National Socialism vs. Socialism In One Country

[njtt]

Originally Posted by davekhps

Wow, we're *still* arguing that fascism's roots aren't found in socalism?

Only people who have no understanding of socialism is about, and react to the word with "Oh noes! Teh evil!" and then turn their brains off (which means, almost exclusively, American cold war and post-cold-war conservatives) think otherwise. Calling fascism a form of socialism is similar to (but several notches dafter than) calling Barack Obama a socialist.

Originally Posted by mlees

/nitpick:

Stalin was grabbing territory before entering war with the Nazis. The Polish partition, The Winter War v. Finland, the claims pressed on Bessarabia/Rumania.

Also, see the Polish/Russian War, 1919-1921 link, with 100,000 dead.

Well yes, but as you admit it is a nitpick. People do not always live up to their principles, and when they are very powerful and ruthless people, like Stalin, the consequences can be large and nasty. However, the fact remains that invading other countries (as opposed to subverting them) is contrary to Communist principles (and even Stalin did not do a whole lot of it until Hitler forced his hand).

In any case, I think Stalin would probably have tried to justify the events you mention as just trying to reclaim historically Russian territory that had been lost during times of Russian weakness, under,and at the time of the collapse of, the Tsars. I am not saying that is right or reasonable, but he might genuinely have believed it. Even Stalin, however, would not have tried to justify taking over places like Hungary or East Germany, countries that are not even slavic, on that sort of basis.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by njtt

Only people who have no understanding of socialism is about, and react to the word with "Oh noes! Teh evil!" and then turn their brains off (which means, almost exclusively, American cold war and post-cold-war conservatives) think otherwise. Calling fascism a form of socialism is similar to (but several notches dafter than) calling Barack Obama a socialist.

There's a difference between saying that fascism had socialist roots or that socialist thinking influenced the development of fascism on the one hand and calling fascism a form of socialism on the other.

[puddleglum]

Originally Posted by njtt

Well, you were wrong. They have completely different visions of how the economy should operate, for one very important thing. Indeed, Communism is first and foremost about creating a communistic economy, and everything else, including totalitarian government, is merely a means to that end. If Communists thought that there was a more effective way of achieving a communistic economy than first setting up a totalitarian state to engineer it, then they would try to achieve it that way (and many actual Communists, though perhaps not any of those who achieved real political power, do believe this, and have tried to act upon it).

Fascism, by contrast, is all about the Nation (or the race) and its strength, power, and solidarity. Everything else, including economic policies, are a means to this end. Totalitarianism is merely a means to this end too, although, in contrast to the situation amongst Communists, I think you will find a good deal of agreement amongst fascists that a strong central government is a practical necessity for the achievement of their nationalistic end. (Communism, by contrast, actively repudiates all forms of nationalism, except when it cynically uses nationalistic rhetoric as a temporary expedient, as part of its propaganda effort to get the masses on board with the project of building a communistic economy.) Economically, fascist will do whatever seems to them to best serve the needs of national power. If capitalist enterprises seem to be doing this effectively, they are quite happy for them to flourish (and, in practice, fascist and Nazi governments were supportive of, and sought to collaborate with, their nation’s capitalists). If, as may sometimes be the case (especially in wartime), it appears that national power will best be served if the government takes over certain industries, then they will take them over. However, fascists have no particular ideological interest in the state taking over control of industry (whereas Communists most certainly do).

This is all just hand waving. Both communism and fascism wanted to take over the government and run the economy for the benefit of the working man. The only difference is that communists want the workers to run the economy directly through the state, and fascists want the workers to run the economy through industrial syndicates.

Originally Posted by njtt

Communism seeks to take over other countries by fomenting communist revolutions in those countries, not by one Communist country invading them and taking them over. It is true that the USSR under Stalin did end up invading and taking over several countries in Eastern Europe, but that was essentially an unintended consequence of the successful defensive war that the USSR fought against Nazi Germany. Stalin and his successors, having gained control of Eastern Europe in the process of driving back Hitler, found it hard to give up that power. However, taking over those countries in that sort of way, by invasion, was never part of the Communist plan, and was not in line with Communist ideology. (By contrast, the USSR did succeed in fomenting indigenous Communist revolutions in places such as China, Vietnam and Cuba, and that was entirely in line with Communist principles.)

Fascism is not fundamentally about invading other countries either, but doing so is very much more in line with fascistic ideology than it is with Communist ideology. Having a strong military and pushing other counties around, or even taking them over, is about the best way there could be, from a fascist perspective, of both demonstrating and increasing your nation’s strength, power and solidarity.

Fascist ideology is naturally militaristic and war mongering because fascists loved action and unity. The military is the ultimate expression of people putting their individuality aside (everybody has the same haircut, the same uniform, and lives communally in a barracks) and working toward a common goal, national greatness. National greatness is most vividly shown by conquering other countries so invasions are a natual consequence of fascist ideology.

