Right Wing 'Socialism'=Fascism?

[DinodudeEpic]

I been thinking and reading up the history of fascism, and I realized that fascism actually comes from some odd and false understanding of socialism as an anti-individualist, pro-state, and collectivist system. Basically a state-controlled economy.

While I know this is a raping of the term Socialism to mean something that it isn't, was fascism's creation due to something wrong in the socialist movement? I'm just posting questions to start a discussion on the origins of Fascism.

[Broletariat]

I can see how one could easily confuse Stalinism with Fascism ala the KKE etc.

[Ocean Seal]

I been thinking and reading up the history of fascism, and I realized that fascism actually comes from some odd and false understanding of socialism as an anti-individualist, pro-state, and collectivist system. Basically a state-controlled economy.

No.



While I know this is a raping of the term Socialism to mean something that it isn't, was fascism's creation due to something wrong in the socialist movement? I'm just posting questions to start a discussion on the origins of Fascism.
Yes, it was due to the inability of the worker's movement to seize power and the creation of a middle class (in the Marxist sense) mass movement.

[Seth]

In short, no. Fascism originated as a response to socialism, mixing militarism, ultraconservative social views, and fanatic nationalism with populist appeals. And while most like to obsess over its syndicalist origins, fascism is proof that having origins in x does not necessarily mean being influenced by x. It literally took concepts from all over the political spectrum.

For example: http://books.google.com/books/about/The_anarchist_individualist_origins_of_I.html?id=s 25oAAAAMAAJ

It's a third positionist movement, like Nasserism, Baathism, Peronism, etc.


I been thinking and reading up the history of fascism, and I realized that fascism actually comes from some odd and false understanding of socialism as an anti-individualist, pro-state, and collectivist system. Basically a state-controlled economy.
The word socialism is like the word democracy. As an undefined ideal, its easy to get populist points by appealing to it, and it has no one meaning. Liberals like yourself are just one political tendency fighting over that idealist bone.

If, however, we're talking about socialism as something scientific and revolutionary then it doesn't exist outside of Marxism.

[#FF0000]

Depends on how you want to use the word "socialism", like Seth said. Fascism is completely contrary to Marxist socialism. But Fascism itself sorta has links to "guild socialism" and some of "yellow socialism".

[RichardAWilson]

I think you're wrong. In the beginning, Mussolini embraced free-market capitalism.

Furthermore, the election of Hitler was based on backing from the German bourgeoisie.

The core of Nazi-Ideology was rebuilding the German Nation State and preserving State Capitalism, which still allowed the bourgeoisie to bank massive fortunes. The same core can be found in Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain. Yes, there were progressive reforms, just as there have been progressive reforms here in the United States. Nonetheless, those reforms were piecemeal and were used to better control the population.

You'll notice that each progressive reform was negated with a regressive change. (I.e. Introducing pension benefits and then banning the trade unions, building the Autobahn and then depressing the nation's wages, etc., etc.).

Hitler did appeal to the German middle class. After all, the Socialist Movement, which was quite strong in Germany, was divided between the Communist Party's Traditionalists (Leninism) and the Social Democratic Party's Reformists (Bernstein). In effect, the Socialist Middle Class Vote was divided.

Meanwhile, small business owners, middle class social conservatives and middle class nationalists were almost united in backing the Nazi-Party. You have to remember that nationalism is never stronger than when the nation is threatened. (I.e. America after Pearl Harbor, Germany during the Treaty of Versailles, etc., etc.).

Germans hated Western Imperialism (I.e. America, Britain and France) for oppressing them when they were down. Between Western Imperialism, Hyperinflation and the fear of being subjugated to Communism (I.e. Moscow), the German Electorate took a turn toward Nationalism to preserve the German Nation and Germany's Sovereignty.

Religion has never been a terrifyingly strong force in the German Political System. With that said, Germany was still much more religious during that time than it is now. Rural Germans, who were often more religious (I.e. Social Conservatism) turned to Hitler because of Socialism's Do-as-you-will Approach to Cultural and Social Policy. In Hitler, those Germans found the "better of the alternatives. - I.e. Hitler was "tough on crime," opposed homosexuality and believed in creating a German Economy that would keep women in the kitchen.

The one area I find hard to understand is the reason the German Electorate agreed with Hitler on the Jewish Question.

I believe it had something to do with a handful of Jews doing well during Germany's troubling times.

- During the Dark Ages, the Vatican enforced "Usury Laws," which prevented Christians from lending money. However, since the Jews weren't Christians, they were exempted from those "Usury Laws." - I.e. "Jews make good bankers."

As for businessmen (I.e. the bourgeoisie), there was obvious appeal to confiscating Jewish Wealth - as it would then be turned over to them.

A wonderful case of this can be found in Paris during the Nazi Occupation.

Coco Chanel supported the Nazis and even worked for them because she wanted the Nazi Regime to hand over the legal rights to her famed perfume (Chanel Number Five). Her cherished perfume had been created by a Jew.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I been thinking and reading up the history of fascism, and I realized that fascism actually comes from some odd and false understanding of socialism as an anti-individualist, pro-state, and collectivist system. Basically a state-controlled economy.

While I know this is a raping of the term Socialism to mean something that it isn't, was fascism's creation due to something wrong in the socialist movement? I'm just posting questions to start a discussion on the origins of Fascism.

There is a link between the two but not a connection or shared source. Fascism has historically come out of the desire to solve "national crisis" of class conflict. It has always gained ground in opposition to workers movements (socialist or not) and where socialism has been more popular it has taken some of the rhetoric but the goals and motivations and class character are not working class.

