# I pit the idiots who say the Nazis were "Socialists". **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 15, 2014, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-idiots-who-say-the-nazis-were-socialists/695568 "2014-08-15T01:21:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-idiots-who-say-the-nazis-were-socialists/695568/61 "2014-08-17T02:30:13Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > WHen you go too far to the right on the American spectrum, you get to Washington/Jefferson/Madison, etc.,. Heaven forfend! I guess we should be glad we’ve got moderate right-wingers like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Glen Beck instead of the radical terrorists you mention. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-idiots-who-say-the-nazis-were-socialists/695568/62 "2014-08-17T03:26:06Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I agree with this. I do however have a problem with the libertarian paradigm which seems based on the premise that government is the sole source of totalitarianism. > > This model is simple and it does lead to a simple solution: if government is the only thing in the world that causes problems, then the solution to all problems if less government. > > But I disagree with the premise. I feel there are numerous examples of people oppressing each other without any governmental authority to back them up. So you can have a totalitarian situation without a government. Think of an antebellum plantation as the model for this: a setting where one person literally owned the other people around him and had absolute power of them. > > So I don’t want a system that sees government as the enemy. I want a system that sees oppression as the enemy. I want a system that fights oppression from all sources - government oppression and private oppression. > > Libertarians want a government that’s too weak to threaten their freedom. My problem with that is any government that’s too weak to threaten my freedom is also too weak to defend my freedom. Awesome post. Here’s where I think you’ve got it wrong though. In theory, sure, there is oppression besides government. But you don’t need a very powerful government to remove that kind of oppression, or at least punish it when it’s caught. Libertarians don’t favor anarchy, they favor limited government that says, “You’re right to swing your arm ends at my face.” While government isn’t the enemy, it is a necessary evil at best and no one should ever forget that. We have government because men are not angels. But by the same token, government can never be a truly positive good for the same reason: men are not angels. Men with power are even less likely to act in a saintly manner. Liberals often say, correctly, “self-regulation doesn’t work.” True. So we have a government to regulate our behavior, and in turn the government is kept in check by the democracy, but even more importantly it’s kept in check by the rule of law. Once a government is not checked by rule of law, but only democracy, then people cannot be free because the government is left to self-regulate. And democracy ceases to be a regulatory because an unlimited government can control the media or even fix the election in favor of the ruling party. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-idiots-who-say-the-nazis-were-socialists/695568/63 "2014-08-17T03:31:46Z")
**Socialism aims, ultimately, at a world-state of free and equal human beings. It takes the equality of human rights for granted. Nazism assumes just the opposite. The driving force behind the Nazi movement is the belief in human inequality, the superiority of Germans to all other races, the right of Germany to rule the world.** Brain Glutton, in practice socialism has been anti-freedom and has often succumbed to nationalist impulses, making it hard to distinguish from fascism in practice. When you look at Stalin’s Russia vs. Nazi Germany, there are really only one and a half differences: The Soviets directly controlled industry, the Nazis merely coerced the private owners of industry into serving the state. The half difference is that the Soviets talked an internationalist game, but always resorted to “Mother Russia” rhetoric in the breach and had a pretty poor record when it came to minority rights in the diverse Soviet Union. They even got into Jew baiting like the Nazis although thankfully it never got as far as concentration camps. If you would prefer to think of Stalinism as a movement of the right, that’s fine. I just don’t see that there’s much of a difference between totalitarian ideologies. The only difference is the salesmanship they use to entice the masses into giving them power. Hitler appealed to racial grievance, Lenin appealed to class grievance. the end result is two enslaved societies with mass graves all over the landscape. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-idiots-who-say-the-nazis-were-socialists/695568/64 "2014-08-17T03:54:21Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > While government isn’t the enemy, it is a necessary evil at best and no one should ever forget that. We have government because men are not angels. But by the same token, government can never be a truly positive good for the same reason: men are not angels. Men with power are even less likely to act in a saintly manner. Liberals often say, correctly, “self-regulation doesn’t work.” True. So we have a government to regulate our behavior, and in turn the government is kept in check by the democracy, but even more importantly it’s kept in check by the rule of law. Once a government is not checked by rule of law, but only democracy, then people cannot be free because the government is left to self-regulate. And democracy ceases to be a regulatory because an unlimited government can control the media or even fix the election in favor of the ruling party. People with too much power is a problem. But people don’t need a government to acquire power. Plenty of private individuals hold great power. And government is needed to put a limit on that power. It’s checks and balances. We need society to be answerable to individuals. And we need individuals to be answerable to society. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-idiots-who-say-the-nazis-were-socialists/695568/65 "2014-08-17T04:13:10Z")
It’s very hard for individuals to acquire enough power to actually oppress other individuals. The last example I can think of is company towns. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-idiots-who-say-the-nazis-were-socialists/695568/66 "2014-08-17T04:16:47Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Brain Glutton, in practice socialism has been anti-freedom and has often succumbed to nationalist impulses, making it hard to distinguish from fascism in practice. I think it would be hard to call that to the socialists in Chile that lost the elections and gave up power, then after a conservative administration they recently won again. > **[Forty years after fascist coup, Chile may elect socialist, again](https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/forty-years-after-fascist-coup-chile-may-elect-socialist-again/)** > > Today, September 11, is the 40th anniversary of the bloody military coup that ended the life of Chile's socialist president, Salvador Allende, and began the long dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet. I do think that extremism is also bad on the left side when we take into account places like Cuba. But that wide brush you are using is really dumb, and it does condemn the socialists that died opposing Hitler and makes a mockery or demonizes the many that opposed the fascist groups of Latin America. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-idiots-who-say-the-nazis-were-socialists/695568/67 "2014-08-17T04:29:12Z")
As has been established, calling yourself socialist doesn’t make you so. The Chilean socialists started out as socialists, that’s why they have the name, but embraced free markets, being that in Chile that’s the only way to win an election. Most of the mainstream European left parties are today far to the right of where they started. Most were founded calling for nationalization of some industries. Today, the idea of nationalization of any industry is a crank idea. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-idiots-who-say-the-nazis-were-socialists/695568/68 "2014-08-17T04:35:52Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > As has been established, calling yourself socialist doesn’t make you so. The Chilean socialists started out as socialists, that’s why they have the name, but embraced free markets, being that in Chile that’s the only way to win an election. > > Most of the mainstream European left parties are today far to the right of where they started. Most were founded calling for nationalization of some industries. Today, the idea of nationalization of any industry is a crank idea. And this actually shows why your wide brush is dumb, not all socialists think that free markets are supposed to be abolished. And not all go for nationalization except in some areas where free markets are not doing a good job. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-idiots-who-say-the-nazis-were-socialists/695568/69 "2014-08-17T05:35:02Z")
I hesitate to call social democrats socialist. I know it’s often used as an attack on them(because socialism is actually bad, that’s why it’s an effective attack), but in reality social democrats just tend to favor the welfare state and free markets. Welfare states pre-date Marx. What Western social democratic parties support owes more to Adam Smith and Bismarck than Karl Marx. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-idiots-who-say-the-nazis-were-socialists/695568/70 "2014-08-17T06:01:54Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I hesitate to call social democrats socialist. I know it’s often used as an attack on them(because socialism is actually bad, that’s why it’s an effective attack) It is clear that it works as a bogeyman for your circle of friends. There is a different world out there. > **[Social democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy)** > > Social democracy is a social, economic, and political philosophy within socialism that supports political and economic democracy and a gradualist, reformist and democratic approach toward achieving limited socialism. In modern practice, social democracy has taken the form of predominantly capitalist economies, with the state regulating the economy in the form of welfare capitalism, economic interventionism, partial public ownership, a robust welfare state, policies promoting social equality, a... > [@](#): > > Social democracy is a political ideology that officially has as its goal the establishment of democratic socialism through reformist and gradualist methods.[1] > [@](#): > > Busky, Donald F. (2000), Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, Westport, Connecticut, USA: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., p. 8, “The Frankfurt Declaration of the Socialist International, which almost all social democratic parties are members of, declares the goal of the development of democratic socialism” ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-idiots-who-say-the-nazis-were-socialists/695568/71 "2014-08-17T06:08:58Z")
