Ridiuculous definition of Nazism.

[Nusocialist]

I found this ridiculous definition of Nazism.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/national+socialism

National Socialism
n.
Nazism.

Noun 1. national socialism - a form of socialism featuring racism and expansionism


Has anyone else noticed a growing tendency on the right to label the fascists socialist?

[Fawkes]

As much as we may hate to admit it, they were to an extent socialist.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:14 am
As much as we may hate to admit it, they were to an extent socialist.
How exactly?

[Demogorgon]

They love to do this. They simply brand embarrassing right wing movements as left wing and hope nobody notices.

I've heard them try to claim British imperialism was left wing as it reduced free trade between British colonies and continental Europe. (Yes seriously).

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:14 am
As much as we may hate to admit it, they were to an extent socialist.
Unless you are some rightist who defines socialist as any kind of gov't intervention then I fail to see how.
They are anti-thetical to socialism really,they are what happens when the capitalist classes fear revolution,they are just the 20th century version of the Bonapartists.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:18 am
They love to do this. They simply brand embarrassing right wing movements as left wing and hope nobody notices.

I've heard them try to claim British imperialism was left wing as it reduced free trade between British colonies and continental Europe. (Yes seriously).
It is quite ironic as the real powers behind the capitalist system abandon free markets whenever they need to.
Being rightwing has never been about free markets that is just propaganda, the true free marketeers are socialists like Proudhon or Benjamin Tucker.

This is just part of the movement to redefine capitalism as simply voluntary exchange and socialism as simply gov't ownership of the means of production.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Nusocialist+January 25, 2007 01:21 am--> (Nusocialist @ January 25, 2007 01:21 am)
[email protected] 25, 2007 01:18 am
They love to do this. They simply brand embarrassing right wing movements as left wing and hope nobody notices.

I've heard them try to claim British imperialism was left wing as it reduced free trade between British colonies and continental Europe. (Yes seriously).
It is quite ironic as the real powers behind the capitalist system abandon free markets whenever they need to.
Being rightwing has never been about free markets that is just propaganda, the true free marketeers are socialists like Proudhon or Benjamin Tucker.

This is just part of the movement to redefine capitalism as simply voluntary exchange and socialism as simply gov't ownership of the means of production. [/b]
Well of course, it doesn't take a PHD in economics to notice that capitalism is not exactly the great free market system certain people would like you to think it is.

If you look at any system where capitalism has been really dominant, you will immediately notice that it involves a pretty powerful government restraining the free market for the benefit of the corporations.

In all truth capitalism leads to oligopolies forming, and oligopolies are anything but free markets.

[Fawkes]

A lot of the means of production in Nazi Germany was socialized and that which wasn't was very heavily restricted by the government. Yes, very vague, but nonetheless, that could be related to socialism.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:27 am
A lot of the means of production in Nazi Germany was socialized and that which wasn't was very heavily restricted by the government. Yes, very vague, but nonetheless, that could be related to socialism.
That isn't really socialism though because a dictator owned them?
How do you define socialism?

And people downplay the role of big business in nazism,they were very supportive.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:27 am
In all truth capitalism leads to oligopolies forming, and oligopolies are anything but free markets.
I agree with the mutualists when they say that in a completely free market you wouldn't even get capitalism let alone corporations and oligopolies.

So oligopolies are not a natural outgrowth of the market,they like capitalists themselves require the state to bring them about and sustain them.

So you could say capitalism is diametrically opposed to free markets.Not that free markets are too great themselves.It is just fun to out free market libertarians from a socialist position.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Nusocialist+January 25, 2007 01:36 am--> (Nusocialist @ January 25, 2007 01:36 am)
[email protected] 25, 2007 01:27 am
In all truth capitalism leads to oligopolies forming, and oligopolies are anything but free markets.
I agree with the mutualists when they say that in a completely free market you wouldn't even get capitalism let alone corporations and oligopolies.

So oligopolies are not a natural outgrowth of the market,they like capitalists themselves require the state to bring them about and sustain them.

So you could say capitalism is diametrically opposed to free markets.Not that free markets are too great themselves.It is just fun to out free market libertarians from a socialist position. [/b]
I agree with you. Mutualism propably is the purest form of free market thinking. I have never understood this belief in free markets which then turns into support for capitalism. It's like saying you want to be in perfect health and then asking which brand of cigarette you should try :lol:

[Tekun]

Trotksy clearly explains and differentiates national socialism and socialism in What is National Socialism? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-ger/330610.htm)

Pretty good read

[A SCANNER DARKLY]

Just because some of his pledges were socialist doesn't mean he is in the least bit socialist.

[razboz]

Nazi ideology did have some socialist elements in it. FOr example they believed that everyone should work for the common good, and that this should be shared amongst the Aryan Germans. Many of the more "radical" Nazis were also vehemently opposed to bourgeois and aristocratic classes and had very strong working-class affinities. If i remember correctly they tended to group these with the hated rich jews and intellectuals often confusing them with Communists too. In their minds the conspiracy was quite expansive. I believe the SA wanted to have a revolution to depose the ruling and upper classes right after Hitler was appointed Chancellor. Hitler organized the Night of the Long knives and he didn't have to worry anymore.

Having said that the Nazis probably dont count as socialist in any but the most moronic of worlds.

[rouchambeau]

Socialism is a veary broad term that can be used to define any collectivist system. So yeah, Nazis are socialists.

[JKP]

Nazi Germany was closer to Keynesian.

The destruction of the trade unions and other anti-worker attacks makes the third Reich definitely not socialist.

And of course their pro-capitalist stance:

http://www.traces.org/images/henryford.medal.jpg

http://www.traces.org/images/henryford.gif

"The Hitler regime honored Henry Ford for his enduring support by bestowing upon him this medal, the Verdienstkreutz Deutscher Adler (the Grand Service Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle). "

[bcbm]

Nazi ideology originally incorporated some socialist ideas, but these were jettisoned when they got power and the entire left-wing of the Nazi party was killed in the night of the long knives.

[Ol' Dirty]

The Nazi Party was socialist in name only by the time of Hitlers comandeer of the party. It was once semisocialist at one point, when hitler wa assigned to infultrate the party by the Heer, he made it into a ruthlessly effective vehicle for authoritarianism. It is a bit like, although I have used this analogy before, calling North Korea a "Democratic People's Republic," which is both redundant and incorrect. A lot of former Trotskyists turn out to be hardcore conservatives in the end.