In response to the "anarchy" of the two red years in Italy, the fascists "national-syndicalists" counterposed a class-based union movement fighting for worker's demands with a "national union" fighting for "national" demands. National Socialism was similar: they wanted to unite Germany's people by eliminating class or national conflicts within Germany. In both of these cases, they blamed workers and radicals and national minorities for disrupting and degrading the nation and their answer was to ban all independent organizations - even religious or social. The origins of the NAZIs comes out of right-wing militias fighting revolutionaries and militant strikes after WWI (just like Italian fascism coming out of the opposition to workers taking control of factories in Northern Italy). Of course with the NAZIs, they also blamed foreigners and national minorities such as Jews and Roma for causing disruptions, and sought to disenfranchise and then eventually to eliminate them.

So like revolutionary socialism and anarchism they have a connection to the rise of class struggle - but they are definitely on the wrong side of that struggle from a radical working class perspective. To try and understand fascism from their policies and stated goals is a useless effort because these things are fluid - in the US there are "Green Fascists" and even a small group of "Anarchist Fascists" and in Russia there are the "National Bolsheviks". So it's important to look at what interests they are fighting for and who their "solutions" would really benefit, not what they claim.

[Agent Equality]

I can see how one could easily confuse Stalinism with Fascism ala the KKE etc.

What is there to get confused? :rolleyes: They're practically the same thing.

[Tablo]

Furthermore, the election of Hitler was based on backing from the German bourgeoisie.
Hitler wasn't elected...

[#FF0000]

Hitler wasn't elected...

That

is

actually true.

Yeah he was appointed.

[ComradeMan]

Hitler wasn't elected...

Not directly, although his rise to power as Chancellor exploited the "democratic" mechanisms already in place in the German state. The NAZIs were voted for in elections, but the most they actually achieved was about 37%. At the end of the day, due to the political chaos in Germany and a series of elections, collapses, dismissals and resignations Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor- Hitler's party did not have a majority in the Reichstag but they were the biggest single party in it.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I don't get why Right Wingers think the Nazis were Socialists.

[Bardo]

Because it says socialist right in the name! Socialism equals Hitler!

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Far-Right Wing "Socialism" = National Socialism = Nazism = Fascism.

[#FF0000]

Far-Right Wing Socialism

I dunno. Something about this strikes me as wrong.

Socialism is such a useless word.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Nazis may use the word Socialist but the Capitalist United States uses the word Democracy/Democratic this does not make the U.S. a true Democracy.

[ComradeMan]

You can't use left-right to define fascism or nazism, in fact left-right is a pretty shitty dichotomy anyway but it's so entrenched we are stuck with it.:crying:

[Tim Cornelis]

But Fascism itself sorta has links to "guild socialism" and some of "yellow socialism".

I've heard some Ayn Randists make the claim that "guild socialism" was best implemented in Fascist Italy but it makes no sense. I've been reading GDH Cole's Guild Socialism: A plan for Economic Democracy and he explains how self-governing bodies come to replace the state, and argues that the state will diminish “to a very considerable extent” or “it will disappear altogether”, the latter being Cole's personal preference.

Stateless socialism doesn't seem to conform to Fascism...

[Baseball]

I think you're wrong. In the beginning, Mussolini embraced free-market capitalism.

In the beginning, Mussolini was a member of the Italian Socialist Party and considered a rising star in that party.


The core of Nazi-Ideology was rebuilding the German Nation State

Or to continue to build the German nation state, a process which had been going on for the previous six decades (btw, Marx was in complete support of the concept).


and preserving State Capitalism, which still allowed the bourgeoisie to bank massive fortunes.

It would be more accurate to say that National Socialists/Fascists were indifferent one way or the other about companies making profit.




You'll notice that each progressive reform was negated with a regressive change. (I.e. Introducing pension benefits and then banning the trade unions, building the Autobahn and then depressing the nation's wages, etc., etc.).

Trade unions were not banned. Workers were required to join the state run labor union.


Hitler did appeal to the German middle class.

After the dual economic collapses.


After all, the Socialist Movement, which was quite strong in Germany

Yes. Socialism in Germany was far ahead of socialism in other countries



Meanwhile, small business owners, middle class social conservatives and middle class nationalists were almost united in backing the Nazi-Party. You have to remember that nationalism is never stronger than when the nation is threatened. (I.e. America after Pearl Harbor, Germany during the Treaty of Versailles, etc., etc.).


Germans hated Western Imperialism (I.e. America, Britain and France) for oppressing them when they were down. Between Western Imperialism, Hyperinflation and the fear of being subjugated to Communism (I.e. Moscow), the German Electorate took a turn toward Nationalism to preserve the German Nation and Germany's Independence.

The problem here is that ALL the political parties shared the same view-- they all blamed the Versailles system for the problems of Germany. One of the reasons why Hitler was so popular during the 30s is that he was able to do what the governments of the 1920s were unable to do- break Versailles.


Religion has never been a terrifyingly strong force in the German Political System.

If one ignores the religious wars of the 1600s which pretty much leveled the region...


With that said, Germany was still much more religious during that time than it is now. Rural Germans, who were often more religious (I.e. Social Conservatism) turned to Hitler because of Socialism's Do-as-you-will Approach to Cultural and Social Policy. In Hitler, those Germans found the "better of the alternatives. - I.e. Hitler was "tough on crime," opposed homosexuality and believed in creating a German Economy that would keep women in the kitchen.

