Need help

[Pogue]

I'm in a forum debate with about 3 libertarians and they keep saying Hitler as a socialist as a slur against me. What facts are there to combat this? They say that state control of the economy is socialism.

[Pogue]

(Obviously I know Hitler was not a socialist but their definition of socialism could be said to be true, as it is accepted as such in many academic circles. I need hard facts which show the contradiction between Hitler's social/economic theories and the theories of socialism)

[mikelepore]

It's the Libertarians who are most like Hitler, claiming that the cause of social inequality is that some people are naturally superior to others, and vigorous competitions make the superior people rise and the inferior people sink. This, they say, is "nature's" way, and therefore movements to promote equality should be opposed. The Libertarians say it about economic strata the way Hitler said it about races.

Socialists say that the cause of social inequality is the artificial condition of people being assigned unequal environments at birth, sometimes explaining this with such metaphors as the "unlevel playing field", people given "head starts" that are various "distances from the finish line", etc.

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm in a forum debate with about 3 libertarians and they keep saying Hitler as a socialist as a slur against me. What facts are there to combat this? They say that state control of the economy is socialism.

Hitler was a socialist, but he was a national socialist. Here is the definition of national socialism:
"National Socialism typically refers to ideologies that promote uniting the working class of a specific ethnic, national, or racial lines into a proletarian nation [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_socialism#cite_note-0) while opposing capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism), communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism), conservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism), international (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalism) socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism), liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) and nations, ethnicities or other groups that are deemed to be repressive of national socialism. This idea was espoused by multiple political movements and leaders, especially in Europe including Enrico Corradini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Corradini) and especially and most predominantly the ideology of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party) (a.k.a. Nazi Party) led by Adolf Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler). The form of national socialism utilized by Hitler and groups related to the Nazis are often considered as variants of fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism)." (wikipedia.org)

You can see that you are not a national socialist, most likely a libertarian socialist.

You must always remember that socialism is an economic model. It can be used by fascists, liberals, etc... Your argument against these libertarians is to accept that Hitler is a socialist, but differentiate yourself from the Nazi party due to your leftist social views.

- August

[mikelepore]

For the opponents of socialism to think they can define the meaning of the "socialism", while socialists are incorrect about its meaning, is rather absurd. It's something like: If you want to know Copernicus' view of the solar system, ask the Inquisition, or, if you want to hear the arguments for ovethrowing monarcy and replacing it by a republic, ask the king to tell you about it.

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm in a forum debate with about 3 libertarians and they keep saying Hitler as a socialist as a slur against me. What facts are there to combat this? They say that state control of the economy is socialism.

I forgot to note:
You most likely agree with Libertarians on half of their ideology - namely, the individual freedom half.

Should you be attempting to debate them, you need to acknowledge this bridge immediately, and then proceed to rip capitalism to shreds. All libertarians are strict free-market capitalists, and capitalism is easy to de-construct and expose.

Do not let them lock you down as a "socialist" and then use this to compare you to Hitler.

Communism is economic freedom.
Anarchism is political freedom.

Socialism is another form of economic organization, in the same general category as communism, but can be coupled with any form of political organization, including fascism.

- August

[mikelepore]

Hitler was a socialist, but he was a national socialist.

I must disagree with that sentence. Hitler was not a socialist of any kind. The reason he used the word is because it became a habit to add "socialism" to the list of idealization words, along with freedom, liberty, justice, democracy, the republic, and the people. Dictators and tyrants often like to apply words of idealization to their regimes. When the stubborn Libertarians go on pretending that everything is whatever its name says, I point out to them then they themselves claim to want a "republic", a word that North Korea also uses.

[Yehuda Stern]

The problem begins once you start equating nationalization of industry with socialism. The truth is, there is very little difference between the Nazi regime and the various post-WWII Stalinist regimes. All these regimes are examples of state capitalism, with different degrees of oppression and of state control, but still in their class essence they are quite the same. The best way then to counter the ridiculous claim that Nazism is socialist is to counter the equally ridiculous claim that nationalization of industry is socialism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Calling Hitler a socialist is about as accurate as calling someone a scientist who is a member of the Christian Scientists.

The comrades above are right; people can call themselves what they like -- it's what they do and what they stand for that counts.

[Demogorgon]

To be honest there is not a lot you can do against idiots like this. When people are so determined to willfully wallow in ignorance it is sometimes better to leave them to it. There is the rhetorical trick of asking "if the National Socialists were socialists because of their name, was the German Democratic Republic" democratic because of its name?

Trouble is I once used that against a Libertarian, on this board (in OI) if I am not very much mistaken, and got the response that the GDR was a Democracy and that proves the horrible collectivist nature of Democracy:rolleyes:

[Chapter 24]

Is the statement that Hitler only called himself a National Socialist in order to appeal to the working class accurate? Here's what Michael Parenti had to say about the subject:


What distinguished fascism from ordinary right-wing autocracies was the way it attempted to cultivate a revolutionary aura and give the impression of being a mass movement. Fascism offers a beguiling mix of revolutionary sounding mass-appeals and reactionary class politics. The Nazi party's full name was the National Socialist German Workers Party. Both the Italian fascists and the Nazis consciously tried to imitate the left: youth organizations, mass mobilizations, rallies, parades, banners, symbols, slogans, uniforms. And I think for this reason, too, many mainstream writers treat fascism and communism as totalitarian twins. But most workers and peasants could tell the difference. Industrialists and bankers could tell the difference. And certainly the communists and the fascists could tell the difference.

http://sonic.net/~doretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/M%20P/Parenti%20on%20Fascism.html

[SEKT]

What a "libertarian" can call "state control of the economy" means the administration of production by determined historical conditions and by determined ends. In the case of Hitler the historical conditions were the arise of the nazi ideology, the growth of the productive system and the rise of competition among other capitalist states, it doesn't mean that by controling the production you instantly get socialism as a result of a formula (like control of the productive system = socialism). Socialism is defined as the control of the whole producers (not only a party or fraction of the state[the government which is not the same]), freely, they determine what to produce and how to produce by their necesities and the necesities of the whole society. Hitler in no sense did that!!! The nazi germany created a form of solidarity but solidarity also doesn't mean socialism. In fact it is not only the form but also the content what defines socialism, and the national socialism won't never be a form of humanization of man as socialism.

[Pogue]

Well in truth, the general debate has descended into a mess. They keep claiming that communism is totalitarinaims and democracy is a "dictatorship, a dictatorship of the majority over the individual". They keep saying that a workers mob taking over the means of production and resources is barbaric, etc.

I'd have stopped replying ages ago when they started contradicting themselves and when I realised the argument would not be won but they'd just see that as a victory so I've carried on.

[Demogorgon]

Well in truth, the general debate has descended into a mess. They keep claiming that communism is totalitarinaims and democracy is a "dictatorship, a dictatorship of the majority over the individual". They keep saying that a workers mob taking over the means of production and resources is barbaric, etc.

I'd have stopped replying ages ago when they started contradicting themselves and when I realised the argument would not be won but they'd just see that as a victory so I've carried on.

There is no point in trying to argue your point anymore. Just keep pointing out the flaws in their own arguments. You can't convince them of your arguments so just try and make them doubt their own.

[Yehuda Stern]

Everyone here is ignoring a very simple fact - that Hitler's regime was actually not that different from many postwar Stalinist regimes. Your problem, I'll say it again, is that for most leftists nationalized industry = socialism.

[spice756]

must disagree with that sentence. Hitler was not a socialist of any kind


No he was not a socialist but a national socialist.

Hitler or any national socialist support worker state but allow clsas and private ownership.They also anti-freedom and anti-democracy.They believe freedom and democracy divides people so is liberty rights.Some national socialist can be racist.Hitler was very racist he wanted all blue eyes ,blonde hair,tall people a type of body size and even this was not enough for him.

Now socialist are about state control or worker control but abolish of slavery,class,private ownership and inequality.

No socialist are totalitarinaim only fascism and national socialists are.

[spice756]

Everyone here is ignoring a very simple fact - that Hitler's regime was actually not that different from many postwar Stalinist regimes. Your problem, I'll say it again, is that for most leftists nationalized industry = socialism.

The economic mode is socialism not the political side that was the problem with Stalin.Unless you believe it was state-capitalism or profit in charge.

[Yehuda Stern]

It was state capitalism. And it had a lot in common with the fascist regimes, so much that some writers at the time thought the two were new exploitative modes of production.

[zimmerwald1915]

False distinction alert: the economic and political systems cannot be analyzed seperately.

Just wanted to point that out. Also, state capitalism was a feature of every state during the period and after up until the present day, to greater or lesser degree. State capitalism is the political economy of capitalism's decline.

[ComradeOm]

Everyone here is ignoring a very simple fact - that Hitler's regime was actually not that different from many postwar Stalinist regimesOh this will be good. Please elaborate...

[Trystan]

IG Farben
Krupp Steel Company
Volkswagen
Bavarian Motor Works

Just some of the businesses who financed the Third Reich. I also think that the way these "libertarians" go around spreading this shit is a disgrace. What was the first group to stand up against fascism? That's right - the left. Who were the first ones to be incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps? Anarchists, socialists and communists. Seems rather a silly thing to do if you're one and the same, doesn't it?

[Louis Pio]

It seems to me Yehuda has put an interesting twist on the social fascism theory, applying it to the stalinists, which at least have it's humurous side.

It's still as reactionary as when the stalinists used it though.

[Yehuda Stern]

It seems to me Yehuda has put an interesting twist on the social fascism theory, applying it to the stalinists, which at least have it's humurous side.

Some people really make an effort to not understand anything they're reading, and I have to at least appreciate that. I never said the Stalinist parties were fascist parties, or that all Stalinist states were fascist states. All fascist dictatorships became, after the initial crushing of the working class, basic military-police dictatorships, and many nationalized at least parts of the industry when they found the bourgeois to be problematic politically.

The Nazis nationalized Fritz Thyssen's company for the entire war period when he wrote to them about his opposition to the war. The Stalinists also waited with nationalizations until the workers were crushed politically and until the old bourgeoisie was revealing itself to be dangerous politically to them, what with its connections to western imperialism.

Trotsky, by the way, was the first to say that if Stalin wasn't the head of a degenerated workers' state, his regime would be no different than a fascist regime. The only mistake I think Trotsky made here was to not understand that by WWII, the USSR was no longer a workers' state of any kind. So yes, I certainly believe the USSR regime had a fascist period under Stalin.

[ComradeOm]

The Nazis nationalized Fritz Thyssen's company for the entire war period when he wrote to them about his opposition to the warWell yes... Nazi Germany was not renowned for its tolerance of dissent. However if you are using this as an example of supposedly large scale Nazi nationalisation of industry then you are simply wrong. The collusion between German industry (which, with the odd exception, remained firmly in private hands) and the Nazi state is both well established and completely different to the command economy of the Soviet Union and its satellite states

[Yehuda Stern]

I was comparing the fact that both types of regimes only attacked the property of the bourgeoisie when it became clear that the social position of this class could threaten their political survival. Remember that Thyssen is just one example, and that many other members of the capitalist class who had some political opposition to Hitler spent the last moments of their lives on the end of a piano cord.

I never meant to say that Nazism = Stalinism, although I do think that Stalinism had a fascist period in which it emptied the trade unions of their proletarian content and smashed the left opposition, and in this way atomized the working class. I was saying that given the great similarities between the regimes, which were noted by Bruno Rizzi, Trotsky, and others, once nationalization becomes your criterion for socialism, it is not a stretch to claim that Nazism was socialistic. That, I think, is the main problem in the OP's argumentation.

[ComradeOm]

I was comparing the fact that both types of regimes only attacked the property of the bourgeoisie when it became clear that the social position of this class could threaten their political survivalHuh? The wave of nationalisations in Eastern Europe (Russia's had obviously been carried out in 1918) came following WWII when Soviet control over its newly won satellite territories was almost uncontested. This had nothing to do with bourgeois opposition and there was never any threat to the Soviet hegemony. The installation of ruling CPs, and the resultant nationalisations, was an inevitable development... unless you seriously believe that Moscow would have indefinitely permitted the existence of market democracies in its back garden?


Remember that Thyssen is just one example, and that many other members of the capitalist class who had some political opposition to Hitler spent the last moments of their lives on the end of a piano cordAgain yes, Hitler was in the habit of liquidating his political opponents. What you have failed to do is establish the connection between this and the supposed nationalisation of German industry

In reality the vast majority of the German war economy remained in private hands and the German bourgeoisie firm supporters of the Nazi cause. Even when the Nazis did destroy their opponents it was more common than not for assets to pass into private hands (such as the infamous 'aryanisation' appropriations). The Nazis simply did not advocate nationalisation on any real scale

[Yehuda Stern]

The installation of ruling CPs, and the resultant nationalisations, was an inevitable development... unless you seriously believe that Moscow would have indefinitely permitted the existence of market democracies in its back garden?

It actually took months, and in some cases years, before the Stalinists - not just in Eastern Europe, but in China and other places as well - nationalized the property of the old bourgeoisie. True, it was impossible to do this without neutralizing the workers politically, but until the ruling classes' connections with Western imperialism led them to challenge the Stalinists, there were no nationalizations.

Was this inevitable? In Eastern Europe, probably, given that for example the Chinese and Czeckoslovakian capitalist classes were intimately connected with Western imperialism. In other places, this not only was not inevitable, but in fact did not happen: even though Mugabe was a Stalinist and his power was, to my knowledge, never threatened after consolidation, there was no such nationalization - I don't know of a single supporter of the deformed workers' state theory who claims that Zimbabwe fit into that definition.


In reality the vast majority of the German war economy remained in private hands and the German bourgeoisie firm supporters of the Nazi cause. Even when the Nazis did destroy their opponents it was more common than not for assets to pass into private hands (such as the infamous 'aryanisation' appropriations). The Nazis simply did not advocate nationalisation on any real scale

This is true mostly before the war. The actions of Hitler during WWII led many more members of the ruling class to conspire against Hitler, to the point where the movement was getting rather large. Thyssen, like I mentioned before, had his company nationalized for the rest of the regime's existence.

[ComradeOm]

It actually took months, and in some cases years, before the Stalinists - not just in Eastern Europe, but in China and other places as well - nationalized the property of the old bourgeoisie. True, it was impossible to do this without neutralizing the workers politically, but until the ruling classes' connections with Western imperialism led them to challenge the Stalinists, there were no nationalizationsYou're ignoring, I can only assume deliberately, that Soviet economic policy from 1918 onwards heavily stressed the importance of nationalisation. This was only reinforced from 1928 onwards when the limited private markets were almost entirely replaced by state control mechanisms. Its laughable to expect that the same programme of centrally directed economic bodies (which relied upon the eradication of the market and nationalisation of the means of production) would not be exported to the Eastern European subject nations

Even this 'exporting' of the Soviet model is massively different from the behaviour of the Nazi regime in Western Europe. (Non-Jewish) French, Belgian, and Dutch companies were not simply abolished or taken over by German authorities or industrialists. Instead they continued to function as independent corporations and where Germans did secure a stake in them it was done via the usual purchase of shares or similar legitimate practices. Again I can only emphasise that Nazi Germany did not favour nationalisation of industry but rather respected private enterprise


