Were the Nazis socialist? (again)

[da_prole]

That's as about as stupid as linking the nazis to socialism.
I don't suppose you've ever read the NSDAP Party Guidelines, have you? They are very socialist in nature. Hell, the Sturmabteilung actually aligned themselves with and worked with Communists on many occassions. You do know they adopted the motto of the Bolsheviks from 1917: "Peasants, Workers, and Soldiers"? Nazism, at least as outlined by the NSDAP Platform, was just Socialism with added elements of Nationalism. It's National Socialism.

Although I agree with you that equating Nietzsche with Nazis is stupid, so is saying that the Nazis weren't socialist. It's a bad comparison, that's all.

[LSD]

I don't suppose you've ever read the NSDAP Party Guidelines, have you?

Actually I have, several times. And while the initial party platform was clearly influenced by 19th century socialist thought, it was far more influenced by romantic nationalism and mittelstand regressionism.

Remember, the chief definition of fascism is a defense of capital in response to an active and radical workers' movement.

That's not to say that the Nazis did not employ principles of command economics, but "Socialism" is not just another word for "market hampering". It has a very specific economic and class meaning, neither of which the NSDAP met.

Schacht and Goering tended to adhered to the classical fascist principle of "corporatism" so the state often had a leading role in shaping general economic goals. But the existance of capital markets and the private ownership of capital was never even touched.

The prewar years of National Socialism were some of the most profitable in German corporate history. Labour laws were abolished, unions were outlawed, there has yet to be another government that is so good to its business "constituents".


Hell, the Sturmabteilung actually aligned themselves with and worked with Communists on many occassions.

:blink:

The NSDAP was founded on anti-Marxism. To the Nazi mind, communism was nothing more than "Judaeo-bolshevism". The Nazi party would have sooner flown to the moon than "work with" communists.


Nazism, at least as outlined by the NSDAP Platform, was just Socialism with added elements of Nationalism. It's National Socialism.

:rolleyes:

And the DPRK is democratic.

[ZX3]

That's not to say that the Nazis did not employ principles of command economics, but "Socialism" is not just another word for "market hampering". It has a very specific economic and class meaning, neither of which the NSDAP met.

Schacht and Goering tended to adhered to the classical fascist principle of "corporatism" so the state often had a leading role in shaping general economic goals. But the existance of capital markets and the private ownership of capital was never even touched.

It is certainly fair to make such a claim. But I think such a claim needs to be considered in its origin. It strikes me that modern socialist paerties of Europe embrace and defend capitalism, corporate profit ect. to some extent. Whether the contemporary Social Democrats of Germany or the contemporary Labor Party of the UK are "socialist" parties, is a subject to debate. They certainly insist they were. As did the National Socialists. A more accurate conclusion would be that the rejection of the title socialist to the nazis by other socialists ought to be viewed as a partisan claim, one socialist denying the other is a socialist. It seems to happen all the time on this board.


The prewar years of National Socialism were some of the most profitable in German corporate history. Labour laws were abolished, unions were outlawed, there has yet to be another government that is so good to its business "constituents".

Labor laws were quite toughened in nazi germany. Workers wages were fixed and so were not arbitrarily determined by the capitalist. Employment was basically guaranteed (terminations reqired state approval). Unions were mandatory, not abolished (they were not "free" labor unions of course, but such a state of affairs is a reasonable and logical end result of socialism).


Hell, the Sturmabteilung actually aligned themselves with and worked with Communists on many occassions.

:blink:

The NSDAP was founded on anti-Marxism. To the Nazi mind, communism was nothing more than "Judaeo-bolshevism". The Nazi party would have sooner flown to the moon than "work with" communists.

The two worked together quite often. Party membership was fluid, as members easily and often switched side. The two were frequently on the same side during labor strife. In the Reichtag, each parties delegates were frequently seen together of the floor (Goering and Thalman were quite close). And of course after 1933, Hitler only would permit communists to join the nazis (they had sufficient revolutionary timber).



[/QUOTE]

[Ander]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:45 PM
The Nazi party would have sooner flown to the moon than "work with" communists.
Does the Nazi-Soviet Pact count?

[LSD]

It strikes me that modern socialist paerties of Europe embrace and defend capitalism, corporate profit ect. to some extent.

They may "embrace" capitalism, but their fundamental purpose remains to "hamper" the "free market" for the purposes of social welfare.

Just how actually socialist modern "socialist" parties are is, of course, debatable, but what is not is that fascism, as a political model, is fundamentally founded on the defense of capital.

Social-democratic parties, no matter how reformist, work to improve the general living standards of the exploited majority. Fascism, however, is about serving a very small reactionary cadre and manipulating the rest of society to follow that regressive line.

That's not to say that fascism cannot be very appealing, especially in times of chaos and crisis. After all, what it promisses is stability and a return to "order".

