In what way were the Nazis ("National Socialists") socialist?

[UnknownPerson]

Were the Nazis socialist at all? Why did they call themselves socialist?

[Tim Cornelis]

Only in name.

[ColonelCossack]

They weren't. i read somewhere that "socialism" in this case meant social exclusivity for aryans, and i read somewhere else that they were originally socialist in the early 20s until the fascists joined it and made it fascist, and I read somewhere else that they called themselves socialist to hide their evil fascist agenda. I'm not entriely sure which, if any at all, of these explanations is true, only that the Nazis WERE NOT SOCIALIST IN ANY WAY.

[Nox]

They twisted the meaning of Socialism into something evil.

[Sasha]

to be fair until the night of longknives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives) they did have an corporatist-revolutionary wing that did its best to mobilize the german proletariat and that in lots of ways was more socialist than the liberal and social-democratic partys that where 100% in bed with the capitalists.
they got purged exactly for this reason. (see a.o. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism).
not that we should consider them socialists but minus the racialist aspects (and that wasnt as important as under the SS-wing to begin with) they would be not that different from the rightwing of the bolsheviks (who btw weren't void of an good doses of anti-semitism either at times)

[Bronco]

Well some might say that a centralized economy and intended profit-sharing in large industries are somewhat Socialist aspects, although there are obviously very clear deviations away from any kind of Socialist policy, both politically and economically

[UnknownPerson]

Well some might say that a centralized economy and intended profit-sharing in large industries are somewhat Socialist aspects, although there are obviously very clear deviations away from any kind of Socialist policy, both politically and economically

In what way was their economy centralized?

[ColonelCossack]

i was watching a clip on youtube of a guy from the CPUSA on fox news (know your enemy, right? Even though i live in the UK :confused:), and the news presenter was equating the nazis with socialism, his only piece of evidence being that the Nazis were "national socialists". Of course, common sense and logic gives so much more evidence against this, but the bloke from the CPUSA was just sitting their stupidly making no counter-argument against this, and I was just going, "BRARGHGRGHGRAGHRGH WHY DON'T YOU CONTRADICT THIS REACTIONARY MORON?!?!?!?!?!?!? IT WOULD BE SO EASY!!!" Then again I think that they (the fox news presenter) would probably have ignored him, cut him off, or interrupted him.

[Dr Mindbender]

Were the Nazis socialist at all? Why did they call themselves socialist?

My understanding is that National socialism implies socialism, but for the indigenous race only hence the name. Whereas socialism as we advocate implies socialism for all.

The Nazis supported nationalisation of industries and made token concessions to the 'white' working class specifically. I think that is where any connection ends though. They still managed to appease the favour of the bourgeoisie so they clearly had policies which favoured the private sector.

[UnknownPerson]

My understanding is that National socialism implies socialism, but for the indigenous race only hence the name. Whereas socialism as we advocate implies socialism for all.

The Nazis supported nationalisation of industries and made token concessions to the 'white' working class specifically. I think that is where any connection ends though. They still managed to appease the favour of the bourgeoisie so they clearly had policies which favoured the private sector.

Did they want nationalize as much industry as possible?

[RadioRaheem84]

Well now according to the exceptional source Conservapedia.....:lol:

Right Wingers in the States tend to think that because the Nazis employed socialist rhetoric to gather support that they then implemented this rhetoric into practice.....they didn't.

Also, when it came time for war Germany was not "capitalist".

This only makes sense if you internalize the idiotic right-libertarian logic of "statism".

If you look at Germany's social relations at the time and the control of the means of production, it was certainly not socialist. Not even close.

Fascism is not left wing.....never has never will be. It is probably the furthest thing from the left you can possibly imagine.

[Commissar Rykov]

to be fair until the night of longknives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives) they did have an corporatist-revolutionary wing that did its best to mobilize the german proletariat and that in lots of ways was more socialist than the liberal and social-democratic partys that where 100% in bed with the capitalists.
they got purged exactly for this reason. (see a.o. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism).
not that we should consider them socialists but minus the racialist aspects (and that wasnt as important as under the SS-wing to begin with) they would be not that different from the rightwing of the bolsheviks (who btw weren't void of an good doses of anti-semitism either at times)
^Pretty much this. Hitler seemed to be ambivalent on the name and admits in Mein Kampf it was largely to draw Communists to their meetings in hopes of changing their minds as well as other Working Class members hence why they used red posters and the like in Bavaria. Once the SA was purged Left Wing thought was thrown out and they began what Hitler likely wanted to do from the beginning which was increased work hours, decreased pay and benefits, crushed unions and cut corners in saftey in regards to production.

