Whats the difference between a

[Red Menace]

I was wondering the difference between a socialist and a national socialist? I am a socialist and don't want to be considered a Nazi. whats up with this?

[bezdomni]

If you want details, look it up on the internet. It shouldn't be hard to determine the difference by reading a small blurb written by a socialist and then reading one by a national socialist.

There is very little in common between the two ideologies. The Nazi Party used National Socialism because Socialism was already a popular idea. They wanted to be associated with an idea that was already popular by stealing its name and giving it a completely opposite meaning.

If you say you are a socialist, nobody with a brain will think you are a nazi. Nazis usually call themselves nazis.

[NovelGentry]

There is very little in common between the two ideologies. The Nazi Party used National Socialism because Socialism was already a popular idea. They wanted to be associated with an idea that was already popular by stealing its name and giving it a completely opposite meaning.


What hogwash.

And no doubt I'll be banned for saying such as Elmo once was. The foundations of National Socialism are very much socialist in nature. They are not socialist in the way we think of socialism, but socialist in the way a nationalist might think of socialism.

If you look in the original 25 point program of the German Workers Party which was formulated in Vienna you will probably note some things you may not be so ready to disagree with.

For example:

6. The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever ... be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.

12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

Division of profits ... acquisition of industry... abolish tax on land ... expropriation of land for public utility ... confinscation of war profits!!! There's other clauses in there too... ones about the abolition of rent as income ... immediate communilization of warehouses ... etc.

What more do you want to hear before you consider this to be a socialist platform? Well it's not simply socialist... obviously. But you can see those points, as shown above, which determine it to be socialist in some aspects.

What is unclear in these passages is what defines it as national socialism.

You understand that when you examine points such as these:

1. We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples.

4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.

So to answer the original author's quesiton with some validity and not some canned response about Nazi's trying to play off the popularity of socialism...

The difference between a socialist and a national socialist is that a socialist will never examine these issues with nationalism in mind... no racism, no nationalism. We do not seek to nationalize industry, but to socialize it... we do not seek national self-determination, but self-determination of all peoples... we do not seek land reform and abolition of land tax and rent as income for national (and by this a nazi would mean for the German people, remember, that means no jews) public interest but for the social public interest.

Now of course, this platform was done very early in the rise of the Nazi party. This platform does indeed embody the official ideology of national socialism, or what was coined national socialism, and as you can see, has certain principles in minor commons with socialism. The results of each are astonishingly different (obviously). When nationalism and racism pervades, no matter how good ideas sound, they inevitably turn genocidal and xenaphobic.

Hence the reason why if you ever hear so-called socialists/communists talking about national self-determination or anything of the likes, you can be certain they are probably a closet fascist/nazi of some sorts. This is evident in movements such as third positionism and a lot of so-called maoists movements. That's not to say these things are necessarily Maoist in any form, but many so-called Maoists bend towards this type of nonsense.

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

Creating a healthy middle class? Taking a division of profits? At best the Nazis had a belief in a welfare state in common with reformist "socialists", something NO real Socialist believes in. Socialism is the belief in the rule of the proletariat (working class) in society. Naziism is a nationalist ideology based on the advancement and domination of the Earth of Germanic peoples, with some elements of a welfare state, but with corporatism being the predominant economic philosophy.

[bombeverything]

Socialism can refer to any of various economic and political theories or social systems based on collective (or governmental ownership in it's statist versions) administration of the means of production and the distribution of goods.

However, if only a certain "race" within a country are actually considered citizens (i.e. white people), then this can hardly be considered collective ownership of the means of production.

Basically a national socialist is an idiot that believes in "socialism", but only for those they perceive to be of a certain "race". Also, clown is right, it is unlikely that anyone would think you are a nazi by calling yourself a socialist.

:D


The foundations of National Socialism are very much socialist in nature. They are not socialist in the way we think of socialism, but socialist in the way a nationalist might think of socialism.

But national socialism is more than just an economic program. It is also an idealist theory that is based on racism, mysticism, and a glorification of prejudice. National socialists have no interest in history whilst (most) socialists do.

[NovelGentry]

However, if only a certain "race" within a country are actually considered citizens (i.e. white people), then this can hardly be considered collective ownership of the means of production.

Well of course it can. Ones does not consider it any less collective ownership of the means of production if the bourgeoisie is excluded and only the proletariat is granted such. Ownership of something necessarily implies there are those without ownership, the validity of collective ownership by those with German blood, while not as acceptable to anyone with a brain, can be considered as collective as any other forms of collective ownership. So long as there is ownership there are owners and those disenfranchized.

For example, many socialists here determine trades should decide collective ownership. That is to say, steel workers would have collective ownership of steel mills. Farmers would have collective ownership of farms... etc. While these divisions are not necessarily as arbitrary, they are divisions none the less and are still accepted for "collective ownership."


Basically a national socialist is an idiot that believes in "socialism", but only for those they perceive to be of a certain "race".

Too simplified, and far too much credit given to Nazis here. One thing we should always remember is that national socialism, as it had practically developed, was far different even from this ideological goal.


But national socialism is more than just an economic program.

It is no more or less of an economic program than is socialism. It, like plain old fascism, and like socialism, is a response platform to the failings of capitalism as we think of it. Whether it is a sustainable one is another question (I don't believe so). Regardless of those facts, you cannot discount the idealist foundations of socialism. Certainly we have what we call scientific socialism, but that does not completely overcome the history of socialism with people like Owen and Saint-Simon.


It is also an idealist theory that is based on racism, mysticism, and a glorification of prejudice.

The left also has idealist theories based on mysticism. The fact that it is racist and glorifies prejudice is the outcome of it being a nationalist program. But that is why it is national socialism.


National socialists have no interest in history whilst (most) socialists do.

Far too general a statement. National Socialism had a great interest in history... for example, the history of Aryan peoples.

[Dyst]

Far too general a statement. National Socialism had a great interest in history... for example, the history of Aryan peoples.
Shift "for example" with "excludingly" and then you got it right.