Originally Posted by njtt

What the “founding documents” of the Nazi Party said is beside the point. As I and others have pointed out earlier in this thread, although there were indeed socialistic elements in the original conception of Naziism (before Hitler became a Nazi), by the time Hitler had gained control of the party, and certainly after the Night of the Long Knives in 1934, those elements were repudiated or forgotten. There was nothing socialistic about the Nazis who fought World War II and engineered the holocaust. (Not that the early, more socialistic Nazis did not hate Jews and love the idea of German power too. Of course, they also hated Communists, and there was no inconsistency in that.)

Before Hitler joined it was known as the German Socialist Worker's party so I think it had more than socialistic elements. The night of the long knives had nothing to do with repudiating socialism but was done to gain the support of the German military who saw the SA as a threat to their power.
After the economic crisis of 1936 Hitler wrote the four year plan memo which articulated his plan to get Germany ready for war. This gave the German government even more control of the economy and sidelined whatever influence Germany's industrialists may have had before. By 1940 the German government controlled pretty much all of the German economy either through state run companies or state issued financing.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

This is all just hand waving. Both communism and fascism wanted to take over the government and run the economy for the benefit of the working man. The only difference is that communists want the workers to run the economy directly through the state, and fascists want the workers to run the economy through industrial syndicates.

I still disagree. The fascists had no particular ideology of doing things for the benefit of the working man or letting the workers run the economy. And they certainly did not do anything like this in practice.

Obviously, they weren't out saying "fuck the working man" - they were a political movement after all and they needed some crowd appeal. But they put no higher emphasis on worker empowerment than the average political party did. If the fascists were socialist because of they made occasional promises of helping the working man if they got elected, then the Democrats and Republicans are equally socialist.

[puddleglum]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I still disagree. The fascists had no particular ideology of doing things for the benefit of the working man or letting the workers run the economy. And they certainly did not do anything like this in practice.

Obviously, they weren't out saying "fuck the working man" - they were a political movement after all and they needed some crowd appeal. But they put no higher emphasis on worker empowerment than the average political party did. If the fascists were socialist because of they made occasional promises of helping the working man if they got elected, then the Democrats and Republicans are equally socialist.

If you look at the history of fascist thought it is a combination of syndicalism and militarism. In Germany it was also heavily influenced by German romanticism. In Italy when the fascists tooks power they imposed wage and price controls and expropriated land for the benefit of the workers. In Germany wage and price controls were also implemented. Preparing for war took precedence over everything else but they did implement parts of their party platform. If you can link to something in either the Democrat or Republican platforms calling for the nationalization of industry, the banning of interest income, or the expropriation of large stores, then you are correct about our parties being equally socialist.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

If you can link to something in either the Democrat or Republican platforms calling for the nationalization of industry, the banning of interest income, or the expropriation of large stores, then you are correct about our parties being equally socialist.

I usually don't swear in GQ, but that's the whole fuckin' point. This argument is usually based on the purported chain of exact equivalences, Nazis = Communists = Socialists = Democrats. All of these links are tenuous at best, but one way to disprove this is to show that Nazis were hardly socialists. And the Nazis differed extremely from socialists in practise. Paradoxically, those who call them socialists by simply reading their platform are putting too much trust in the Nazis.

[puddleglum]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

I usually don't swear in GQ, but that's the whole fuckin' point. This argument is usually based on the purported chain of exact equivalences, Nazis = Communists = Socialists = Democrats. All of these links are tenuous at best, but one way to disprove this is to show that Nazis were hardly socialists. And the Nazis differed extremely from socialists in practise. Paradoxically, those who call them socialists by simply reading their platform are putting too much trust in the Nazis.

If you or anyone else can disprove that Nazis were not socialist feel free. What is being argued is that the Nazis called themselves socialists, had a socialist platform, and enacted socialist policies but were not socialist in the least. That is ridiculous. Obviously democrats are not communists and socialists are not nazis, but they are all related ideologically. Just as lemurs are related to gibbons which are related to orangutans which are related to gorillas. That does not mean gorillas are the same as lemurs.

[Ludovic]

They called themselves national socialist, had a socialist platform, but did not enact socialist policies. Furthermore, they changed their platform to remove this troubling eyewash as soon as they could.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

If you or anyone else can disprove that Nazis were not socialist feel free. What is being argued is that the Nazis called themselves socialists, had a socialist platform, and enacted socialist policies but were not socialist in the least. That is ridiculous. Obviously democrats are not communists and socialists are not nazis, but they are all related ideologically. Just as lemurs are related to gibbons which are related to orangutans which are related to gorillas. That does not mean gorillas are the same as lemurs.