Most of their "socialist" plans were nothing more than attempts to keep the Proletariat enslaved. Their Health Care system though supposedly being free for only "Pure" Germans remained completely underfunded and never achieved what it claimed. Volkswagen was nothing more than a cover for building tanks and trucks for war. Strength through Joy program was mostly to give vacations to party members and had fuck all to do with the common worker.

[Dogs On Acid]

Socialism was very popular among workers at the time.

So they took advantage and included it in their title, with a couple of working-class policies thrown in to keep them happy.

That's about it.

[Vanguard1917]

Socialism was very popular among workers at the time.



That's the crux of it. The word was used to market the Nazi party as being relevant for the working class. The adoption of a predominantly red flag also came about for similar reasons.

It's important to emphasise, however, that such cosmetic affinities do not in any way imply an actual relationship between socialism and fascism, the purpose of the latter of course being to crush the socialist movement in Germany.

[Nox]

I don't know too much about the history of the Nazi party, but I believe very early on they were focused more on the economic side than the social side, but that changed radically and by the time they were in power all they cared about was the Nationalist side.

[Psy]

The Nazi Germany economic leaning were towards Friedrich List (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_List) that basically is the idea of the need of a large bourgeois state to modernize and expand the means of production that was the same as Imperial Japan at the time, that basically is a earlier Keynesian theory that focuses on industrialization and mechanization of labor.

Now the problem with Nazi Germany is it didn't have a problem of backwardness like Japan so the writings of Friedrich List didn't really help Germany as Frederich List was talking about Germany of the 19th Century and Otto von Bismarck already industrialized Germany in the later part of the 19th Century thus why the Nazi Party had these incredibly stupid grand projects like wanting to convert Germany's track gauge to 3 meters and wanted to totally rebuild Berlin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkshalle.

What this has to do with Marx, nothing.

[rednordman]

Fascism is not left wing.....never has never will be. It is probably the furthest thing from the left you can possibly imagine.Good post, but what do you think of people who like to describe fascism as a sort of 'left-wing nationalism' of sorts? I think this is the rightwing Americans main argument for the absurd notion that they can equate fascism to communism.

[piet11111]

To what extend did they use central economic planning ?
Albert speer was minister of armaments but does this mean that the arms industry was effectively nationalised ?

[RadioRaheem84]

Good post, but what do you think of people who like to describe fascism as a sort of 'left-wing nationalism' of sorts? I think this is the rightwing Americans main argument for the absurd notion that they can equate fascism to communism.


The American logic surrounding fascism is so strange and annoying.

They really think of it, especially now with all the alternative history floating around, as a left wing nationalism of sorts and equate it with Soviet Communism.

Again, they employ the logic of the right-libertarian and use that still "statist" notion to guide their thoughts about Nazism, Fascism.

Nazism, employed far more socialist rhetoric than the openly anti-socialist Fascism of the rest of Europe.

Americans confuse rhetoric for practice though and have virtually no understanding of the ideas behind class struggle which the Nazis totally rejected. The Nazis were vehemently anti-class warfare and by force upheld classes as a must for their society.

Social relations remained the same under Hitler, the only difference is that the military class of the state had the final say, and the business class now had the military power at full force to discipline labor.

It was esentially capitalism on steroids, free of all the liberal democratic rhetoric and able to pilfer public funds to subsidize their industries.

Of course no one who touts the "fascism is left wing" junk looks at the situation of Nazi Germany from the vantage point of the worker, but at the pov of the businessman who saw the fascists not as capitalist per se, but temporary guardians of capitalism who employed statist methods to keep the Bolshevik hordes at bay.

[CornetJoyce]

From the 1923 interview with Hitler:

“Why,” I asked Hitler, “do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?”

“Socialism,” he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, “is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

“Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

“We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.”

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't understand why it's so hard for people to understand that Nazism, Fascism was just a social movement that retreated away from the ideals of the Enlightenment and promoted the virtues of past eras like the Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, the old Catholic guild systen and the Spartans.

In practice it was still capitalist, with social relations remaining fundamentally the same only that you had a massive state ready to clob anyone not in line.

Again, all this nonsense and debate stems from the fact that the vantage point of the industrialist has been introduced into the discourse with their idea that fascism wasn't capitalist because he took orders from the Nazi party.

That's like them saying the Emirates, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia in the middle east are not capitalist because the monarchs have so much control over the market, they could stop their flow at any time.

Whenever they say that "the State was in control of the market therefore Nazi Germany was not capitalist", they mean that Nazis ultimately called the shots not the business clique who were merely being saved from Bolshevik hordes.