Well, from a religious angle National Socialism was a Protestant affair: the political strength of the browns was in northern (Protestant Germany) with little support from Catholic southern Germany. This is not a surprise since the Protestants taught a total separation between church and state; whereas the catholics always sought to mix the two (which explains why the removal of religious symbols from public buildings after the Nazis formed a government went off without a hitch in northern Germany but was protested and resisted in southern germany).


Religion has been strong force in german politics.

As an aside, German agriculture was collectivized (or at least attempted to) by Darre the minister who was model in this score was the USSR. There was never any mystery as to what was coming down the pike to rural germany.




The one area I find hard to understand is the reason the German Electorate agreed with Hitler on the Jewish Question.

I believe it had something to do with a handful of Jews doing well during Germany's troubling times.

Jews are always blamed. It is scarcely surprising that socialists would have been opposed to people prospering while others were not.
That is their bette noir.


As for businessmen (I.e. the bourgeoisie), there was obvious appeal to confiscating Jewish Wealth - as it would then be turned over to them.

It is not clear why "left wing social democrats" would be LESS likely to confiscate Jewish wealth than National Socialists.

[Tim Cornelis]

In the beginning, Mussolini embraced free-market capitalism.


In the beginning, Mussolini was a member of the Italian Socialist Party and considered a rising star in that party.


He was probably referring to this quote by Mussolini:

"The [Fascist] government will accord full freedom to private enterprise and will abandon all intervention in private economy" (source: Carl T. Schmidt, "The corporate state in action; Italy under fascism", Oxford University Press, 1939. pp. 115).

[DinodudeEpic]

I didn't say that Fascism is a type of socialism. Notice how I put quotations around 'Socialism'. What I was trying to do was make a discussion about why fascists during the 20th century were often former socialists.

[Thirsty Crow]

I didn't say that Fascism is a type of socialism. Notice how I put quotations around 'Socialism'. What I was trying to do was make a discussion about why fascists during the 20th century were often former socialists.
The issue with Mussolini was his break with the Socialist Party in Italy (the Second International) who were sensible enough to see that the Second World War was an imperialist slaughterfest unlike their famous German counterparts who raised the flag of "Fur Kaiser und Vaterland". It was then that he linked with Italian nationalist irredentism, and especially focused on the Austro-Hungarian Empire which ruled over some houndred or so thousands of Italians within its borders. For him, midway past the war, it was a revolutionary war and he still employe the erhetoric of the emancipation of the working class, supposedly hampered by the imperialism of the Central Powers.

What is really ironic and weird is that this man was 5, or 6 years earlier forcefully denouncing the Italian state for its imperialist ventures in Lybia.

[Nox]

The first thing we need to do is agree on a solid definition for fascism.

That term is thrown around so much it doesn't mean anything anymore.

[RedGrunt]

Desperate capitalism.

[Baseball]

I didn't say that Fascism is a type of socialism. Notice how I put quotations around 'Socialism'. What I was trying to do was make a discussion about why fascists during the 20th century were often former socialists.

1. Nationalism was always a part of socialism- how else does one organize the workers in 19th century Europe (Marx supported German unification as an important forward for the socialist project)?

2. The Communist challenge- Not all socialists, even at that time, agreed that the USSR represented the future.

But it is completely true that socialists were strongly attracted to fascism.

[Tablo]

1. Nationalism was always a part of socialism- how else does one organize the workers in 19th century Europe (Marx supported German unification as an important forward for the socialist project)?

2. The Communist challenge- Not all socialists, even at that time, agreed that the USSR represented the future.

But it is completely true that socialists were strongly attracted to fascism.
Source for any of that?

[#FF0000]

1. Nationalism was always a part of socialism

Nah. Some socialists said nationalism was progressive in a specific time and place. That's about it.

[Luc]

ah fuck it nvm.

sorry guys for the spam :(

[RichardAWilson]

Hitler wasn't elected...

Yes, Hitler was elected.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932

[RichardAWilson]

It is not clear why "left wing social democrats" would be LESS likely to confiscate Jewish wealth than National Socialists.

Left-wing Social Democrats would have confiscated the wealth for the working classes, while the Nazis confiscated Jewish wealth to hand over to the German bourgeoisie.

Furthermore, the Social-Democrats would have compensated the former owners, while the Nazis never had to compensate the Jews.


Religion has been strong force in German politics.

I have to disagree with this one. When compared to Italy, Spain and even Britain, religion played a more minor role in German Politics.

You have to remember that I was pointing to relative importance. Yes, religion was an essential matter in Germany. However, there were more pressing matters at hand than religion. Most voters were voting based on economic and national issues.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes, Hitler was elected.

No, he wasn't. :rolleyes: The NAZIs were elected the majority party and installed Hitler. Hitler lost the only election he ran in.

[Tablo]

Yes, Hitler was elected.
Hitler was fucking NOT elected. The source you linked was a parliamentary election. Quit being a dumbass.

[RichardAWilson]

In a Parliamentary System, such as Germany's, a vote for the Nazi Party was a vote for Hitler, just as (in Britain) a vote for the Labor Party was a vote for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. No, Hitler wasn't elected directly. However, the effect was the same.

[Revolution starts with U]

Umm.. no.
1) Hitler ran for office and lost
2) The position of chancellor was created for Hitler after the NAZIs came to power.

Hitler was never elected and it is an outright lie to suggest as such.

[RichardAWilson]

Hitler was the official image of the Nazi-Party.

After all, Hitler was the leading speaker at every Nazi Rally.