The point is that the Nazis didn't have a socialist program and they didn't enact socialist policies. Unless you invent a definition of socialist policies so broad it includes virtually every political party. All the Nazis really had in common with socialists was they took the name from them. That doesn't make them socialists any more than the people running the Democratic People's Republic of Korea are Democrats and Republicans.

[Shakester]

...as I said back in post 7:

Originally Posted by Shakester

The Nazis were never socialists in practice and their first and biggest enemies were the Communists and Social Democrats, ie the far and centre left.

The Nazis were not socialists, and the only people who say they were are American right-wingers who are attempting to discredit anyone to the left of themselves by equating them with Nazis.

Here's the test; for anyone who claims the Nazis were socialists: are you, by any chance, an American of the right-wing persuasion? Yes or no, be honest and give a straight answer.

[puddleglum]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

They called themselves national socialist, had a socialist platform, but did not enact socialist policies. Furthermore, they changed their platform to remove this troubling eyewash as soon as they could.

When did they renounce the platform? In February 1926 some people tried to change it some, but Hitler pronounced that a betrayal to those who died in the putsch, it was declared immutable later that year and was never changed.

[puddleglum]

Originally Posted by Shakester

...as I said back in post 7:



The Nazis were not socialists, and the only people who say they were are American right-wingers who are attempting to discredit anyone to the left of themselves by equating them with Nazis.

Here's the test; for anyone who claims the Nazis were socialists: are you, by any chance, an American of the right-wing persuasion? Yes or no, be honest and give a straight answer.

You made an assertion in post 7 and never bothered to provide any evidence for it at all. The evidence is all around, here is wikipedia on National Socialism "Large segments of the Nazi Party staunchly supported its official socialist, revolutionary, and anti-capitalist positions and expected both a social and economic revolution upon the party gaining power in 1933."
I am an American right winger, but that has nothing to do with the facts.
Here is a test for you: present some evidence for your views. This is general questions, you can't just state your opinions over and over, you need to cite facts.

[Little Nemo]

Our evidence is history. The Nazis took power and didn't do anything socialist. Your evidence appears to be that Hitler said they were socialist once and we can trust anything Hitler said.

[Shakester]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

I am an American right winger, but that has nothing to do with the facts.

It has everything to do with the fact that the only people in the world who try to portray the Nazis as socialists are, as I said, American right-wingers. Nowhere else on Earth would that line be taken seriously, because everyone on Earth who isn't a right-wing American can tell the difference between Nazis and Communists.

Dude, listen: if the Nazis and the Communists were the same thing, why were they deadly enemies? Can you answer me that? Why, if they shared the same political philosophy, was the biggest part of the biggest war in the history of the planet a fight between Nazi Germany and the USSR?

[Shakester]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

Here is a test for you: present some evidence for your views. This is general questions, you can't just state your opinions over and over, you need to cite facts.

Oh, and here's my cite:

German communists were among the first people to be sent to concentration camps. They concerned Hitler due to their ties with the Soviet Union and because the Nazi Party was intractably opposed to communism. Rumours of pending communist violence were started by the Nazis as justification for the Enabling Act of 1933, the law which gave Hitler his original dictatorial powers. Hermann Göring later testified at the Nuremberg Trials that it was the Nazis' willingness to repress German communists that prompted Hindenburg and the old elite to cooperate with them. Hitler and the Nazis also hated German leftists because of their resistance to Nazi racism. Many leaders of German leftist groups were Jews who were especially prominent among the leaders of the Spartacist Uprising in 1919. Hitler referred to Marxism and "Bolshevism" as a means of "the international Jew" to undermine "racial purity" and survival of the Nordics or Aryans (sometimes of all white Europeans), as well as stirring up socioeconomic class tension and labor unions against the government or relevant businesses. Within concentration camps such as Buchenwald, German communists were privileged in comparison to Jews because of their "racial purity."[citation needed] Whenever the Nazis occupied a new territory, members of communist, socialist, or anarchist groups were thus normally among the first to be repressed, including summary executions. An example of this is Hitler's infamous Commissar Order in which he demanded the summary execution of all political commissars captured among Soviet soldiers.

And before you come back with an "All Wikipedia is made up" answer, check the inline cites on the page itself, which are to non-Wiki academic sources.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

I am an American right winger, but that has nothing to do with the facts.

Nice slogan. It really sums up the movement. You should print up some t-shirts.

[puddleglum]

Originally Posted by Shakester

Oh, and here's my cite:



And before you come back with an "All Wikipedia is made up" answer, check the inline cites on the page itself, which are to non-Wiki academic sources.