This also explains why they do not think third world nations are capitalist. Because only in a liberal democracy where the businessman can exercise his capacity without restraint can capitalism flourish! :rolleyes:

[Dogs On Acid]

i was watching a clip on youtube of a guy from the CPUSA on fox news (know your enemy, right? Even though i live in the UK :confused:), and the news presenter was equating the nazis with socialism, his only piece of evidence being that the Nazis were "national socialists". Of course, common sense and logic gives so much more evidence against this, but the bloke from the CPUSA was just sitting their stupidly making no counter-argument against this, and I was just going, "BRARGHGRGHGRAGHRGH WHY DON'T YOU CONTRADICT THIS REACTIONARY MORON?!?!?!?!?!?!? IT WOULD BE SO EASY!!!" Then again I think that they (the fox news presenter) would probably have ignored him, cut him off, or interrupted him.

Glenn Beck.

[Weezer]

"Our term socialism has nothing to do with the Marxian term." - Adolf Hitler

[RadioRaheem84]

you would think that would be enough for most people.

[The Man]

Hitler and his cronies believed that Marxists stole the word 'Socialism' from ancient Aryan institutions. He believed that Marxist defaced the word Socialism to fit their "Evil Judeo-Communist conspiracy."

A short excerpt from a 1923 interview conducted by George Sylvester Viereck with Adolf Hitler. They called themselves 'socialists' in the meaning of those 'ancient Aryan institutions.'


"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"

"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."

[Dogs On Acid]

Hitler and his cronies believed that Marxists stole the word 'Socialism' from ancient Aryan institutions. He believed that Marxist defaced the word Socialism to fit their "Evil Judeo-Communist conspiracy."

A short excerpt from a 1923 interview conducted by George Sylvester Viereck with Adolf Hitler.

Did you bother to read the thread?

[freya4]

The National "Socialists" were really not socialists in any way. This term was used to get support from the working class, among whom socialism was a popular ideology, especially during that time when capitalism was going through a crisis. Nazi Germany was still under the capitalist mode of production, as private property was retained and class collaboration, rather than class warfare, was encouraged. If anything, the economic policies of the Nazis were Third Way, but still fundamentally capitalist.

[agnixie]

Did they want nationalize as much industry as possible?

Not really, they actually privatized surprisingly large amounts of the economy that was already nationalized, including a lot of social services, in order to pay for the military buildup.

[L.A.P.]

i was watching a clip on youtube of a guy from the CPUSA on fox news (know your enemy, right? Even though i live in the UK :confused:), and the news presenter was equating the nazis with socialism, his only piece of evidence being that the Nazis were "national socialists". Of course, common sense and logic gives so much more evidence against this, but the bloke from the CPUSA was just sitting their stupidly making no counter-argument against this, and I was just going, "BRARGHGRGHGRAGHRGH WHY DON'T YOU CONTRADICT THIS REACTIONARY MORON?!?!?!?!?!?!? IT WOULD BE SO EASY!!!" Then again I think that they (the fox news presenter) would probably have ignored him, cut him off, or interrupted him.

Glenn Beck man....

[The Man]

Did you bother to read the thread?

No, I did not read the thread, and I mindlessly posted utter nonsense that was existing on my mind at that moment. I am pretty sure I answered the question "Why did the Nazis call themselves socialists?"

[Dogs On Acid]

No, I did not read the thread, and I mindlessly posted utter nonsense that was existing on my mind at that moment. I am pretty sure I answered the question "Why did the Nazis call themselves socialists?"

Well you basically stole CornetJoyce's post.

[robbo203]

That's the crux of it. The word was used to market the Nazi party as being relevant for the working class. The adoption of a predominantly red flag also came about for similar reasons.

It's important to emphasise, however, that such cosmetic affinities do not in any way imply an actual relationship between socialism and fascism.


This is true and precisely the same argument might be used against soviet state capitalism. Socialism originally meant the same thing as communism - a classless moneyless stateless community. Lenin was the chief (but by no means, only) instigator in bringing about a fundamental shift in the meaning of "socialism", calling it the lower stage of communism (except that his version of this "lower stage" more no relation to Marx's lower stage) as well a state capitalist monopoly allegedly run in the interests of the all the people. Another interesting fact is that Lenin was an admirer of German state capitalism and urged his compatriots to copy it.

[Pirx]

There were real socialist NSDAP-members, but they were nothing but useful idiots. The first effect of NS-rule was complete destruction of the worker´s movement and its organisational base.

[CAleftist]

Emphasis should be placed more on the "National" part of National Socialism.