Everybody knew a vote for the Nazi Party was a vote for Hitler as Head of State.

The position of Chancellor wasn't created for Hitler, it had existed before Hitler.

In Germany, the Chancellor served a role similar to a Prime Minister. (I.e. Chairman)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_of_Germany


The office of Chancellor was continued in the Weimar Republic.

The Chancellor was appointed by the President and was responsible to the Reichstag.


Hitler was never elected

In a Parliamentary System, such as Germany's, a vote for the Nazi Party was a vote for Hitler as Chancellor.

[Yuppie Grinder]

no such thing as rightist socialism. national bolshevists, strasserists, all those crazies don't know jack shit.

[Revolution starts with U]

Hitler was the official image of the Nazi-Party.

After all, Hitler was the leading speaker at every Nazi Rally.

Everybody knew a vote for the Nazi Party was a vote for Hitler as Head of State.

The position of Chancellor wasn't created for Hitler, it had existed before Hitler.

In Germany, the Chancellor served a role similar to a Prime Minister. (I.e. Chairman)








In a Parliamentary System, such as Germany's, a vote for the Nazi Party was a vote for Hitler as Chancellor.

Well, I meant chancellor as a position of strong political power, rather than just a "leader of the senate."
But whatever... Hitler was not elected the NAZIs were. Just be truthful and say it how it was.

[Tablo]

Hitler was the official image of the Nazi-Party.

After all, Hitler was the leading speaker at every Nazi Rally.

Everybody knew a vote for the Nazi Party was a vote for Hitler as Head of State.

The position of Chancellor wasn't created for Hitler, it had existed before Hitler.

In Germany, the Chancellor served a role similar to a Prime Minister. (I.e. Chairman)








In a Parliamentary System, such as Germany's, a vote for the Nazi Party was a vote for Hitler as Chancellor.
Chancellor was a fucking APPOINTED position. Quit making shit up.

[RichardAWilson]

Well, considering Hitler was the image of the Nazi-Party and was the Head of the Party, you decide.

[RichardAWilson]

A PRIME MINISTER IS AN APPOINTED POSITION AS WELL!

Like the German voters that voted Nazi didn't know who would be appointed Chancellor. :laugh::laugh::laugh:


Quit making shit up.

Well, you just said the position of Chancellor was "created" by the Nazis.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well, considering Hitler was the image of the Nazi-Party and was the Head of the Party, you decide.

I have decided...

Hitler ran for office and lost. WHat more proof do you need that Hitler was not elected?

There's a difference between being mistaken, and making shit up. You are currently falling into the latter category.

EDIT: Also, the NAZIs won 30% of the seats. To act as if the German people "voted for Hitler" is just absurd. Idk what your point is with all this....

[RichardAWilson]

In 1997, if you voted Labor in Britain, you voted for Tony Blair. Everybody knew who would be appointed as Prime Minister if Labor won the election. The same was true for Germany in 1932.

[Revolution starts with U]

In 1997, if you voted Labor in Britain, you voted for Tony Blair. Everybody knew who would be appointed as Prime Minister if Labor won the election. The same was true for Germany in 1932.

So you are saying Tony Blair was elected? :rolleyes:

[RichardAWilson]

The "point of all of this" was to show the mindset of the German population in 1932 and to show why Socialism didn't prevail (Sectarianism) as Lenin had predicted. Furthermore, I was showing how the Nazi Party was the only viable choice for the German Bourgeoisie - which, as I have shown, was even Anti-Jewish because they wanted to confiscate Jewish wealth for themselves.

[RichardAWilson]

So you are saying Tony Blair was elected?

Tony Blair was indirectly elected as Prime Minister.

Tony Blair and his "New Labor" Ideology had come to be the official image of the Labor Party. The same held true with Thatcher's Conservatives.

Had the British Electorate favored the Liberal-Democrats, the Labor Party would have been forced to shift to the left (I.e. Old Labor).

[Revolution starts with U]

The "point of all of this" was to show the mindset of the German population in 1932 and to show why Socialism didn't prevail (Sectarianism) as Lenin had predicted. Furthermore, I was showing how the Nazi Party was the only viable choice for the German Bourgeoisie - which, as I have shown, was even Anti-Jewish because they wanted to confiscate Jewish wealth for themselves.

Are you forgetting, dismissing, or just not notice that the Party with the second most votes was the Communist Party?

[RichardAWilson]

Remember: In addition to being the Party's Choice for Prime Minister, that person is also head of the Party and has disproportionate influence on Party Ideology.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Also, anybody who claims that Hitler came to power through any means other then the complete inversion of democracy is a silly goose.

[RichardAWilson]

Are you forgetting, dismissing, or just not notice that the Party with the second most votes was the Communist Party?

No, I am not.

If you read what I wrote to begin with, you'd know that I recognized that, had the Leftist Parties formed a Coalition (I.e. Communists, Social-Democrats, Etc.), they would have been able to defeat the Nazis. However, because of sectarianism, the left wouldn't come together when it needed to come together more than ever before.

As I said, the Nazi-Party was the only viable choice for the German Bourgeoisie, Social Conservatives and German Nationalists.

[RichardAWilson]

In effect, the Right-Wing was United while the Left was Divided. - That's the reason Hitler and the Nazis came to power to begin with.

[RichardAWilson]

Plus, the Communist Party didn't come in second place, it was third. The Social Democrats came in second place.

