Nazis = Fascists?

[spartan]

Why do alot of leftists regard the Nazis as Fascists?

As far a i can tell National Socialism has got absolutely nothing in common with classical economic Fascism (Corporatism, Integralism, National Syndicalism, etc). The only thing that National Socialism has far more in common with is pure and simple ethnic Nationalism and Totalitarianism.

There is a case to be made that National Socialism has similarities with Fascism when it comes to how they deal with things socially (i.e. highly oppressive Police and intelligence forces and reinforcing traditional social hierarchies) but that isnt enough to categorise it as Fascism as you could make the same case for Stalin's USSR or Saudi Arabia with its Monarchy seeing how both these states had/have these things to a certain extent as well.

I mean one look at Nazi Germany's economy will tell you straight away that they arent Fascists.

There economy was a mixed economy and even though most business enterprises were regulated by the government to a certain extent, this was because the Nazis were building up their war machine and this was a price that the Bourgeois were willing to pay as long as the Nazis suppressed the Communists (Who would have just taken their property off of them).

So can National Socialism really be regarded as Fascism?

If so then i think that we can all agree that it definately isnt in the same mold as Mussolini's Fascism (Which lets face it is the only proper Fascism out there seeing how it was his movement that created it).

[RedAnarchist]

I suppose its like how people associate us with liberals. We are most definately not liberals, and we have very different views and goals, but people still think the left is "liberal", especially in America.

[Dros]

National Socialism is fascist.

Firstly, the charecterization of a fascist economy is that the bourgeoisie own the means of production and run the government but that the government has a large degree of control over said means. This was in fact the case in Nazi Germany. The fact that they were controlling the economy and using that to build an army is irrelevant to an analysis of the objective conditions in the country.

Secondly, Mussolini's fascism was the inspiration for Hitler's fascism and, while not identical, they share many many traits in common. These include but are not limited to militant nationalism/jingoism, economic policies, methodology/practice (the way the rode to power), totalitarianism, etc...

[The Feral Underclass]

On what basis are you making this preposterous hypothesis?


As far a i can tell National Socialism has got absolutely nothing in common with classical economic Fascism (Corporatism, Integralism, National Syndicalism, etc).Then you have clearly never encountered an historical fact about Nazi Germany.


The only thing that National Socialism has far more in common with is pure and simple ethnic Nationalism and Totalitarianism.Ethnic nationalism and totalitarianism are not economic systems...


I mean one look at Nazi Germany's economy will tell you straight away that they arent Fascists.I challenge you to provide one source that supports this assertion. Clearly you seem to think that the evidence to substantiate your proposition is bountiful so kindly supply me with one link to one piece of historical fact that does just that.


So can National Socialism really be regarded as Fascism?Firstly, even if what you say is correct what on earth would be the point of establishing such a fact? The truth? What will this profound revelation do exactly?

Secondly, even if it's true that Nazism did not mimic the economic philosophy of "classical" fascism its social and political philosophy clearly did. From it's statism to it's militarism and from it's anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-individualism to it's imperialist, autocratic, hierarchical collectivism.

Not only is your point incredibly fallacious it's totally redundant. :thumbdown:

[ComradeOm]

If so then i think that we can all agree that it definately isnt in the same mold as Mussolini's FascismIts in the same mould alright, but with a number of obvious differences. Hence the distinction typically made between Italian fascism and National Socialism - two branches (of many) of the fascist tree. That does not mean that the latter is not fascist or that they are two completely different animals. The evolution of fascism in Germany was obviously different to that in Italy but that's not exactly a ground breaking revelation given that the exact same can be said for every political ideology in every nation

Frankly, who has ever not considered National Socialism to be a fascist ideology? Hitler and the Nazis certainly considered themselves fascist, and both Mussolini and generations of later historians have agreed with them


(Which lets face it is the only proper Fascism out there seeing how it was his movement that created it).By this logic only 19th C French radicals can call themselves communists and the Scots have a monopoly on free market liberals :glare:

[chegitz guevara]

I strongly recommend the book, Big Business and Fascism, by Daniel Guerin. It is simply the best exposition of what fascism really is that's out there.

[spartan]

I think alot of you have misunderstood my intentions.

I am not arguing that Nazism wasnt bad, far from it, i am simply arguing that i dont personally think that it can be regarded as having a Fascist economy as there are too many differences between the two ideologies economic wise.

Secondly, Mussolini's fascism was the inspiration for Hitler's fascism and, while not identical, they share many many traits in common. These include but are not limited to militant nationalism/jingoism, economic policies, methodology/practice (the way the rode to power), totalitarianism, etc...
Fascism was Mussolini's failure of an attempt at an economic alternative to Socialism (Mussolini himself was an ex-Socialist) based on class collaboration rather than Marxist class warfare (Or so he said).

The other things that were eventually associated with Fascism (Which you list) could also be said of many other countries which arent considered Fascist.

I challenge you to provide one source that supports this assertion. Clearly you seem to think that the evidence to substantiate your proposition is bountiful so kindly supply me with one link to one piece of historical fact that does just that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany#Economic_policy (Click on the "Economic Policy" section).

