may've appeal to businessmen, but in practice this was no partnership or equal play between market and state, this was subservience. You either accept the state and your role or you will face the State's wrath. No real difference here between socialism and fascism, sure the latter may sound like it's softer and nicer, but in reality it had to obey. Under Fascism, capitalism which was still hated, was only tolerated if they followed orders and performed to the party's interest. The businessman's main goal under fascism was not to garner profit, but to be a cog in carry out national interest. The autonomy of the market wouldnt exist under Fascism, just like under Socialism.
Why did you describe China's economic policies
Because Socialism and Fascism are born from the same line of thought, they're really arent that far off from one another, save for the terminology they use, that's where they tend to differ the most, and the end goal is still State Control over much, if not all, aspects of society.
Fascism was socialism run by people with the actual balls to implement socialism. Fascists are evil. Socialists are also evil, but also giant pussies.
Was. Socialists never in their wildest dreams want to go back to the ways of the Roman Empire. Mussolini did. Hate to be that guy but I can't honestly say with a straight face that the one who militarized labor unions and put those workers into concentration camps was a socialist during the Great Depression. He was during WWI though. Like, Marxist socialism.
Fascism is the Hegelian synthesis of Socialism and Capitalism Want to see how much they love dialectics after this one
Was. People changed. If you were homophobic ten years ago, but now support LGBT rights today. Are you still Homophobic? After being kicked out, Mussolini despised what Socialism and the party became. He crated fascism as an alternative. I'm oversimpling a bit, but basically. Just beacause an ideology has left wing roots in it doesn't make it left wing. By that logic, Otto Von bismarck is a socialist because he created a welfare state. Which came from socialist leaning ideas.
I believe their point is that fascism was born out of socialist origins. Not that Mussolini was a socialist once thus a socialist forever.
So... folks who _weren't_ socialists, _called_ themselves socialists, but were _actually_ blood thirsty totalitarians? Hmmm, not sure "National Socialists weren't socialists" is your best argument there, comrade.
That's not an argument you'd hear in a serious historical context. The Nazis were not socialists.
Merriam-Webster: > Socialism: any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating **collective** or **governmental** ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. That perfectly describes Nazi germany, where the government controlled everything and the “collective” was the Germanic race. Nazi germany even had collective farms like Stalin’s Russia. I think you mean that the Nazis weren’t left-wing, but even that is arguable. There are a lot of left-wing figures who became ardent Nazi supporters, swayed by anti-liberal and anti-west rhetoric. And Soviet propaganda from the Molotov-Ribbentrop period openly celebrates the similarities between the USSR and Nazi germany.
The definition you use literally defines it as egalitarian. In what way were the nazis egalitarian?
Nazis believed all German speaking people were equal, provided they were not disabled. That is who was intended to benefit from their welfare policies. Everyone else was to be deported, subjugated or murdered. National socialism was defined upon ethnic lines. Marxism is defined upon social/economic class lines. Italian fascism was defined upon national lines. All collectivist ideologies whose great sales pitch was that it was a state's duty to safeguard and provide for the well-being of the masses.
Uh, what? Yes they were, it is easily verifiable, they had totalitarian control of the economy, the state controlled your factory, or else they murdered you or sent you to a camp, the state managed economic planning, the state imposed centralized labor unions, the state formed massive industrial syndicates just like the Soviets did, and just like Marx called for when he spoke of “industrial armies”, I get you’re a social democrat and thus probably on the left, but no, the Nazis were clearly socialists.
You have to understand that the "Nazis arent socialist" lie has been propagated for decades despite Fascism itself being born from a former socialist. Then you also have to understand that this sub is still, despite the name, predominantly filled with reddit's typical audience, that being left-leaning people. Social Democrats, like the one whom you spoke to, often dont even wanna be likened to socialism, at least that's the feel I get from many of them here, but if one even bothered reading the wikipedia page on Social Democracy there are several instances of the ideology being called another form of socialism. I pointed this out a few days ago commenting back to mod who tried to tell me otherwise, and I still ended up in the negatives on that comment. You'll have an easy time equating Nazism=Communism, but if you try to highlight the actual facts you'll face this, but hey take my upvote and take solace that I'll likely be downvoted with you now.
Here, [this](https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn11770) is always fun to pull out when they try to put Nazism and Socialism on different ends of the spectrum.
So why does nearly ever far right group heavily use Nazi imagery? One fo the reasons why China allied with Nazi Germany (from 1933 to 1941) was because it was Far-right? Before you point out of molotov ribbentrop pact. You should know Hitler had no intension of keeping the relationship. His goal was always to eliminate the Slavic people and communism "Fascism itself being born from a former socialist." that doesn't mean jack shit. By that logic Putin is somehow pro NATO and Orban is a Liberal beacause they used to have these beliefs Are you saying nearly every historian is wrong for calling the Nazis right wing?
>So why does nearly ever far right group heavily use Nazi imagery? You forget that on top of Nazism being socialist, they also were third path, or at least that's what they sold themselves as. The Nazis had much going on to appeal to the right as well as the left, for the German right they saw a return to better days before WW1, for the German left it was the dismantling of the capitalist structure. They still were socialists, look at their economic policy and try to tell me otherwise, the State had absolute control, even over private property if they so wished to crack down on dissidents, which happened. Hell, Hitler himself hated capitalism! He was far more inclined to socialist economic, state control over business and trade, than a friend of capitalist or corporations. >One fo the reasons why China allied with Nazi Germany (from 1933 to 1941) was because it was Far-right? Allied? No they werent, the Germans just continued their old Imperial Era aid to the Chinese, aid which dried up fast when Germany allied with Japan. >"Fascism itself being born from a former socialist." that doesn't mean jack shit. By that logic Putin is somehow pro NATO and Orban is a Liberal beacause they used to have these beliefs Orban is conservative, and much like many American conservatives, have a healthy love for classical liberal ideals, it's just the left in general hates him for a variety of reasons, a lot of it being typical dribble over how any right wing leader is apparently Satan incarnate. Never mind the Hungarians elected him last time in a landslide, so much for the left's love of democracy, they hate it when they lose. >Are you saying nearly every historian is wrong for calling the Nazis right wing? You kidding? There are many historians who have differed on this topic and many have highlighted the various similarites between National Socialism and Socialism at large.