National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP): 37.8%
Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD): 21.9%
Communist Party of Germany (KPD): 14.6%

[Tablo]

In effect, the Right-Wing was United while the Left was Divided. - That's the reason Hitler and the Nazis came to power to begin with.
But still, Hitler was NOT elected. The Nazis were, but Hitler was APPOINTED.

[RichardAWilson]

Had the Communists and Social-Democrats worked together instead of fighting with each other, they could have blocked Hitler's Rise to Power.

[RichardAWilson]

The Nazis were, but Hitler was APPOINTED.

If you vote for the Party, you're also voting for the Party's Choice of Leader.

A vote for the Nazi Party was a vote for Hitler as Chancellor. Plain and simple.

[RichardAWilson]

The Nazi Party was, after all, a Cult of Personality. Hitler was the face and backbone of the Nazi Party. The Nazi Party was nothing before Hitler became the Party's Leader.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

The Party's Platform and Ideology was Hitler's Platform and Ideology.

[Revolution starts with U]

If you vote for the Party, you're also voting for the Party's Choice of Leader.

A vote for the Nazi Party was a vote for Hitler as Chancellor. Plain and simple.

And yet Hitler still wasn't elected. Engaging in falsehood will not make your point any stronger, friend.

[RichardAWilson]

Engaging in falsehood will not make your point any stronger, friend.

If I voted for X, knowing full and well that Y was going to be appointed as Head of the Legislative Branch, then yes, I voted for Y.

[Revolution starts with U]

If I voted for X, knowing full and well that Y was going to be appointed as Head of the Legislative Branch, then yes, I voted for Y.

And yet only 30% of the people voted for X, which allowed X to install Y.

Hitler was not elected.

[RichardAWilson]

37% was still the Majority - Precisely because the Communist Party and the Social-Democratic Party wouldn't work together.

[RichardAWilson]

Plus, my original point still stands, which was to say that Fascism has nothing to do with Socialism. - The Bourgeoisie, the Petty Bourgeoisie and German's middle class social conservatives and nationalists backed Hitler and the Nazis with fervor.

The Nazi-Party was the only viable choice for them and they knew the Agenda that they were backing. They were also fully aware of who they were backing to Head the Legislative Branch (Hitler). Almost everybody that voted Nazi also supported Hitler.

[Revolution starts with U]

37% was still the Majority - Precisely because the Communist Party and the Social-Democratic Party wouldn't work together.

And yet Hitler still wasn't elected. :rolleyes:

[RichardAWilson]

Almost everybody that voted Nazi also supported Hitler.

[RichardAWilson]

37% of Germans supported Hitler and that 37% was the political majority.

[RichardAWilson]

It's like saying Bush wasn't elected... Bush was elected precisely because he had enough votes scattered across enough states to win the Electoral Vote.

[Revolution starts with U]

Bush wasn't elected! :laugh:

No but seriously. Bush was elected because he ran for office and won. Hitler wasn't elected because he ran for office and lost. It would be like saying Ben Bernanke was elected...

[RichardAWilson]

Hitler wasn't elected because he ran for office and lost.

True. But like I said, those Germans that voted Nazi also supported Hitler. The position of Chancellor, like the position of Prime Minister, is an appointed position. However, those Germans voted Nazi knowing full and well that Hitler would be appointed.

- Like I said earlier, Hitler was the "Face and Backbone" of the Nazi Party. Hitler had the final say in every Party matter. Hitler was the image of the Party at all the major rallies and fundraisers. Hitler's work, Mein Kampf, had sold 240,000 copies by the 1932. - Meaning that everybody that voted Nazi was well aware of Hitler's (and the Party's) Antisemitism.

Yes, Hitler lost Germany's Executive vote.

However, he won Germany's Legislative vote by proxy of the Germans that voted for his Party.

[Revolution starts with U]

"by proxy" Idk why you feel the need to go on about this. Hitler was not elected, he was installed. How many pages can we go with you saying "ya but for all intnents and purposes" and me saying "ya, but he wasn't elected." He wasn't elected. Your larger point is right, a left/center coallition might have saved us from the NAZI's (might have). But Hitler was not elected.

[RichardAWilson]

The need to go about it is to say that almost everybody that voted Nazi also voted Hitler.


Your larger point is right, a left-center coalition might have saved us from the Nazi's.

Well, I wouldn't say a "left-center" coalition. It would have been a Red Rose Coalition. (I.e. Communist and Social-Democratic Alliance).

Remember: There were still Revolutionaries within the Social Democratic Party.

Had the two parties compromised, it would have been a Left Coalition. (Albeit one that was committed to electoral socialism).

Given the situation in Germany at the time, it wouldn't have taken much for such a Coalition to embrace a purely Socialist Agenda (I.e. The socialization of the Commanding Heights of the German Economy).

[RichardAWilson]

One reason that Communists refused to work with the Social-Democrats was Stalin and the influence Stalin had over the German Communist Party.

However, the remainder can be attributed to everyday Sectarianism. - Which still remains an obstacle in the left-wing today.

The right-wing today, like the right-wing of yesterday, doesn't have a problem uniting. We, on the left, are often more divided by petty issues and differences than we are united behind the common cause.

[ComradeMan]

Plus, my original point still stands, which was to say that Fascism has nothing to do with Socialism. - The Bourgeoisie, the Petty Bourgeoisie and German's middle class social conservatives and nationalists backed Hitler and the Nazis with fervor..

Your mixing historical Italian Fascism and Nazism in terms of background etc.