[LancashireLenin]

As posters have said, some of them were kind-of socialists who happened to be horrible racists as well. Rohm, the Strassers, and Goebbels are this kind (Goebbels quote: 'first socialism revolution, then national redemption' ... sad). Hitler's Bavarian faction opposed these, and had Rohm and Gregor Strasser killed.

Hitler's own ideology had absolutely nothing to do with socialism. In fact, his ideological work was an attempt to create a 'scientific anti-socialism' as compared to Marx's 'scientific socialism', using racialism to argue for inherent inequalities among the classes based on the supposed balance of Aryan and Semite blood in a person.

Where Marxists see class conflict as the engine of history, Nazis see racial conflict. And while class conflict is resolved by changing the structure of society, Nazism's 'racial conflict' can only lead to genocide and displacement. I see National Socialism as a dark mirror image of socialism, directly opposite in its aims and means.

[Red Commissar]

I think a lot of confusion, or at least the insistent demand that pundits try to wrap Nazis as a form of "Left-wing Nationalism", may have to do with people analyzing political trends from the lenses of the present rather than looking at the conditions it sprouted from and the social terrain it was reacting to. Analysis of political movements and parties has been simplified and distorted into what positions they take on the market and what they take on social positions. A lot of things are to blame for this, going from the media up to ever popular "political quizzes" that use the same criteria. Or making an absolute difference of one either being "Collectivist" or "Individualist" in orientation...

By those standards it would put Fascists and Nazis in the same camp as Socialists because of their apparent disdain for laissez-faire capitalism. Its true that the Fascists and Nazis often positioned themselves against the free-market, but only in the forms they thought did not benefit the state. They were still very much for private property, the market, and the industrial "spirit", and opposing class warfare in any form. A visitor from the United States to Nazi Germany would probably not find it all that different from what they see at home, compared to the Soviet Union which was a different place all together. As such industrialists like Ford had much praise to rain on Germany, as did many intellectuals, while chiding the Soviet Union.

It would help to make analysis of different economic systems on their own, rather than envisioning them on the same continuum. That makes people think that going too far in one direction (regulations) ends up were socialists and fascists seemingly intersect, which is really a problem.

It's interesting during the 1930s most of the far-right groups were usually disdainful towards (liberal) capitalism, and this was mainly because of what FightTogether mentioned- at that time many of the lower sections of society held a low opinion of "Capitalism" as they knew it. Much as the far-right now ties together the dislike for bureaucratic burdens and taxes to current governments now as not following capitalism.

In this country, if we were to look at the far-right of the 1930s, with figures like Father Coughlin, Gerald L.K. Smith, or Fritz Kuhn, were derisive of capitalism and in particular banks, proposing solutions that a tea-bagger would call "socialist" by the distorted criteria they apply. Of course a closer analysis would reveal they were not as "hateful" as capitalism as it appears, but rather attempting to channel populist rage against the business establishment.

Then we had people like Huey Long. It still bothers me when some "progressives" here rain praise on him because they thought he was advocating an even more radical version of the New Deal- the "Share the Wealth" program as he fashioned it. Indeed Long, along with Coughlin, Smith, Kuhn, and the rest of the lunatic brigade, were feeding off what populist energy they could for their political gain, and envisioned they would bring "order" to the chaotic markets and restore the social fabric, as Hitler and Mussolini had done before them.

They weren't cookie-cutter fascists in the sense that Mussolini and Hitler were, but they were going of the same energies and positioned themselves in the same way. American Fascists here at the time, often focused their agitation in the countryside. Given the right conditions someone like Huey Long could have ended up as a fascist sympathizer himself, if it suited his political goals.

There is a nice book, though by a Liberal supporter of FDR at that time, "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis, which is mostly a thinly veiled attack at far-right elements in the United States during the 1930s. The main architect of the American fascist order was Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip, who was modeled after Huey Long. He makes the same outlandish claims, saying that under his administration there would be a highly progressive taxation scheme, and all Americans would be guaranteed a minimum yearly income of $5,000 (in current USD, that would be ~$80,000). He lashes out against unpatriotic elements, invokes religious thought and romanticizes his "country" roots, and fingers out the "international socialist" conspiracy.

Coming into power, much of those promises, at least "Share the Wealth"-based program deal never comes into being. The Corporatist system is constructed. He, like Mussolini and Hitler, forms an alliance with major industrialists in the country and the poor find that even though their wages have risen, nothing has changed. The "elite" are still there and times are even better for them.

I think really it all comes to down to the fact that the Nazis and Fascists goal first and foremost was to secure power. They would lie, con, and exploit their way up to that position using any means possible, depending on what was most favorable in their country at that time.

[RadioRaheem84]

Think of Nazism as being just as "socialist" as Baath "socialism" of Syria and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.