Now i admit that i am not very well read up in this specific area of economics but this link shows clearly that Nazi German economic planning was far closer to Keynesian and Soviet economic planning than to Fascist Corporatism/National Syndicalism.

Nazi Germany's economy was a mixed economy with a highly protectionist minded German government that set limits and rules as a way of attaining eventual industrial self sufficiency for the upcoming war that they were planning (In a way a sort of pre-war war economy).

Where is the comparison between Nazi Germany's economy and a Fascist Corporatist/National Syndicalist economy?

In an ideal Fascist economy (Something that Italy, the founders of economic Fascism, didnt even have) independent corporations would get together to set wage and import limits, amongst other things, not the state.

In Nazi Germany it was the government (State) who did these things just like in the USSR after Stalin centralised everything.


Ethnic nationalism and totalitarianism are not economic systems...

I wasnt arguing that they were, i was simply pointing out that National Socialism is far closer to those ideologies then to the economic side of Fascism.

The difference i am trying to make between Nazi Germany and Fascist states is mostly economic where i feel these two ideologies differ considerabley (Which leads me to believe, rightly or wrongly, that National Socialism isnt a form of economic Fascism, though perhaps maybe social Fascism which it certainly has traits of).


Secondly, even if it's true that Nazism did not mimic the economic philosophy of "classical" fascism its social and political philosophy clearly did. From it's statism to it's militarism and from it's anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-individualism to it's imperialist, autocratic, hierarchical collectivism.

As i pointed out earlier those things can be said of other states that we dont regard as Fascist (Saudi Arabia, USSR, etc).

All those things that you list are just one side to Fascism, you are forgetting the economic end of things that clearly defines Fascism as a distinct seperate ideaology from just plain old (Ethnic) Nationalism or State regulated Capitalism (Which are characteristics of Nazi Germany).

Any state at anytime can be regarded as socially Fascist in its actions (Britain with its attempts at long poeriods of detention without trial, USA with their Patriot act, etc) but what clearly defines a state as Fascist in my mind is its economy, and neither Nazi Germany or the modern west was/is economically Fascist.

I think that we need to face facts here, Fascism is an overused word that the modern left like to use as a way of linking itself to a romantic past where we all used to fight Mosley's Blackshirts in the streets.

Fascism economically is practically dead except for in history books.

[chegitz guevara]

You are confusing form for essence.

[Global_Justice]

read michael parentis's blackshirts and reds if u havent already. it explains how nazi's and fascists rose to power in very similar circumstances.

the major difference in my mind is that i view mussolinis fascism as nationalist (not anti-semetic, with jews holding high positions), whereas nazism was ethnic nationalist
but maybe im mistaken.

[chegitz guevara]

I really don't recommend anything by Parenti except Democracy for the Few. Parenti cherry picks too much.

[spartan]

read michael parentis's blackshirts and reds if u havent already. it explains how nazi's and fascists rose to power in very similar circumstances.

How did they rise to power in similar circumstances?

Mussolini threatened to march on Rome with his men which led the government to appoint him Prime Minister (Effectively a coup), whilst Hitler's NSDAP got into power with the consent of the majority of the German people via elections (Though they admittedly tried a coup earlier on which failed miserabley:lol:).

Nothing could be more different!

Sure they may have built up there movements in a similar fashion but i am sure that some militant Marxist-Leninist parties share some uncanny characteristics with those movements on an organizational level.

[chegitz guevara]

Fascism is a mass movement not a set of ideas or government programs. It only arises under specific historical conditions. It is a movement of the ruined petty bourgeoisie, declasse workers, lumpen proletariat, and other class detritus. It appears when the workers movement is on the brink of victory, but fails to move forward AND when imperialism is decaying and the rate of profit is falling.

A fascist movement can appear when one of the previous conditions isn't true, but the leading sectors of capital won't fund the movement or turn over the state to it until both exist. Capitalism must be facing an existential threat before the bourgeoisie will allow another class, however briefly, to take the reigns of state power, and use their social movement to smash the working class and restore profitability.

So far, this has occurred only twice: in Italy and Germany (maybe Japan as well, but I haven't studied it enough to say one way or another). The fact that people who hold fascist ideas may hold power is no more sufficient to render a country fascist than it is to claim a country is communist simply because a Communist wields state power. Spain was not truly fascist, that was propaganda to try and gain support for the Republican cause. General Videla of Argentina may have been a fascist, but Argentina was not fascist.

Don't confuse things that have similar forms as being the same, and don't confuse thngs that have dissimilar forms as being different. The essence of fascism is the movement of the ruined classes, seizing state power, smashing the working class, and restoring profitability to the capitalists.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ By the same token, isn't there the risk that the petit-bourgeoisie will eventually backstab the industrialists and becoming the ruling class themselves without becoming bourgeois? RNK said that the majority and ruling elements of the Nazi party were petit-bourgeois.

[Dros]

^^^ By the same token, isn't there the risk that the petit-bourgeoisie will eventually backstab the industrialists and becoming the ruling class themselves without becoming bourgeois? RNK said that the majority and ruling elements of the Nazi party were petit-bourgeois.

What is that analysis based off of?

[Die Neue Zeit]

RNK's remarks were in a Theory thread of mine on "Capitalism without bourgeois rule."

The backstabbing part is based off of Comrade Nadezhda's remarks on the inefficiency of economic fascism (in a couple of threads), and the fact that there's so much of it AGAINST liberal capitalism. I then remarked on the prole "devils" the bourgeoisie know vs. the petit-bourgeois fascists they don't know.

[Invader Zim]

I'm not sure if this question is as 'preposterous' as is being made out, for three reasons.

1. This is a thread in learning, and these kinds of questions is what learning is here for. And if you are unsure about something, it is good to ask.

2. Fascism and Nazism are not 'fixed' ideologies. Unlike communism, or even industrial capitalism, which have their origions and are founded upon in the ideals of enlightenment and post-enlightenment philosophers, fasism and Nazism were products of their period adn underwent constant evolution as they reacted to new influencial members, ideas and situations. For example, nazism did not begin homophobic and nor did it begin as a genocidal ideology. Italian fascism never began with anti-semetic leanings, it would aquite them later when influenced by external forces (in this case the ideological influence of Hitler). The same can be said of the economic policies of both 'ideologies'. The nazi economic policies, for instance, under went changes when Todt died and was replaced by Speer. No doubt it would have different had Goering, rather than Speer, replaced Todt. So obviously, the economic stratagies employed in Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany were not identical.

3. This question isn't one that Spartan is unique in asking, due to some folly on his part. This is a question which has been asked over and over again by historians. I recall reading a while ago an article in the American Historical Review (I can't remember the author) which debated whether Nazism is indeed fascism or is better suited to the label of totalitarianism. The article was from the 60's so the idea of totalitarian regimes was of course in vogue following the change in perception of 'Uncle Joe'.

So is nazism fascism? I think so. Is asking the question necessarily stupid and diserving of ridicule? I don't think so.

[ComradeOm]

2. Fascism and Nazism are not 'fixed' ideologies. Unlike communism, or even industrial capitalism, which have their origions and are founded upon in the ideals of enlightenment and post-enlightenment philosophers, fasism and Nazism were products of their period adn underwent constant evolution as they reacted to new influencial members, ideas and situationsUnlike communism? Clearly you have never heard of Marxist-Leninism, democratic socialism, Trotskyism, Maoism, or even Marxism ;)

[Sendo]

How did they rise to power in similar circumstances?

Mussolini threatened to march on Rome with his men which led the government to appoint him Prime Minister (Effectively a coup), whilst Hitler's NSDAP got into power with the consent of the majority of the German people via elections (Though they admittedly tried a coup earlier on which failed miserabley:lol:).

Nothing could be more different!


ERN!!! Wrong!

Hitler came to power through a backroom deal with Hindenburg to become Supreme Chancillor and THEN consolidated power with propaganda. The NSDAP did not win Parliament through votes. It is amazing how many people quote Hitler's "election" as a failure of democracy, that the masses are easily swindled in a free society. NSDAP won some seats in Parliament through some insincere Populism (which later led to self-purging of Socialist elements).

[ComradeOm]

Hitler came to power through a backroom deal with Hindenburg to become Supreme Chancillor and THEN consolidated power with propaganda. The NSDAP did not win Parliament through votes. It is amazing how many people quote Hitler's "election" as a failure of democracy, that the masses are easily swindled in a free society. NSDAP won some seats in Parliament through some insincere Populism (which later led to self-purging of Socialist elements).And to tackle the other side of the assertion, Mussolini was invited to form a government by bourgeois politicians that considered him to be easily manipulated. It can hardly be considered a coup and was certainly not the glorious wresting of power that he liked to portray it as. There are obvious parallels in the role of the bourgeoisie in the crowning of both fascist leaders

[Invader Zim]

Unlike communism? Clearly you have never heard of Marxist-Leninism, democratic socialism, Trotskyism, Maoism, or even Marxism ;)

And you clearly have never heard of Karl Marx or Adam Smith. The point is that fascism has no such figure, it was made up as it went along and had no fixed, pre-written ideological basis to be buit upon.

[Luís Henrique]

I think alot of you have misunderstood my intentions.

I am not arguing that Nazism wasnt bad

No, that's not the problem. We are aware that bad != fascist. The problem is simply that Nazism is fascism; there are no important differences between them. Fascism is a totalitarian form of government whose origins lie in the incapability of the State "adequately" repressing the working class and other discontents. From there stem the fascist squads that impose "order" in parallel and apparent opposition to the State, with tacit consent from the lower levels of the State apparatus. This a fascist movement makes (and is the case, clearly, of both Italy and Germany). When the crisis is bad enough that such squads become able to search power (again in collusion with the State itself) then you have a fascist regime. Again it is the case of both Germany and Italy.

Luís Henrique