The Nazis were the National Socialist Worker's Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) and the founder, Drexler, created the party drawing on a lot of "leftist" ideas to attract German workers away from the communist groups. What you had was a combination of worker's issues mixed with volkisch nationalism. You also have to acknowledge that the party was not static and underwent changes due to changing circumstances throughout the 1920s and 1930s and into the war period.

[RGacky3]

The Nazis were the National Socialist Worker's Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) and the founder, Drexler, created the party drawing on a lot of "leftist" ideas to attract German workers away from the communist groups. What you had was a combination of worker's issues mixed with volkisch nationalism. You also have to acknowledge that the party was not static and underwent changes due to changing circumstances throughout the 1920s and 1930s and into the war period.

Exactly, like the right wing in europe the "peoples parties" or "progress Parties" use a lot of socialist language to win over working class europeans today, even if they have nothing to do with socialism and are actually against it, mainly becuase socialist language many times wins votes.

Even the American Tea-Party uses a lot of leftist language.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In the beginning, Mussolini was a member of the Italian Socialist Party and considered a rising star in that party.And David Horowitz was a 60s radical and my shit was once a live chicken.

Mussolini was not a Marxist even as a socialist, socialist parties of that era were a combination of many different political ideas and members didn't have a shared ideology. Most of the socialist parties supported WWI and became unabashedly (reformist) capitalist parties in short order - Italy's socialist party was one of the few that didn't support WWI and Mussolini did, leading to his expulsion and turn towards nationalism.


Or to continue to build the German nation state, a process which had been going on for the previous six decades (btw, Marx was in complete support of the concept).Yes Marx saw bourgoise democracy as progressive compared to feudal princedoms. Marx saw the French Revolution and the creation of a french nation-state as a step forward, but that didn't mean he supported that nation-state as more progressive than the Paris commune.

The fascists were not fighting for a bourgeois nation over feudalism, they were fighting for national dominance over worker's movements.

[ComradeMan]

Exactly, like the right wing in europe the "peoples parties" or "progress Parties" use a lot of socialist language to win over working class europeans today, even if they have nothing to do with socialism and are actually against it, mainly becuase socialist language many times wins votes.

Even the American Tea-Party uses a lot of leftist language.

Which is why the left-right paradigm is a bad one.

[RGacky3]

It really does'nt have to do with that, I'm talking about rhetoric here, not policy.

[Tablo]

If I voted for X, knowing full and well that Y was going to be appointed as Head of the Legislative Branch, then yes, I voted for Y.
Hitler was appointed by Hindenberg to the position of Chancellor.

[Rafiq]

I been thinking and reading up the history of fascism, and I realized that fascism actually comes from some odd and false understanding of socialism as an anti-individualist, pro-state, and collectivist system. Basically a state-controlled economy.

While I know this is a raping of the term Socialism to mean something that it isn't, was fascism's creation due to something wrong in the socialist movement? I'm just posting questions to start a discussion on the origins of Fascism.



If that's your definition of Fascism than I am a hardcore Fascist. Too bad it's not, and is just an emotional burst of Liberal shit that happened to roll of your distastful tongue.

[Revolution starts with U]

If that's your definition of Fascism than I am a hardcore Fascist...

Food for thought ;)

[Baseball]

Also, anybody who claims that Hitler came to power through any means other then the complete inversion of democracy is a silly goose.


Hitler's election as chancellor was entirely democratic, and efforts to block it outside of the voting booth or parliamentary maneuvering is what would have inverted democracy. At best, the suggestion has been made here that the failure of Communists and Social Democrats uniting was responsible ie. an inability to work together within the system.

But would the Social Democrats or Communists have supported a declaration of martial law (a possibility in the early 30s), or a millitary coup d'etat against the nazis (another real possibility up until the death of Hindenburg and thereafter a series of disjointed plots) or even a Hohenzollern restoration (which the nazis, communists, and social democrats worked together to block). All of these would have had a far greater chance of blocking the browns winning the government, or at the very least constraining their power once in.

[Baseball]

But Hitler was not elected.

He was appointed by Hindenburg, and was confirmed in a vote in the Reichtag.

[La Comédie Noire]

Hitler was popular, but he wasn't that popular and the Nazi party's forays into working class constituencies actually ended up losing them middle class votes. It should also be noted the position of Chancellor became a revolving door of sorts as many people were appointed and then left, being unable to deal with the volatile situation. The Army basically said to Hitler "either you get things under control, or we will." The Nationalists also went along with Hitler, but begrudgingly, finding him to be plebeian and distasteful .

As for his popularity, the Nazi's most important asset was their propaganda, which was funded generously by the bourgeoisie. They really blew the other parties out of the water with their campaigning.

So while it may have been sanctified by 30% of the population, there was a lot of moves at the very top involved, as well as some good old fashion mind manipulation.

I guess what people really are arguing against here is the simple tale told in history classes around the United States about ignorant sheeple who elected Adolf Hitler unanimously because he promised to rule for them and give some antisemitic sops to their darker natures. (fun fact: The Nazis had to totally drop their antisemitism in some places because people either didn't respond or found it to be off putting)

And of course in the end we find out that liberal democracies are the height of civilization and trying anything else will lead to blood soaked horror.

[Revolution starts with U]

He was appointed by Hindenburg, and was confirmed in a vote in the Reichtag.

And yet he wasn't elected. Jesus H Christ will you people give it up already? He was not elected, he was not elected, he was not elected.

[ComradeMan]

He was appointed by Hindenburg, and was confirmed in a vote in the Reichtag.