That is off topic. The Nazis hated the communists because they were competing for power in Germany and because as I said in my first post communists were internationalists and Nazis were hypernationalists. By your logic the mensheviks were not socialist because they did not like communists. By your logic the Vietnamese were not communists because they invaded communist Cambodia and the red Chinese were not communists because they fought the Vietnamese.
In this line of thinking Nazis were not socialists because they fought the Soviets, then they must not have been capitalists because they fought the French.

[puddleglum]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Our evidence is history. The Nazis took power and didn't do anything socialist. Your evidence appears to be that Hitler said they were socialist once and we can trust anything Hitler said.

"Your evidence is history" seems to be another way of saying you do not have any. I have cited the Nazi party platform which was never changed or repudiated in any manner. There is much more evidence here is an excerpt from a 1929 tract written by Goebbels, the section is called Why we are socialists"

The bourgeois is about to leave the historical stage. In its place will come the class of productive workers, the working class, that has been up until today oppressed. It is beginning to fulfill its political mission. It is involved in a hard and bitter struggle for political power as it seeks to become part of the national organism. The battle began in the economic realm; it will finish in the political. It is not merely a matter of wages, not only a matter of the number of hours worked in a day — though we may never forget that these are an essential, perhaps even the most significant part of the socialist platform — but it is much more a matter of incorporating a powerful and responsible class in the state, perhaps even to make it the dominant force in the future politics of the fatherland. The bourgeoisie does not want to recognize the strength of the working class.

Read the whole thing here:
I have cited socialist actions which the Nazis took while in office such as wage and price controls, government control of hiring, government control of farming. Here is what James Burnham of the OSS wrote about the German economy in 1940.

Outright state ownership and operation, advancing in all fields, are particularly ascendant in the extensive areas of new enterprise opened up during the Nazi rule....virtually all economic enterprise is subject to rigid state control; and it is control which we have seen to be decisive in relation to the instruments of production. Legal forms, even income privileges, are in the end subordinate to de facto control.
Even where private owners still exist in Germany, the decisions about "their" property are not in their hands. They do not decide what to make or not to make. They do not establish prices or bargain about wages. They are not at liberty to buy the raw materials they might choose nor to seek the most profitable markets. They cannot, as a rule, decide how to invest or not invest their surplus funds. In short, they are no longer owners, no longer effective capitalists...

The regulation of production in Germany is no longer left to the market. What is to be produced, and how much, is decided, deliberately, by groups of men, by the state boards and bureaus and commissions. It is they that decide whether a new plant shall be built or an old plant retired, how raw materials shall be allotted and orders distributed, what quotas must be fulfilled by various branches of industry, what goods shall be put aside for export, how prices shall be fixed and credit and exchange extended. There is no requirement that these decisions of the bureaus must be based on any profit aim in the capitalist sense. If it is thought expedient, for whatever reason, to produce, for example, an ersatz rubber or wool or food, this will be done even if the production entails, from a capitalist point of view, a heavy loss. Similarly, in order to accumulate foreign exchange or to stimulate some political effect in a foreign nation, goods will be exported regardless of loss. A factory may be compelled to shut down, even though it could operate at a high profit. Banks and individuals are forced to invest their funds with no reference to the private and voluntary opinions about "risks" from a profit standpoint. It is literally true to say that the Nazi economy, already, is not a "profit economy."

They also set up a national labor union the DAF from wikipedia:

Theoretically, the DAF existed to act as a medium through which workers and owners could mutually represent their interests. Wages were set by the 12 DAF trustees. The employees were given relatively high set wages, security of work, dismissal was increasingly made difficult, social security programmes were started by the Arbeitsfront, leisure programmes were started, canteens, pauses and regular working times were established, and therefore generally the German workers were satisfied by what the DAF gave them in repaying for their absolute loyalty.

Anyone with an open mind can see that the evidence is clear.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

"Your evidence is history" seems to be another way of saying you do not have any.

No, it's my way of saying I base my beliefs on reality.

Originally Posted by puddleglum

I have cited the Nazi party platform which was never changed or repudiated in any manner.

I have news for you: Hitler was a bit of a fibber. Sometimes he'd say things he didn't mean. Why did he do this? Well, this will surprise you but there are some people who were dumb enough to believe something a Nazi said. I could give a relevant example here but we're in the wrong forum for that.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

They also set up a national labor union the DAF from wikipedia:
Anyone with an open mind can see that the evidence is clear.

In actuality it was a license to politically destroy anyone who was intent on actual worker's representation. It was also in the pockets of big business (well, businesses that supported the Nazis, at least.) I assume you are aware that you were not allowed to change jobs without your work papers, which were under control of your employer, right? Doesn't sound like a very good set of worker's rights there to me.

[Comprehension]

I understand that the general conception of Hitler is negative. If you have ever viewed Hitler's speeches with subtitles he was a leader. He was very good at them too. If only his philosophy's were different.