And you see that's what ultimately seperates fascism from socialism. Socialism looks forwards to a progressive reorgnization of society along more majoritarian and participatory lines, fascism looks backwards to the "good old days" prior to modern development.

They are, in effect, the complete inverse of each other.


Whether the contemporary Social Democrats of Germany or the contemporary Labor Party of the UK are "socialist" parties, is a subject to debate. They certainly insist they were.

Again, political self-identification is usually less than useful. The DPRK calls itself "democratic"; Turkmenistan calls itself a "republic"; the Australian Liberal Party calls itself "liberal".

When judging a party and its politics, we cabnot rely on what they "insist" they are. Socialism has a specific meaning and modern mainstream socialist parties are not it.

Neither, of course, is fascism. Again, socialism requires the empowerment of the workers, fascism is about subjugating the workers for the bennefit of the state.

Fascism rejects class-based analysis and instead looks to the "nation". Fascist governments do not allow completely free markets, but their intervention in the economy is not primarily for social welfare, but for the glorificaton of state authority.

As such is accomplishes two important goals; firstly, it forcibly maintains the status quo (and, if possible, may even regress somewhat) which makes the elites and mittelstand happy; and secondly, it subsitutes class politics for "national" politics and as such blunts the labour movement.

Socialism is a result of a strong united workers' front; fascism is the capitalist response to the same.

They have nothing in common.


Labor laws were quite toughened in nazi germany. Workers wages were fixed and so were not arbitrarily determined by the capitalist.

No, they were just set artificially low. And with the workers stripped of any ability to lobby for change, it was profit-city for the hungry German bourgeoisie.

Sure they introduces the occasional social program, after all, their main agenda was to keep the workers from uniting again. But their primary consituence always remained the rulling economic elites and the befuddled anachronistic mitelstand.

"Socialism" is not just another word for "market hampering" or "command economics". There are lots of reasons why a government might want to plan the economy, and most of them have nothing to do with socialism.

Most military dictatorships in history have controlled, to one degree or another, what is produced within their territory. It's in their state interest to perpetuate their power by any means nescessary.

The same was true for Nazi Germany.


Unions were mandatory, not abolished (they were not "free" labor unions of course, but such a state of affairs is a reasonable and logical end result of socialism).

"Unions" were not mandatory, they were outlawed. There was one state-controlled body which claimed to represent workers, but they had absolutely no say over its managment, policies, or actions.

Instead of negotiating with the bosses, the DAF merely enforced the decrees of the capitalist elite.

Again, the entire fascist experiment was always about suppressing worker agitation. Outlawing unions and effectively militarizing employment was all a part of this general programme.

And how on earth do you figure that castrated lackey unions are the "end result" of socialism? Socialism is about empowering the workers and their organizations.

Obviously fascism has an interest in eliminating free syndicates, stiffling worker power is why they exist; but a socialist society has precisely the opposite interest. It's constituency is the active and political working class.

Obviously there have been some traqic failures in the past and many self-declared "socialist" states have unfortunately fallen into the trap of the "state union", But, again, these states were no more socialist than the US is democratic.


The two worked together quite often.

Examples?


The two were frequently on the same side during labor strife.

Nonsense.

The NSDAP was anti-organized labour from the begining. Go read Mein Kampf again. There was nothing (aside from the Jews of course) whom Hitler hated more than "reds".

In Hitler's mind and in the minds of most Nazis, it was the socialists who had betrayed Germany at the close of the First World War. Because of this percieved treachery, the Nazis had nothing but contempt for socialists in all their forms.

Oh sure, in the early days, there were some social-democratic elements in the party, but they were all expelled after '34. By the time the Nazis began to set economic policy and lingering traces of socialist influence had been expunged.


Goering and Thalman were quite close

:blink:

Thalmann was imprisoned and executed for his opposition to Nazi Germany. Prior even to the ascendency of Hitler, he actively campaigned against the Nazis and even proposed a general strike following Hitler's appointment.

He was most certainly not "close" to any Nazi leader, nor did he ever "work with" the Nazi party.

I don't know where you're getting this bullshit from, but it bears no resemblence to historical fact.


Does the Nazi-Soviet Pact count?

Not really.

Nazi Germany's willingness to declare a truce with the USSR no more shows that they were "secretly socialist" than their agreement with Japan shows that they were "not racist".

[Krypto-Communist]

Aren't fascist movements backed mainly by the middle-class of a certain society rather than the working-class and the big bourgeoisie? As I recall, it is the middle-classes that are the most reactionary in their politics and have a disdain for super exploitive capitalists (they deter their standard of living), government taxation (that's my money!), and the working-class (damn communists!).

Fascism seems more like a philosophy that hates the extreme left (communism, leninism) and the Laissez-Faire capitalists. Nazism was all of that except that it had a racial and biological element to it. And as long as some of the big industrialists cooperated, they were left to make money and be in business.

Since the USA is a pre-dominantly middle-class nation, it seems like fascism would be a piece of cake to accomplish here.