He was indeed appointed by Hindenburg and the party had about 37% in the Reichstag, not a majority but the biggest single party. This is however against a backdrop of rioting, street agitation and general chaos- stirred up by... guess who?

The situation in Germany was becoming impossible at street level. But the fact remains that Hitler stood for election in March 1932 against Paul von Hindenburg and came second and again in April 1932, coming second again. Hitler's vote increased in the second election but so did Hindenburg's as there were only three candidates and not four in the second election. Hindenburg inititally appointed the aristocratic Franz von Papen (1879-1969) as Chancellor. Von Papen immediately dissolved the Reichstag and announced new elections. Violence and street-fighting became so bad that martial law was even declared in Berlin.

In the July elections the NSDAP party won 230 seats in the Reichstag, the biggest party, but not a majority out of the 608. Hitler made demands to Hindenburg that he appoint Hitler as chancellor but Hindenburg declined, according to Otto Meißner due to the distrust Hindenburg had for Hitler's party being "noisy", "undisciplined" and "intolerant. (Meißner testified at Nuremburg). There were again elections in late 1932 and the NSDAP party lost about 34 seats- approximately equivalent to 2 million votes. Hindenburg was getting desperate, he dismissed Von Papen and appointed this time General Kurt von Schleicher (1882-1934: died in the night of the "long knives"). However even Von Schleicher was still unable to restore order and bring an end to the chaos and resigned after 57 days in office. Von Schleicher was effectively the last chancellor of the Weimar Republic.

Finally in January 1933 Hindenburg bowed to the pressure of the ungovernable situation and appointed Hitler as Chancellor even though the NSDAP party had only about 37% in the Reichstag, nowhere near a majority, but was the biggest party.

The history of NSDAP "rule" is from that point one of intrigue and conspiracy to consolidate power and slowly remove the democratic mechanisms that were in place. The Reichstag fire, attributed to a Dutch communist, has been suspected by some historians to have been an inside job by the NSDAP as it allowed them to bring in "emergency" security measures (sound familiar???) to protect Germany from communist plots. These measures basically placed restrictions/limitations on freedom of expression, opinion, the press, privacy laws and so on. The "gestapo" police-state was already in the making. After this event, a couple of weeks later, Hitler pushed the Reichstag to give him "temporary" dictatorial powers in order to save "German freedom"- the Reichstag voted 441 yes and 84 no. In March 1933 the so-called Ermächtigungsgesetz ("Enabling Act") made Hitler dictator to full effect and suspended all constitutional, i.e. democratic, mechanisms and limitations on his power. Interestingly, in the March 1933 elections the NSDAP only secured about 44%, an increase, but not a clear majority.

To sum up, it could be argued basically that Hitler bullied his way into office and once in office "democratically" consolidated his power in such a way as to ensure no more democracy or democratic mechanisms could have him removed.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=ComradeMan;2276222]He was indeed appointed by Hindenburg and the party had about 37% in the Reichstag, not a majority but the biggest single party.

But so what. Most governments in continental Europe do not have heads of government who themselves command 50% + 1 in their respective parliaments.


This is however against a backdrop of rioting, street agitation and general chaos- stirred up by... guess who?

The nazis and communists, to be sure.


The situation in Germany was becoming impossible at street level. But the fact remains that Hitler stood for election in March 1932 against Paul von Hindenburg and came second and again in April 1932, coming second again. Hitler's vote increased in the second election but so did Hindenburg's as there were only three candidates and not four in the second election. Hindenburg inititally appointed the aristocratic Franz von Papen (1879-1969) as Chancellor. Von Papen immediately dissolved the Reichstag and announced new elections. Violence and street-fighting became so bad that martial law was even declared in Berlin.

A source of "power" (the military) which Hitler, when chancellor, worked to consolidate under his control. Would an independent German military, free to disregard the elected head of government, have been seen as a democratic or undemocratic mechanism?


In the July elections the NSDAP party won 230 seats in the Reichstag, the biggest party, but not a majority out of the 608. Hitler made demands to Hindenburg that he appoint Hitler as chancellor but Hindenburg declined, according to Otto Meißner due to the distrust Hindenburg had for Hitler's party being "noisy", "undisciplined" and "intolerant. (Meißner testified at Nuremburg). There were again elections in late 1932 and the NSDAP party lost about 34 seats- approximately equivalent to 2 million votes. Hindenburg was getting desperate, he dismissed Von Papen and appointed this time General Kurt von Schleicher (1882-1934: died in the night of the "long knives"). However even Von Schleicher was still unable to restore order and bring an end to the chaos and resigned after 57 days in office. Von Schleicher was effectively the last chancellor of the Weimar Republic.

Finally in January 1933 Hindenburg bowed to the pressure of the ungovernable situation and appointed Hitler as Chancellor even though the NSDAP party had only about 37% in the Reichstag, nowhere near a majority, but was the biggest party.

Yes. Hitler was the last choice- and there were no others- within the democratic Weimar system


The history of NSDAP "rule" is from that point one of intrigue and conspiracy to consolidate power and slowly remove the democratic mechanisms that were in place. The Reichstag fire, attributed to a Dutch communist, has been suspected by some historians to have been an inside job by the NSDAP as it allowed them to bring in "emergency" security measures (sound familiar???) to protect Germany from communist plots. These measures basically placed restrictions/limitations on freedom of
expression, opinion, the press, privacy laws and so on.

Yes. And...?