Were did his underlining hatred of people of Jewish heritage stem from?

[Hail Ants]

Originally Posted by Shakester

The Nazis were not socialists, and the only people who say they were are American right-wingers who are attempting to discredit anyone to the left of themselves by equating them with Nazis.

I tend to vote right of center, but I have to say that in terms of American, shall we say, jingoistic political discussions I think the American left-wing uses "Nazi" as a political epithet much more so than the right. Again, in a very superficial, shallow way, they equate right-wing conservatism with being racist, conformist, pro-military, anti-intellectual etc. and may continue down that path equating it to Nazi-extremism. Hard core conservatives might call Obama a communist, but hard core liberals will call Rush Limbaugh a Nazi.

Left, right or center using the term 'Nazi' in (American) politics is like using the term nigger in race, it's just a hateful insult with little to no connection to history. Those who sink to using it should remember that the only ones you're really insulting are the tens of millions of people who suffered under the actual Nazis...

[Ludovic]

I see a lot less of that these days, I guess because the far left wing looks at Obama failing to do everything in their litany of foreign and civil libertarian policy wants, and conclude that he isn't too much better than the previous administration. I don't agree with them on that, but a lot of the GOP = Nazi talk died down a few months after Obama came in.

Whereas Democrats = Nazis wasn't nearly as prevalent, but reaches the heights of convolution and absurdity.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

One of the early things Hitler did was outlaw all labor unions. Hardly the act of a true socialist.

To establish a government monopoly on unions and communist government didn't allow rival trade unions to exist either-just look at Solidarity.

That said Nazis both had full socialists (like Strasser and Rohm) and Hitler wasn't particularly leftish because he needed the support of industrialists to make war material for him and the old officer class to help build up a German army. When Hitler was about to kill himself, he did regret not being more ruthless against the business class in his final testament.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

To establish a government monopoly on unions and communist government didn't allow rival trade unions to exist either-just look at Solidarity.

But the Soviet Union, on paper, was formed from workers unions that then came together and created a government - it's literally what a soviet union is. So the basis of the Soviet government was that the government came from and was controlled by the workers.

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

That said Nazis both had full socialists (like Strasser and Rohm) and Hitler wasn't particularly leftish because he needed the support of industrialists to make war material for him and the old officer class to help build up a German army. When Hitler was about to kill himself, he did regret not being more ruthless against the business class in his final testament.

There may have been some socialist rhetoric in the early days but Hitler had Rohm and the Strassers killed. Same thing with what Hitler may have written in his final days in the bunker - it didn't reflect what he actually did when he was in power.

My point is that you have to judge the Nazis by what they did not by what they said. While they may have sometimes made socialist talk, they didn't act like socialists.

[Shakester]

I think what it comes down to is what I said before: right wing Americans want to define the Nazis as "socialist" so as to disparage anyone to the left of themselves, and to deflect attention from the very real fact that the Nazis were, by any fact-based definition, right wing.

Now, you can get together with a bunch of your pals and decide that red and blue are the exact same colours, and you can maybe even get yourself elected to something and enact a local law that legally defines red and blue as being the same thing. But the fact remains that everyone else in the entire world defines those words as being entirely different things.

You go around arguing that the sky is red and everyone will dismiss you as stupid and/or crazy. You can argue your definition of the words till you're blue (or red, since they're the same colour) in the face, but you're not going to change the fact that the entire rest of the world defines those words in a different way.

OK, by the definition of a far-right fringe group, the Nazis were socialists. By the definition of the entire rest of the world the Nazis were a far-right party.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Shakester

I think what it comes down to is what I said before: right wing Americans want to define the Nazis as "socialist" so as to disparage anyone to the left of themselves, and to deflect attention from the very real fact that the Nazis were, by any fact-based definition, right wing.

I think the point is that some right wing people want to hold to the simple faith that the right is always 100% right and the left is always 100% wrong. And the Nazis call that simple faith into question by being an example of a right wing movement that was undeniably wrong. So to defend their beliefs, they just move the Nazis into the left column.

[Shakester]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I think the point is that some right wing people want to hold to the simple faith that the right is always 100% right and the left is always 100% wrong. And the Nazis call that simple faith into question by being an example of a right wing movement that was undeniably wrong. So to defend their beliefs, they just move the Nazis into the left column.

Agreed. My point was to make it clear that the US is the only place on Earth where that wouldn't be instantly laughed off the agenda. And I'm not disparaging Americans in general, the majority of whom do understand and acknowledge the differing meanings of the words in question.

[medicated]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

There may have been some socialist rhetoric in the early days but Hitler had Rohm and the Strassers killed.