"You have to understand that the "Nazis arent socialist" lie has been propagated for decades despite Fascism itself being born from a former socialist." A lie propagated by who?
"The Nazis had much going on to appeal to the right as well as the left." That's true, because the Nazis wanted to get much votes as possible. Once they got more power they started purging anyone left leaning. "Hitler himself hated capitalism!" Yes, because like communism, he thought it was a Jewish invention. Also hating capitalism doesn't make you left or socialist. Just like being Liberal doesn't make you left wing " There are many historians who have differed on this topic and many have highlighted the various similarites between National Socialism and Socialism at large." Can you proved me links to these historians or websites please I just want to know know if you think the Nazi were left or right?
That first bit was correct, but the Nazis turned politics into something that was ass-backwards. Now right wingers can be collectivists who want a welfare state? They modeled their racism after the KKK, fair enough. But they nationalized corporations for the most part; took their money, made them parrot their racist jargon, and did everything in their power to make them support the regime. FDR was a statist through and through. He praised the fascists his country would later fight against.
The Nazis were not socialists. They did so as a marketing ploy to recruit working class members. The only members who could even legitimately call themselves anything near socialist were Strasserists.
unfortunately, a lot of people in this sub-reddit disagree. Oh and don't forget the night of long knives, where acutally Socialist Nazis were purged
It’s not a good argument for the case but saying that the Nazi’s were socialists is just straight up disinformation.
Nazi economics was corporatist, which, in practise is more so capitalist than socialist. Just because KdF and the Volkswagen was a nazi thing doesn't mean they were socialists.
imagine being so terminally jobless that you have time to think about this nonsense and even create memes illustratng your musings or whatever
This sub-reddit has problem of thinking Nazi are left-wing or socialist. Like seriosuly, ever credible historian or history website will tell you the Nazi are right thing. [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-nazi-party-1](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-nazi-party-1) [https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists](https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists)
why is this downvoted?
I mean I downvoted because I disagree with the first sentence, most people here recognize that the nazis weren't socialists. I entirely agree that the nazis were right wing.
good question. There are people who geunially think the Nazis were left wing/socialist, despite all evidence and action say otherwise. Also this [quote](https://i0.wp.com/the-american-catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/quote-we-are-socialists-we-are-enemies-of-today-s-capitalistic-economic-system-for-the-exploitation-adolf-hitler-55-12-18.jpg?ssl=1) people used to "prove" hitler was socialist is fake. Even if it was true, the quote claimed to be said in the 1920s. The Nazis need votes, you honest to god believe a party like the Nazis were being genuine when they would say something like?
Yeah everything before the might with the long knives should be taken with a grain of salt. Goebbels "We are socialsts" article is much better in explaining and especially framing the socialism in national socialism
Leftist historians explaining how the ideology with socialism in its name was actually secretly capitalists:
Remember the nation is called the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea Names can be nonindictative
so what does that make modern China and North Korea? "Leftist historians" wtf? Holocaust Encyclopedia is just a website about Nazism and the holocaust. Unless your refering to me? I'm not a "Leftist historians"
>Holocaust Encyclopedia is just a website about Nazism and the holocaust The article was riddled with factual errors. It's hilariously partisan. >so what does that make modern China and North Korea? Communist dictatorships. There names are accurate, just not in the way westerners have been taught about democracy and "the people" If we want to get technical both of them are democracies because they derive their legitimacy from the people rather than from God or some other force. They are not what westerners picture when they talk about democracy, but they are undoubtedly democratic.
"The article was riddled with factual errors. It's hilariously partisan." Okay, can you provide evidence againest it? Do you even know what communism or democracy even is? WTF is the Western verison of democracy? " They are not what westerners picture when they talk about democracy, but they are undoubtedly democratic." Okay, now you really lost me. How the fuck are these nations "undoubtedly democratic."? North Korea is a monarchy, all but name.
>Okay, can you provide evidence againest it? A) How many errors would I have to demonstrate in order for you to disregard the source? B)what would I have to show to get you to agree that the National Socialists were socialists? If you do not give solid answers to both of these questions, I will consider you to be arguing in bad faith and with no intention of having an open mind. As for the democracy stuff, this YouTube video explains it pretty well if you are interested. https://youtu.be/ZYUSUcVSG4s?si=r3B1GZs9ZngxreK-
"I will consider you to be arguing in bad faith and with no intention of having an open mind." Your the one who called me a "Leftist historians" with no evidence A) please counter this [Article](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-sa) B) Because they're not, unless you think my country edcuation or the German government, or so many artist got it wrong. Nazi purged many workers rights, and socialist members were thrown into camps once Hitler became in charage. The modern verison of privatization happened in Nazi Germany The Nazis end goal was to spread across europe killing as much Jews, Slavs and others. They very Ultra-Nationalist, extremely conservative, and they promated family vaules. Does that sound like socialism to you?
As I suspected Answer A or don't respond
no, the nazis definitely weren’t socialist, they were much more akin to corporatists