If that’s still the goal of social democratic parties then they’ve been going backwards. Incrementalism means steady steps forward, not undoing a good portion of what those parties did from the 20s to the 70s. The Reagan-Thatcher revolution moved everyone to the right. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-idiots-who-say-the-nazis-were-socialists/695568/72 "2014-08-17T06:34:33Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If that’s still the goal of social democratic parties then they’ve been going backwards. Incrementalism means steady steps forward, not undoing a good portion of what those parties did from the 20s to the 70s. The Reagan-Thatcher revolution moved everyone to the right. Once again, you are using the definition you want, not what the world uses. They are not the same as the socialists from the 20s to the 70s. What you call “backwards” is them now just being more pragmatic. And I already pointed at the exeptions that I and many social democrats are not supporting too nowadays. In essence, this once again shows how myopic the wide brush that you and many conservatives use. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-idiots-who-say-the-nazis-were-socialists/695568/73 "2014-08-17T06:52:07Z")
With that kind of pragmatism, there will never be socialism. Thank goodness. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-idiots-who-say-the-nazis-were-socialists/695568/74 "2014-08-17T07:06:46Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > With that kind of pragmatism, there will never be socialism. Thank goodness. :rolleyes: Once again, that is only based on the bogeyman definition you use. A lot of those socialists where also present in Germany before the war, and the Nazis imprisioned or killed or send all into exile. The point stands, there is a lot of ignorance, and willful and insulting too, by recklessly maintaining that the Nazis were socialists. And then falling for the idea that all socialists were or should be put in the “evil” column. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-idiots-who-say-the-nazis-were-socialists/695568/75 "2014-08-17T16:39:06Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > because socialism is actually bad, that’s why it’s an effective attack Socialism is not bad. It works. In some cases it works better than the free market. (Although in most cases, the free market works better than socialism.) But it’s foolish to become so rigid that you automatically reject socialism even in those cases where it’s a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-idiots-who-say-the-nazis-were-socialists/695568/76 "2014-08-17T18:53:09Z")
That only makes sense if we define socialism so broadly that it covers nearly any government action. Socialism as a coherent ideology is a relatively recent phenomenon. If governments have commonly done certain things since before socialism, then it’s not socialist in any meaningful sense of the word. It’s just governments doing what governments have always done. Governments have always built infrastructure, for example. The welfare state until very recently was actually anti-socialism. Conservative parties invented the welfare state: > [@](#): > > Continental European Marxists opposed piecemeal welfare measures as likely to dilute worker militancy without changing anything fundamental about the distribution of wealth and power. It was only after World War II, when they abandoned Marxism (in 1959 in West Germany, for example), that continental European socialist parties and unions fully accepted the welfare state as their ultimate goal.[ > **[Welfare state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state)** > > A welfare state is a form of government in which the state (or a well-established network of social institutions) protects and promotes the economic and social well-being of its citizens, based upon the principles of equal opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for citizens unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life. > There is substantial variability in the form and trajectory of the welfare state across countries and regions. All wel... I’ll grant that the modern welfare state owes more to socialism than to conservatism because it involves a LOT more wealth redistribution than the early welfare states, but I also think you need more than a generous welfare state to qualify as socialist. The modern Western democracy accepts the virtues of the free market, has almost entirely private means of production(many European nations flirted with nationalization after WWII, and up until the 1970s, but mostly abandoned it later), and accepts vast wealth inequality as the price of meritocracy. ---
**Author:** ![ILikeForeignLanguages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bc8723/32.png) [@ILikeForeignLanguages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ILikeForeignLanguages)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-idiots-who-say-the-nazis-were-socialists/695568/77 "2014-08-17T20:59:23Z")
The Nazis nationalized the auto industry, among other things. Just because they were Aryan supremacists does not mean they were capitalists. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-idiots-who-say-the-nazis-were-socialists/695568/78 "2014-08-17T21:26:06Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That only makes sense if we define socialism so broadly that it covers nearly any government action. Socialism as a coherent ideology is a relatively recent phenomenon. If governments have commonly done certain things since before socialism, then it’s not socialist in any meaningful sense of the word. It’s just governments doing what governments have always done. Governments have always built infrastructure, for example. The welfare state until very recently was actually anti-socialism. Conservative parties invented the welfare state: > > I’ll grant that the modern welfare state owes more to socialism than to conservatism because it involves a LOT more wealth redistribution than the early welfare states, but I also think you need more than a generous welfare state to qualify as socialist. The modern Western democracy accepts the virtues of the free market, has almost entirely private means of production(many European nations flirted with nationalization after WWII, and up until the 1970s, but mostly abandoned it later), and accepts vast wealth inequality as the price of meritocracy. Welfare is not socialism. I’ll grant you that governments which practice one also often practice the other but they’re two separate programs. Socialism is the government running businesses. Welfare is the government giving out services or financial assistance. I suppose there are cases where it would overlap, like if the government was running a free clinic. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-idiots-who-say-the-nazis-were-socialists/695568/79 "2014-08-17T21:52:05Z")
> [@ILikeForeignLanguages](#): > > The Nazis nationalized the auto industry, among other things. Just because they were Aryan supremacists does not mean they were capitalists. A quick search points to this to be a bit of a stretch. The German Automakers continued to produce luxury cars until the war turned sour, they were managed later by the government to produce military equipment like trucks but the owners kept their business. The most famous one, VW, was actually a company started by the German government to originally make the Beetle so it was not taken from anyone. > **[Volkswagen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen)** > > Volkswagen (VW; .mw-parser-output .IPA-label-small{font-size:85%}.mw-parser-output .references .IPA-label-small,.mw-parser-output .infobox .IPA-label-small,.mw-parser-output .navbox .IPA-label-small{font-size:100%}German pronunciation: \[ˈfɔlksˌvaːɡn̩\] ⓘ)\[Note 1\] is a German automobile manufacturer based in Wolfsburg, Lower Saxony, Germany. Established in 1937 by The German Labour Front, it was revitalized into the global brand it is today after World War II by British Army officer Ivan Hirst. ... What the Nazis were more famous in Germany was to go back on the nationalizations made during the Weimar era like the banks and privatize them again. Yeah, IIRC there were a **few** Nazis that thought that was not a socialist thing to do, but Hitler had a “friendly” chat with them. As friendly as it could had been described by Monty Python: ‘We apologise for the fault with some of our followers. Those responsible have been sacked.’ ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-idiots-who-say-the-nazis-were-socialists/695568/80 "2014-08-17T22:34:06Z")
BTW here is more from the one of the car makers: [http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1324886-1-1324898-1-0-0-1345593-0-0-135-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html](http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1324886-1-1324898-1-0-0-1345593-0-0-135-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html) > [@](#): > > Workers from eastern Europe and prisoners of war were interned in barrack camps with poor, prison-like conditions. Concentration camp detainees were monitored by the SS under inhumane conditions. They were “loaned out” to companies in exchange for money. In 1944, almost half of Daimler Benz’s 63,610 Daimler Benz employees were civilian forced labourers, prisoners of war or concentration camp detainees. > > After the war, Daimler-Benz admitted its links with the Nazi regime, and also became involved in the German Industry Foundation’s initiative “Remembrance, Responsibility and Future”, whose work included the provision of humanitarian aid for former forced labourers. The point here is that if they had been nationalized then this admission of their responsibility would not had been possible. That makes me think now that the people at Yahoo Answers got something right for change and on the pit I think this opinion deserves to be quoted since it shows the extremes that people Like Glenn Beck go to and who is spreading misleading ideas like the one about the Nazis nationalizing things left and right: [https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100818133645AARvFCl](https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100818133645AARvFCl) > [@](#): > > No, there is no such evidence. > > In fact, I went through Daimler-Benz and B.M.W. histories, and they were very clear their profits remained high and that they were privately owned during that period. Auto Union (Audi) likewise. > Volkswagen was a public subscription corporation, set up by the government as a publicity ploy, but it was never “nationalized” or “expropriated”. And so on… > > Glenn Beck just makes up these lies, and he’s sure never to be contradicted because his followers don’t believe in ideas, logic, information, or anything except those who are paid to spoon feed them these ridiculous errors. > > And Limbaugh is not far behind. > > But the Nazis were right wing, and your analysis is precisely correct. > > The rantings of the “three stooges” are just hot air and smoke ‘n’ mirrors. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-idiots-who-say-the-nazis-were-socialists/695568.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-idiots-who-say-the-nazis-were-socialists/695568.md?page=5)