He didn't do a very good job of it. Otto Strasser died in 1974

[Blake]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

One of the early things Hitler did was outlaw all labor unions. Hardly the act of a true socialist.

I'm sure that Mao and Stalin would have been glad to know that they were not true socialists, since they, too, outlawed all trade unions.

If this a standard of what constitutes a True Scotsman it's worthless, since the most notorious and self-proclaimed socialists in world history all fail to meet your standard.

[puddleglum]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

But the Soviet Union, on paper, was formed from workers unions that then came together and created a government - it's literally what a soviet union is. So the basis of the Soviet government was that the government came from and was controlled by the workers.There may have been some socialist rhetoric in the early days but Hitler had Rohm and the Strassers killed. Same thing with what Hitler may have written in his final days in the bunker - it didn't reflect what he actually did when he was in power.

My point is that you have to judge the Nazis by what they did not by what they said. While they may have sometimes made socialist talk, they didn't act like socialists.

The government of the soviet union was not controlled by the workers it was controlled by the party. Just like the government of Germany was controlled by the party. Nominally they both ruled on behalf of the workers, in reality they ruled on behalf of themselves. If you say the German government was not socialist then neither was the Soviet Unions despite what they said.

[puddleglum]

Originally Posted by Shakester

I think what it comes down to is what I said before: right wing Americans want to define the Nazis as "socialist" so as to disparage anyone to the left of themselves, and to deflect attention from the very real fact that the Nazis were, by any fact-based definition, right wing.

Now, you can get together with a bunch of your pals and decide that red and blue are the exact same colours, and you can maybe even get yourself elected to something and enact a local law that legally defines red and blue as being the same thing. But the fact remains that everyone else in the entire world defines those words as being entirely different things.

You go around arguing that the sky is red and everyone will dismiss you as stupid and/or crazy. You can argue your definition of the words till you're blue (or red, since they're the same colour) in the face, but you're not going to change the fact that the entire rest of the world defines those words in a different way.

OK, by the definition of a far-right fringe group, the Nazis were socialists. By the definition of the entire rest of the world the Nazis were a far-right party.

There is a grain of truth in this. The National Socialist were neither a left wing or right wing party. They were a syncretic party. From wikipedia "Hitler and other proponents as well as scholars of Nazism projected and perceived it as being neither left-wing nor right-wing but politically syncretic." From the left they took socialism from the right they took nationalism. So if your a socialist then they were a right wing party because they were nationalists and if your a nationalist then they were on the left because they were socialists. I have never claimed they were a left wing party because that would be as wrong as claiming they were a right wing party. However denying that they were socialists is as wrong as denying they were nationalists.
If you can claim that a party that called itself socialist, proclaimed its enmity versus all thing bourgeous and capitalist, and when it took power had the government take over the economy is right wing by any fact based definition you either don't know what right wing means or what fact based means.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by medicated

He didn't do a very good job of it. Otto Strasser died in 1974

You're right. Gregor Strasser was killed in 1934. His brother Otto escaped and fled Germany. But neither had much of a say in the policies of the Nazi Party after Hitler took over and pushed them aside.

[Shakester]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

If you can claim that a party that called itself socialist, proclaimed its enmity versus all thing bourgeous and capitalist, and when it took power had the government take over the economy is right wing by any fact based definition you either don't know what right wing means or what fact based means.

German capitalists funded and supported the Nazis because the Nazis were anti-communists. Are you seriously claiming that Walther Funk, for example, was a socialist? You can keep calling blue "red" all you like, but everyone else is going to keep on calling it blue.

You are calling complete gov't control of the economy "socialism" but what it is is totalitarianism. Which comes in both left-wing and right-wing (Nazi Germany, Peron's Argentina, Pinochet's Chile, etc etc) varieties. Right wing totalitarianism is not "socialism" no matter how much you want it to be. And socialism is not totalitarianism. They're different things.

[puddleglum]

Originally Posted by Shakester

German capitalists funded and supported the Nazis because the Nazis were anti-communists. Are you seriously claiming that Walther Funk, for example, was a socialist? You can keep calling blue "red" all you like, but everyone else is going to keep on calling it blue.

You are calling complete gov't control of the economy "socialism" but what it is is totalitarianism. Which comes in both left-wing and right-wing (Nazi Germany, Peron's Argentina, Pinochet's Chile, etc etc) varieties. Right wing totalitarianism is not "socialism" no matter how much you want it to be. And socialism is not totalitarianism. They're different things.

The National Socialists were supported by dues paid by part members until they gained power and were in a position to take bribes. I don't know as much about the ideology of Walther Funk as you do but even if he was not a socialist Hitler, Rohm, and Goebells all were socialists. Totalitarianism is more than government control of the economy, it is government control of all aspects of life. Socialism has to do with economic policies and is defined by wikipedia as "Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership, control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system." In Nazi germany the state controlled the means of production and there was a cooperative management of the economy.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

But the Soviet Union, on paper, was formed from workers unions that then came together and created a government - it's literally what a soviet union is. So the basis of the Soviet government was that the government came from and was controlled by the workers.