The "gestapo" police-state was already in the making. After this event, a couple of weeks later, Hitler pushed the Reichstag to give him "temporary" dictatorial powers in order to save "German freedom"- the Reichstag voted 441 yes and 84 no. In March 1933 the so-called Ermächtigungsgesetz ("Enabling Act") made Hitler dictator to full effect and suspended all constitutional, i.e. democratic, mechanisms and limitations on his power. Interestingly, in the March 1933 elections the NSDAP only secured about 44%, an increase, but not a clear majority.

Yes. And...?


To sum up, it could be argued basically that Hitler bullied his way into office and once in office "democratically" consolidated his power in such a way as to ensure no more democracy or democratic mechanisms could have him removed.

Or any other mechanism- but then again democracy can shoot itself democratically.

[RGacky3]

The nazis and communists, to be sure.


The communists were strongly against the Nazis before anyone else was, are you blaiming the communists for not winning?

[ComradeMan]

But so what. Most governments in continental Europe do not have heads of government who themselves command 50% + 1 in their respective parliaments..The sole purpose of that post was to narrate the events leading to Hitler's being appointed Chancellor. It was not to debate continental European political structures.

The facts stand-

The majority of Germans never voted for Hitler and/or his party.

Hitler used tactics that would be "illegal" today to get to force his way into power and force, so to speak, Hindeburg's hand in the matter.

Hitler was not elected as Chancellor, he was appointed.

Deal with the fact- you were wrong. Grow up, admit your mistake- people will think more highly of you anyway- and stop trying to find some way or another that you were not wrong in saying "Hitler was elected" when in fact you were wrong and he wasn't.

[Baseball]

[
QUOTE=RichardAWilson;2274651]Left-wing Social Democrats would have confiscated the wealth for the working classes, while the Nazis confiscated Jewish wealth to hand over to the German bourgeoisie.

It is difficult to see how the explosion of cheap consumer goods, redevelopment, housing construction, for all intents universal employment, industrial revival ect would have been opposed by Social Democrats and Communists.


Furthermore, the Social-Democrats would have compensated the former owners, while the Nazis never had to compensate the Jews.

Perhaps so.

But Communists would never have.




I have to disagree with this one. When compared to Italy, Spain and even Britain, religion played a more minor role in German Politics.

You have to remember that I was pointing to relative importance. Yes, religion was an essential matter in Germany. However, there were more pressing matters at hand than religion. Most voters were voting based on economic and national issues.

And people in Italy, Spain and Brittain didn't? The Fascists did not sweep into power on the banner of doing a better of enforcing Canon Law; no government of England was formed over disputes regarding the appointment of a bishop somewhere.
The religious divide was a source of political instability throughout the history of the German Empire. One of the efforts of National Socialists was to try to eliminate those religious disputes by first marginalizing religion in public and then by forcing the two churches to merge and adopt a common liturgy.

[RGacky3]

It is difficult to see how the explosion of cheap consumer goods, redevelopment, housing construction, for all intents universal employment, industrial revival ect would have been opposed by Social Democrats and Communists.


... Would it be opposed by you? Whats your point?

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=ComradeMan;2276333]The sole purpose of that post was to narrate the events leading to Hitler's being appointed Chancellor. It was not to debate continental European political structures.

The facts stand-

The majority of Germans never voted for Hitler and/or his party.

But so what? It does not delegitimize his election by the Reichtag as chancellor, any more so than any other head of government also in office with less than half his parliament.


Hitler used tactics that would be "illegal" today to get to force his way into power and force, so to speak, Hindeburg's hand in the matter.

And...?


Hitler was not elected as Chancellor, he was appointed.

Deal with the fact- you were wrong.

And...?

The only relevence here is to the extent Hitler was popular within Germany.
And he was; nobody historian disputes this.

[La Comédie Noire]

The only relevance here is to the extent Hitler was popular within Germany.

I think comrademan is trying to show us how fragile and temporary that popularity was and how Hitler took steps to ensure that he stayed in power. I'm of the the same opinion as Richard Evans on this, if Hitler hadn't of come to power, the army would have and it was damn close.

But I mean think about the other organized parties and how they were limited as compared to the NSPD. The Catholic Center Party focused on Catholics, the Nationalists focused on land owners and rural people, the communists had workers and the unemployed, while the socialists had organized labor. Hitler had a message that he applied to the German nation with a rhetoric vague enough to appeal to almost anyone. The Nazis don't necessarily represent a hard right, but more of a synthesis of ideas around at the time that led to a widely appealing populism. Not unlike what modern parties try to do today. This is of course me trying to understand their electoral success, I am by no means saying communists or socialists should dilute their message in order to win over the liberals.

[ComradeMan]

Hitler got in through backroom dealing because he was repeatedly defeated when it was "open" democracy. He was even doing this backroom dealing with the people he was attacking politically. There was little democratic in his appointment as Chancellor.


But so what? It does not delegitimize his election by the Reichtag as chancellor, any more so than any other head of government also in office with less than half his parliament.

Ma vaffanculo va'.... per la miseria!

HE WASN'T FUCKING ELECTED BY THE REICHSTAG! He was APPOINTED by Hindenburg....!!!

Why is it so hard?

[Tim Cornelis]

If person A receives 53% of the votes.
And person B 37% of the votes.
And person C 10% of the votes.

Person A is elected.

If person A appoints Y, Y is not elected.

If person A appoints B, B is not elected.

A = Hindenburg
B = Hitler
C = Thälmann
Y = random bloke

Conclusion: Hitler was not elected.

[Yuppie Grinder]

37% of Germans supported Hitler and that 37% was the political majority.
largest percentile =/= majority