In other places, this not only was not inevitable, but in fact did not happen: even though Mugabe was a Stalinist and his power was, to my knowledge, never threatened after consolidation, there was no such nationalization - I don't know of a single supporter of the deformed workers' state theory who claims that Zimbabwe fit into that definitionAh, I see the issue here - I was taking 'Stalinist' to mean a relatively specific historical set of political and economic policies; you were using the term as a generic slur. Frankly I'd consider Stalin to be somewhat more representative of Stalinism than Mugabe


Thyssen, like I mentioned before, had his company nationalized for the rest of the regime's existence.Again, I'll ask you to produce more names or evidence of large scale Nazi nationalisation. At the minute you're currently swimming against the current of historical thought on the Nazi economy, which is judged to have remained overwhelmingly in private hands

[Yehuda Stern]

You're ignoring, I can only assume deliberately, that Soviet economic policy from 1918 onwards heavily stressed the importance of nationalisation. This was only reinforced from 1928 onwards when the limited private markets were almost entirely replaced by state control mechanisms. Its laughable to expect that the same programme of centrally directed economic bodies (which relied upon the eradication of the market and nationalisation of the means of production) would not be exported to the Eastern European subject nations


Again, I'll ask you to produce more names or evidence of large scale Nazi nationalisation. At the minute you're currently swimming against the current of historical thought on the Nazi economy, which is judged to have remained overwhelmingly in private hands

I've already said this, but I hardly consider Nazism and Stalinism to be exactly the same thing. Similarity does not imply equality. However, your claims about Stalinism not exporting its economic being "laughable" sort of clash with reality when it took months and in some cases years for that to happen, even if we only confine ourselves to Eastern Europe.


Ah, I see the issue here - I was taking 'Stalinist' to mean a relatively specific historical set of political and economic policies; you were using the term as a generic slur.

Well, that only makes sense in your head. Mugabe was a Maoist, i.e. a supporter of a political current which is an off-shoot of Stalinism. And as bad as I consider being a Stalinist is, it's still an ideological characterization, not a slur.


Frankly I'd consider Stalin to be somewhat more representative of Stalinism than Mugabe

That sounds smart, until we start considering Stalinism as a "set of political and economic policies" and not a "generic slur."

[ComradeOm]

I've already said this, but I hardly consider Nazism and Stalinism to be exactly the same thing. Similarity does not imply equalityWhy do I have to keep repeating this? Their economic models are not similar at all. Stalinist economics - with their focus on nationalisation and replacing the market mechanisms - are vastly different from the privately owned economy of Nazi Germany. Now you can talk about political repression or whatever but your assertion was that Nazism could be considered "socialistic" due to its nationalisation policies. This is not the case


However, your claims about Stalinism not exporting its economic being "laughable" sort of clash with reality when it took months and in some cases years for that to happen, even if we only confine ourselves to Eastern EuropeSo you think that Stalin was intending to allow functioning market democracies (not governed by Communist Parties) in the countries occupied following WWII?


That sounds smart, until we start considering Stalinism as a "set of political and economic policies" and not a "generic slur."Yet you feel comfortable enough to use the term "Stalinist" as a broad brush to describe different movements in completely different nations and eras. I fail to see just what Mugabe has with Stalin's economic policies in Eastern Europe following WWII. To clarify its that latter that I'm discussing - you did after all specify "postwar Stalinist regimes"

Incidentally, I'm still waiting for you to back up your assertion that nationalisation was a characteristic of the Nazi economy

[Pogue]

It seems to me Yehuda has put an interesting twist on the social fascism theory, applying it to the stalinists, which at least have it's humurous side.

It's still as reactionary as when the stalinists used it though.

Social fascism is not a theory, its a meaningless nonsensical slur which Stalinists used against anyone who does not agree with them.

[Louis Pio]

Social fascism is not a theory, its a meaningless nonsensical slur which Stalinists used against anyone who does not agree with them.

Quite true, I was just trying not to hurt their fragile ego's, I mean Stalin and his cronies hasn't really produced any theory, most was taken from the menshevics and the rest from various others