I don't think that's too different from the Nazis actually-as pointed out on many occassions, on paper the Nazis did use demagogic, socialistic tactics. The main differences were that the Nazi ruling class were far more dependent on the Old Guard then the Communists.

There may have been some socialist rhetoric in the early days but Hitler had Rohm and the Strassers killed. Same thing with what Hitler may have written in his final days in the bunker - it didn't reflect what he actually did when he was in power.

My point is that you have to judge the Nazis by what they did not by what they said. While they may have sometimes made socialist talk, they didn't act like socialists.

[/quote]
That's true, most Nazis and fascists don't consider themselves socialists at any rate, they consider themselves Third Positionists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

In Nazi germany the state controlled the means of production and there was a cooperative management of the economy.

And once again, no, that isn't true. The Nazis didn't nationalize most businesses. The original owners kept their businesses and continued make money by selling their products to the government and other customers.

The Nazis didn't control the means of production. People like Friedrich Flick, Carl_Krauch, Gustav Krupp, Hermann Schmitz, and Fritz Thyssen controlled the means of production. If you think these guys were socialists, then you don't know what socialism is.

[adaher]

The government in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy did control the means of production, just not directly. Industry was supposed to serve the state, not a customer base or investors.

Also, Nazi Germany was socialist enough in that they expanded the welfare state. While I agree that socialism is properly defined as government ownership of the means of production, many people have called the welfare state socialist, both on the right and the left for different reasons, so a case can be made that the socialism of Germany was genuine, if not quite as socialist as what the Communists were going for.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by adaher

The government in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy did control the means of production, just not directly. Industry was supposed to serve the state, not a customer base or investors.

Also, Nazi Germany was socialist enough in that they expanded the welfare state. While I agree that socialism is properly defined as government ownership of the means of production, many people have called the welfare state socialist, both on the right and the left for different reasons, so a case can be made that the socialism of Germany was genuine, if not quite as socialist as what the Communists were going for.

Like I said, you can invent a definition of socialism so broad that it will cover anything. Did German corporations sell products to the German government? Of course they did. American corporations sell products to the American government as well but that doesn't make the United States a socialist country (except to the kind of people who claim Adolf Hitler and Barack Obama are socialists).

But don't take my word for it. Here's what Hitler himself said, "We stand for the maintenance of private property. We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient or rather the sole possible economic order." cite

[adaher]

True. I always get a laugh out of right-wingers who call everything collective socialist, and left-wingers who defend socialism by claiming that Sweden is socialist.

However, I do have to question whether leaving industry in private hands, but making it accountable only to the state is really all that different from government controlling the means of production directly. Is there any chance that any of the German industrialists could have crossed Hitler? Is there any doubt he'd just appoint whoever he wanted in their place?

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by adaher

True. I always get a laugh out of right-wingers who call everything collective socialist, and left-wingers who defend socialism by claiming that Sweden is socialist.

However, I do have to question whether leaving industry in private hands, but making it accountable only to the state is really all that different from government controlling the means of production directly. Is there any chance that any of the German industrialists could have crossed Hitler? Is there any doubt he'd just appoint whoever he wanted in their place?

I agree that Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state. A business executive who openly resisted the Nazi regime would have almost certainly been removed just as any other person would have been.

But military officers who defied the Nazi regime were removed and/or killed. Would you say that's evidence that Nazi Germany was a non-militarist system?

The fact is that most German industrialists continued their pre-Nazi routines without change. They ran their companies, they build and sold their products, and collected their profits as they had been before the Nazis took power. It's a strange form of socialism if it's identical to non-socialism. And these businessmen expected this - it's not like they were hostages doing what they were told in fear for their life. Most of them had supported Hitler's rise to power because they saw him as a pro-business politician. And they continued to support him throughout the Nazi reign so it's not like they felt they had been lied to.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I agree that Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state. A business executive who openly resisted the Nazi regime would have almost certainly been removed just as any other person would have been.

But military officers who defied the Nazi regime were removed and/or killed. Would you say that's evidence that Nazi Germany was a non-militarist system?

In fact, about the only class of people he didn't persecute to a degree were the industrialists, even though by the start of the war at the latest it was well within his power to do so. That he chose to leave them alone even when he had absolute power is a testament to his lack of socialism, or more precisely, his oppotunism* and lack of any idealism on the economic axis (HAH!). Socalist ideas, capitalist ideas, all were okay as long as they were in service to his racial and nationalistic theories.

Heck, I'm not even socialist and if I were him, I would have controlled the economy more than he did because it was wartime and I had the power to. Who would have stopped me?

*And of course the oppotunism of the apolitical industrialists.

[sqweels]

My reading is that to the Nazis, economic issues took a back seat to nationalism issues, which included racism and militarism. Any "socialism" that can be unearthed is going to be far far far too far removed from anything that can be associated with the present-day Left.

OTOH, there are plenty of examples across a wide spectrum of issues where the present-day (or recently departed) Right parallels the Nazis. Don't make me list them.

Of course there are moderation vs extremism issues here, which also apply when you parallel the Left with communism. Liberalism is fundamentally moderate, so while it's the opposite of fascism, it's still strongly at odds with communism.

So if Naziism and communism do intersect at some point, it's at a point diametrically opposed to where liberals are. Not a lot of goose-stepping during the Occupy Wall Street protests.

[adaher]

There are also areas where the American left intersects with fascism, such as believing that business should serve state interests. There's also this weird line of thinking among the American left that corporations should be patriotic. This is going to sound flip, but when you combine nationalism with socialism, what do you get?

[Johnny Q]

Originally Posted by Hail Ants

I tend to vote right of center, but I have to say that in terms of American, shall we say, jingoistic political discussions I think the American left-wing uses "Nazi" as a political epithet much more so than the right. Again, in a very superficial, shallow way, they equate right-wing conservatism with being racist, conformist, pro-military, anti-intellectual etc. and may continue down that path equating it to Nazi-extremism. Hard core conservatives might call Obama a communist, but hard core liberals will call Rush Limbaugh a Nazi.

Left, right or center using the term 'Nazi' in (American) politics is like using the term nigger in race, it's just a hateful insult with little to no connection to history. Those who sink to using it should remember that the only ones you're really insulting are the tens of millions of people who suffered under the actual Nazis...

Whatever "wing" they were/are the Nazis were blatantly and undeniably conservatives. Conservatism tends to be placed in the "right wing" out of either convenience or laziness or whatever.

As far as I know nobody seriously believes that the Nazis' problem was that they were too liberal. At least nobody who doesn't deserve to be pointed and laughed at.

[adaher]

True, but the same can be said for the Communists. The only difference between fascism and communism that I can see is that one is nationalist while the other is internationalist. And wasn't it just so easy to put aside their differences when they wanted to divide up Eastern Europe? I dare say Communists were never that cozy with socialists or social democrats.

It should also be noted that the Nazis lied to the right as well. They initially started out supporting the return of the monarchy, and no sooner did they take power, they finked. lot of conservative Germans were deceived into supporting them because they wanted the Kaiser back.

[puddleglum]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

And once again, no, that isn't true. The Nazis didn't nationalize most businesses. The original owners kept their businesses and continued make money by selling their products to the government and other customers.

The Nazis didn't control the means of production. People like Friedrich Flick, Carl_Krauch, Gustav Krupp, Hermann Schmitz, and Fritz Thyssen controlled the means of production. If you think these guys were socialists, then you don't know what socialism is.

What do you mean by control? They were told what to make, how much to make, how much they could charge and how much they could pay workers. If you think that is capitalism you don't know what capitalist means.

[puddleglum]

Originally Posted by Johnny Q

Whatever "wing" they were/are the Nazis were blatantly and undeniably conservatives. Conservatism tends to be placed in the "right wing" out of either convenience or laziness or whatever.

As far as I know nobody seriously believes that the Nazis' problem was that they were too liberal. At least nobody who doesn't deserve to be pointed and laughed at.

In what sense were they conservatives? They had no desire to maintain the status quo. They sought the total transformation of German society.
They were not conservatives in the modern American sense because American conservatism is about individualism which is the exact opposite of what Naziism was about.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

What do you mean by control? They were told what to make, how much to make, how much they could charge and how much they could pay workers. If you think that is capitalism you don't know what capitalist means.

Except that isn't what happened.

I don't why I keep bothering trying to argue with you using facts. I should just make things up like you're doing.

So the Nazis weren't socialists. They were registered Republicans. Hitler, Himmler, Goering - they all voted for Thomas Dewey. That's why Roosevelt declared war on them.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

In what sense were they conservatives? They had no desire to maintain the status quo. They sought the total transformation of German society.

If that was the case then the Nazis would not had returned the banks to their former owners (nationalized by the former Weimar Republic) and people like Krupp would be a memory, of course what happen was that they got even slave labor to get by during that "transformation"

Originally Posted by puddleglum

They were not conservatives in the modern American sense because American conservatism is about individualism which is the exact opposite of what Naziism was about.

That only works by ignoring what the Nazis actually did, once again the truth is not as absolute as many American conservatives think.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/01...-to-jonah.html

Paxton explains it thus: