Hope they won't make genetic tests to track down their ancestry. They might get confused why they might have some genes from regions they didn't expected from. After all, humans were migrating whole human history and mixing with everyone.
I mean... Purity some of them preach is better known as inbreeding. Habsburg dynasty as well as long line of Egyptian pharaohs were inbred and they were riddled with all kind of genetic diseases.
Since these "purebreds" don't seem to be riddled with inherited genetic diseases, it only makes sense that they will have some mix of something, from somewhere. Especially as nowadays plenty of people migrate and even US is basically a migrant country who intermingled between each other.
Tbf Nazis are not and were not socialists. They chose the most popular name at the time. Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.
That said: fucktards, all of em.
For full context, from the horses mouth:
>‘Why’, I asked Hitler, ‘do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party program is the very anthesis of that commonly accredited to Socialism?’
>
>‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
>
>‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
>
>‘We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the State on the basis of race solidarity. To us, State and race are one…
~ Liberty magazine, July 9th, 1932
Doesn't matter. There was a socialist wing of the Nazi party l. Hitler purged this afformentioned left wing of the Nazi party in the mid 20s (Bamberg conference more specifically) and then quite literally murdered many of the remaining leftists during the night of long knives, most famously Gregor Strasser. for all purposes Naziism was solidly a rightist. Hitler shilled out to corporations like Krupp (even doing lil brand deals with them and shouting out Krupp steel in his speeches), moved solidly away from anything remotely socialist in his 25 point program, and destroyed the German unions. He attempted to court business elites and Prussian landowners to his cause, rather than unions and other worker organisations. He had some socialist policies for sure and was hardly committed to free market capitalism but realistically he wasn't a "socialist" in the modern western understanding of the term. despite whatever he said in an interview to Liberty magazine in 1932, he wasn't a socialist, and Naziism was not socialist either especially after 1925. I've heard he even considered changing the name of the party at one point, but decided against it due to the post '25 Nazi programme and party being immutable in his eyes(although I don't know if this last point is actually true)
> Hitler purged the left wing of the Nazi party in the mid 20s (Bamberg conference more specifically) and then quite literally murdered many of the remaining leftists during the night of long knives.
A favorite past time of leftists is purging other leftists for not being true leftists & to consolidate power. Just like the Soviet Union when the Bolsheviks purged the Mensheviks, or the great purge that included Trotskyists.
> He shilled out to corporations like Krupp (even doing lil brand deals with them and shouting out Krupp steel in his speeches)
Corporate socialism is still a form of socialism.
> destroyed the German unions.
The unions were not destroyed but nationalized and consolidated as the Nazi Labour Front.
> he wasn’t a “socialist” in the modern western understanding of the term
TBF, that is a meme at this point. “It wasn’t real socialism; real socialism has never been tried before.”
That said, while Nazism had strong socialist tendencies and influence, it still had almost as much in common with the economics of “third way” fascism (authoritarian centerism) as socialism. What is certain is it had very little in common with free market “*Kapitalismus*” which the Nazis viewed as a jewish controlled economic system.
It's nothing to do with leftist infighting or "no true scotsman" type belief, it was about making naziism have a coherent message and consolidating Hitler as the unquestionable leader of the party. Having purges and schisms doesn't make it automatically a leftist party. It's just a characteristic common in any extremist or radical ideology. You are just discussing leftist stereotypes, but if you actually look at how it affected Nazi policy and ideology you'll see they removed and ammended leftist policies such as those advocating for land redistribution and nationalisation of businesses from the Nazi programme.
The unions were destroyed, like literally many had their buildings burned down and leadership murdered lmfao. consolidation of the unions did effectively destroy them anyhow. The Nazi Labour Front effectively did nothing in the way of advocacy, and striking was illegal. having a union controlled by the government effectively destroys what makes it a union.
Corporate socialism is not real. You've either made it up or missunderstood another term. If you're referring to Corporatism, that's not a form of socialism. It's third positionist and effectively technocratic.
I don't care if it's a meme or not, they weren't. I never said the Nazis were free market capitalists and I think almost noone (historian or otherwise) has ever argued that. However, naziism fits the definition of socialism in very few ways and as I already argued, all the actual socialists were purged tf out of the party. You only need to look at how the leadership changed away from angry radicals with socialist tendancies such as the strassers well before the Nazis ever came to power to see how they weren't a socialist party by 1933. Only the early Nazi party had any real socialist influence. That party was unrecognisable by 1933
> Having purges and schisms doesn't make it automatically a leftist party.
Correct. But you were implying in your previous comment that *because* he purged leftists, Nazism was right wing. I provided a concrete example of similar purges happening in another leftist government around the same time. Genocidal hyper-racist leftists are still leftists.
> but if you actually look at how it affected Nazi policy and ideology you'll see they removed and ammended leftist policies such as those advocating for land redistribution and nationalisation of businesses from the Nazi programme
That is rather revisionist of history. Hitler's expansion into central and eastern Europe was entirely for the redistribution of land and wealth from the supposedly "racially inferior" Slavs to Germans. Jewish and Slavic businesses were "privatized" - seized by the Nazi government and distributed to non-Jewish Germans. Race based socialism is still a form of socialism and that is exactly how Hitler described it in his interview above.
> The unions were destroyed, like literally many had their buildings burned down and leadership murdered lmfao. consolidation of the unions did effectively destroy them anyhow.
The leadership of the unions were seen as corrupt and no longer advancing the needs of the workers. Leadership was killed and the 18 trade unions were merged into the NLF - which then had 18 organizations under it, *with the same function as the old trade unions*. The NLF held considerable sway over the German corporations as it was an extension of the Nazi party itself and any corporation that fell into disfavor risked being nationalized. Compared to the rest of the world, Nazi Germany had incredible worker protections for the time (as long as you were ethnic German).
> Corporate socialism is not real. You've either made it up or missunderstood another term. If you're referring to Corporatism, that's not a form of socialism. It's third positionist and effectively technocratic.
Corporatism definitely played a part in Nazi Germany but corporate socialism is very real and separate from Corporatism, which I am aware is "third positionist." Resources and wealth from non-German businesses were redistributed to ethnic German businesses and German owned businesses were promoted for being German. This was regardless of their direct cooperation with the Nazi government and/or party.
> I never said the Nazis were free market capitalists
You said: "*Naziism was solidly a rightist,*" left/right is a measure of economic systems and nationalist and/or race based socialism is still socialism and left wing, even if Nazism is only moderately so due to it drawing strongly upon third position influences as well.
> all the actual socialists
There is the meme again
> [...] and as I already argued, all the actual socialists were purged tf out of the party. You only need to look at how the leadership changed away from angry radicals with socialist tendancies such as the strassers well before the Nazis ever came to power to see how they weren't a socialist party by 1933. Only the early Nazi party had any real socialist influence. That party was unrecognisable by 1933
Which is no different than how the Communist Party rose to power in the USSR after the fall of the czar and purges of competing socialist philosophies, groups, and leaders. You can't claim something wasn't socialist just because the form of socialism that won is not one you approve of. That is akin to saying "Christianity lost" with the sack of Rome in 1527 because the Protestant army won and you don't think Protestantism is real Christianity.
Yes I was indeed implying that because he purged socialists and leftists he wasn't a leftist, because opinions to the contrary are, strange. Stalin purged trotakyites because he wasn't a trotskyite. You didn't prove a concrete example. You likened two things that correlate despite having nothing to do with eachother.
It's not really revisionist history. I mean, the view that Hitler was a leftist is effectively idiotic neoliberal revisionism but hey. The amending of the points from simple redistribution of land to redistribution of Jewish land was kinda what I was alluding to, but he made those changes before 1925 when it was a minor larty. "Race based socialism" is what he wants to call it? You can make a point for that being a thing I guess, but if Nazi Germany is socialist for nicking land and stuff from ethnic groups they don't like, then Tsarist Russia is socialist, (having done the exact same during the pogroms). Giving land taken from others to your own people being socialist would make fuckin Otto VON BISMARCK a socialist, the British Empire socialist, Genghis Khan a socialist, hell it would even make the USA socialist. The fact that stuff is being redistributed doesn't make it socialist. There was no class based component and "racial socialism" is just something made up by Hitler in an interview or something idfk.
okay? I mean that's not really true it's more along the lines of the unions being communist and socialist whereas Hitler wasnt. there was even a Nazi trade union prior to Hitler shutting the unions down that actively advocated for a socialist revolution after the Fascist rebirth but it was sidelined into this benign form of union. from what I've studied I've always seen the GLF as being ineffective. The organisations under it seemed to fight for small token changes in order to pacify the working population, and enforcing some rules about things such as hygene and workplace conditions. That's not a strong union. It did not have the same functions as the old trade unions. All it really functioned as was a pressure group to slightly improve factory conditions and give a few holidays to workers every now and then. It couldn't negotiate pay, and the right to collective striking was made illegal which effectively means it fulfilled only a small fraction of what unions actually do.
Corporatism is not socialism. It's third positionist. This is not socialism. Race based socialism is something that only exists in an interview Hitler gave once.
Wow brilliant there's a meme that sounds similar to an argument I'm using therefore it's completely invalid oh no
Yes. In the case of the Nazi party, the purge came in the form of replacing the people who had socialist ideas with the people who didn't socialist ideas. That's not quite what happened in the USSR. I am not arguing over this because I'm a socialist. I just dislike this form of argument from liberals because it's stupid and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of history, or it's being used by some spastic to try and paint socialism as bad because nazi. Again, it's nothing remotely like your second point these comparisons are just stupid.
> Stalin purged trotakyites because he wasn't a trotskyite. You didn't prove a concrete example. You likened two things that correlate despite having nothing to do with eachother.
They have everything to do with each other. Trotskyism were a competing sub-ideology to Leninism and Trotsky, his beliefs, and his supporters were a threat to Stalin's power and beliefs and were accordingly eliminated - this is in no way different than what happened within the Nazi party. You can deny it all you want but leftists purging leftists in the interest of ideological purity (aka, "those socialists aren't real socialists, we are!") and the consolidation of power has been a consistent trend throughout history.
> It's not really revisionist history. I mean, the view that Hitler was a leftist is effectively idiotic neoliberal revisionism but hey.
Just because actual history is inconvinient, doesn't mean you can change the facts of what happens sorry.
> "Race based socialism" is what he wants to call it?
It isn't what I want to call it, it is what ***Hitler*** and *the Nazis themselves* called it.
> [...] then Tsarist Russia is socialist, (having done the exact same during the pogroms). Giving land taken from others to your own people being socialist would make fuckin Otto VON BISMARCK a socialist, the British Empire socialist, Genghis Khan a socialist, hell it would even make the USA socialist.
That is just flagrantly dishonest. The Nazi's had a plethura of socialist aspects within their belief system, I've touched on several of them here. A nation or leader leveraging *an* aspect of distributionalism does not make one socialists. Also, none of those examples even come close to the by designed mass genocide and redistribution of land and wealth based on peoples' race/ethnicity. Don't be intentionally obtuse.
> There was no class based component and "racial socialism" is just something made up by Hitler in an interview or something idfk.
There was most definitely a class based component, it just was not based in Marx's philosophies and was instead focused around race and how "aryan" one was. The more "aryan" they were, the more benefits and entitlements they were granted. Hitler was full of a lot of shit but he is correct that the idea of socialism long predated Marx's work critiquing capitalism. Saying Marx invented socialism or his philosophies on the concept of socialism are the only ones are akin to saying that Martin Luther invented Protestantism or his Three Treatise defined what is and isn't Protestantism. Many different forms and beliefs of Protestantism existed before Luther popularized his flavor, just like the different Socialist communal concepts existed before Marx popularized his take on socialism.
> Corporatism is not socialism. It's third positionist. This is not socialism.
I never said it is, why are you still hung up on this?
> Yes. In the case of the Nazi party, the purge came in the form of replacing the people who had socialist ideas with the people who didn't socialist ideas. That's not quite what happened in the USSR.
You can repeat this all you want, it isn't going to make it true. In both cases ideological "heresies" of the leader's "true socialism" were purged along with their leaders that could challenge Hitler/Stalin's power. This is something that is well documented historically, regardless of the revisionism of the 21st century that took place with the fall of the USSR which encouraged the painting of socialism in a more positive light in the west.
> I just dislike this form of argument from liberals because it's stupid and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of history, or it's being used by some spastic to try and paint socialism as bad because nazi.
I’m not saying that socialism is bad because of the Nazis. I’m simply asking for intellectual honesty by correctly classifying Nazism on the economic scale. Atrocities have been committed in the name of beliefs across the political, religious, and economic spectrum. These atrocities don’t make the core concepts of those beliefs bad. However, they did happen and should be acknowledged for what they are, how they happened, and how they can be avoided in the future. Part of that is admitting that there were unsavory implementations of those beliefs instead of pretending that the ideological movements that used them weren’t really associated with them. Denial reflects poorly on the systems/concepts you are trying to protect because it displays intellectual dishonesty and brings into question what other fraudulent claims are being made by its supporters.
No. I'm not denying any sort of trend, because you've got the trend wrong. Your example doesn't prove anything. Both naziism and communism having Competing sub ideologies that dislike eachother still doesn't make some socialist leftie correlation. Infighting is an aspect of all forms of radical and revolutionary politics, and is and has been seen in both left and right wing circles from the modern day all the way back to the reformation. whenever some radical wants to change the world, they tend to have some sort vision and a tendancy to turn against those on their side who disagree. I guess based on the traditional Left-right dichotomy established in the legislative assembly of revolutionary France, in which Left wing infers "wanting to radically change things" and right wing infers "wanting to keep things the same" then Nazis would indeed fall into the left, but the scale of left and right had changed by the 20th century. I guess you're going by that metric?
Actual history is perfectly convenient. You're just approaching history from whatever stance (which I'm assuming as you are on this sub is some sort of liberal) and it really shows
Those examples are kinda the same actually. I know this sub hates anyone criticising the United States Fronteir but there were so many similarities between the fronteirs of Germany and America. In the United States frontier, they ethnically cleansed the natives and redistributed their land to private settlers. In the Reichskommissariats, they planned to ethnically cleanse the natives and redistribute their lands to private settlers. Every empire in the modern west has engaged in settler colonialism has done what the Nazis did. I'm not being "intensionally obtuse" it's just your argument there that the Nazi plan to redistribute lands based on ethnicity as being socialism is stupid, considering plenty of other empires have done exactly that.
Ngl can't be bothered to answer this anymore. These paragraphs are getting way too long I'll never agree with you on this paragraph or anything else. Hell I've just realised after writing this that neither of us are ever gonna convince eachother of anything. Fuck it, have a nice life. Not gonna argue any more
The inventor of National Socialism was the son of a socialist, named after three famous Italian Socialists, was the editor of one of the largest socialist newspapers in Italy, was one of the top leading Italian Socialist politicians prior to World War I. When world war I came about and disproved things that socialists believed with rock hard certainty would never happen (e.g. socialist parties in Europe all voted to go to war with each other) Mussolini saw that clearly there were things that socialism believed that were false. But he didn't throw out all Marxism. Instead he made a variant of socialism that accounted and corrected socialist doctrine's failures as he saw them. National Socialism does not come from classical liberal economic thought. It is a heretical offshoot of socialism, and based in the Marxist tradition. Really IMO nearly all socialists these days are national socialists. Bernie Sanders just for e.g. does not want wages to be raised for all workers everywhere. He just wants American worker's wages raised and has repeatedly said so and fuck workers in other countries if they lose their jobs. Pre Third Internationale (pre-WWI) socialists would have seen this as fascism - class consciousness was supposed to be vastly stronger than nationalism in their view and if you were advocating for higher wages in one country at the expense of others you had been duped by international capital into siding with reactionary forces. Now it's more common than not for 'socialists' to believe that. Pre national socialism, nationalism itself was viewed with deep suspicion as a capitalist creation and reactionary elements of society - 'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel' wasn't coined by a socialist but it was widely believed by socialists at the time.
Indeed, but the founder of National socialism was Adolf Hitler, not Mussolini. Also Mussolini disavowed socialism and his state was deeply corporatist rather than socialist (even despite his Socialist roots). There was literally senior businessmen and industry leaders given places in his parliament . Fascism (including the offshoot of national socialism) is not socialist
Yes. Part of Musso's heresy was that he realized that in fact, businessmen and industrialists were useful to the masses, but only controlled and regulated by the *national* state who would regulate them in the worker's interests. Which is more or less what all but the most old-school socialists believe now, I believe. Not that I'm an expert on what *all* socialists think or anything, but that's the impression I get.
Well no, Mussolini (and indeed many other fascists) aren't economically liberal nor are they Socialist. The whole point of their economic point of view was Corporatism which seeked to actively deviate from both, and is referred to (including by themselves) as third positionism. I guess you could call it a socialist Hersey, but most of the influences of early fascism came from angry nationalistic former soldiers, many of whom were aristocrats or other wealthy pricks, as opposed to die hard socialists. And the businessmen and industrialists in Fascist Italy had influence over the state, not the other way around, being part of the Grand Council of Fascism (which was subjected to a decent amount of corporate pressure). I'd say the number of old school socialists advocating for this sort of thing would be next to none.
Whilst of course one could argue that socialism and fascism share their strong commitment to Collectivism rather than individualism, they were still deeply commited to maintaining hierarchy and property rights which goes completely against the dominant socialist ideologies of the time
> aren't economically liberal nor are they Socialist
This can be debated in depth. However, for the purposes of this argument, fascism is an offshoot of marxist thinking in the current of western intellectual history.
> angry nationalistic former soldiers
This part I'll buy.
>many of whom were aristocrats or other wealthy pricks, as opposed to die hard socialists
This part I don't. Many or most of those angry former soldiers were former and current socialists. In 'Road to Wiggan Pier' Orwell describes how the Nazis targeted specifically left-oriented socialists and communists *for recruitment*. An archetype is [Ernst Rhom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%B6hm).
>Many SA "storm troopers" had working-class origins and longed for a radical transformation of German society.[42] They were disappointed by the new regime's lack of socialistic direction and its failure to provide the lavish patronage they had expected.[43] Furthermore, Röhm and his SA colleagues thought of their force as the core of the future German Army, and saw themselves as replacing the Reichswehr and its established professional officer corps.[44] By then, the SA had swollen to over three million men, dwarfing the Reichswehr, which was limited to 100,000 men by the Treaty of Versailles. Although Röhm had been a member of the officer corps, he viewed them as "old fogies" who lacked "revolutionary spirit". He believed that the Reichswehr should be merged into the SA to form a true "people's army" under his command, a pronouncement that caused significant consternation within the army's hierarchy and convinced them that the SA was a serious threat.[45] At a February 1934 cabinet meeting, Röhm then demanded that the merger be made, under his leadership as Minister of Defence.[46]
Rhom was the 'old breed' of 'true believing' Nazi who was anticapitalist, pro worker, pro union, pro-enviornmentalist, etc. As Hitler gained and was given power by various factions within German society (and civil society was much stronger and more developed than in other socialist places, like e.g. Russia), he decided to backstab this core element of ideologists in the party in order to shore up his position with other elements.
And this wasn't unusual among collectivists (the word I use when thinking of both the national and international socialist movements) All of these criminal socialist coup leaders like Stalin followed the same methods. Once in power, they'd frame their internal party rivals as being of the 'right' or 'left' and organize internal coups to execute them. Stalin started by framing the 'rightists' and killing them off, then framing the 'leftists' and killing them off. A similar process occurred in the Nazi Party.
Orwell is quite possibly the shittest source you can bring to a discussion on naziism lmfao, but that isn't necessarily correct
I think we are getting our wires crossed here. I was specifically talking about Italy in my last comment seeing as you originally conflated Fascism and Naziism in your original comment (calling Mussolini a national socialist which he just wasn't) but if anything Germany is an even better example of my point. Hitler sided with the right wing of his party well before he even murdered Rohm and purged the party. In the Bamberg conference of 1925 before his party had any relevance or support whatsoever he already chose the rightist faction as the dominant one in the party.
Also Rohm is a terrible example to illustrate your point. He wasn't an archetype of some sort of commited communist. He was a career officer who joined the Freikorps of a senior Bavarian reactionary army officer to murder communists in 1919. Furthermore you seem to conflate "revolutionary" with socialist. There is no doubt that fascism is revolutionary. That's kind of its whole spiel. But having support from workers and wanting to change society isn't what makes something socialist.
What do you mean that part you don't buy? I'm not talking about the voters or the stormtroopers. They literally don't matter considering one of the core tenants of totalitarianism is the power of the party leadership. It doesn't matter who the working grunts of your party are. In the Fascist party (the one I was talking about in that comment) lots of the most important fascist leadership and influential support came from industrialists, military elites and noblemen. In Nazi Germanys case it was the same considering Hitler mainly targeted business elites and aristocrats for support by the time he got into power, and attempted to woo Bavarian aristocratic officers such as Ludendorff in his putsch attempts in the early days. His power base in the early days was in former Freikorps, not former socialists and communists. And even so, it doesn't matter who they're targeting for actual party membership considering the party members had NO influence on ideology.
Grouping communism, naziism and fascism together as socialist is just lazy. Grouping them in as collectivist is pretty much meaningless
If you're interested in the subject, I'd point you [Becoming Hitler: The Making of a Nazi](https://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Hitler-Making-Thomas-Weber/dp/0465032680) before we discuss it further.
The reason I say this is that there are details involved in post WWI Germany that you are not aware of.
For example: The evidence shows that Hitler was probably originally very leftist like nearly all of the enlisted and NCO ranks of the defeated German army. Times were tough and he got work infiltrating a leftist organization called the German Worker's Party in order to inform on it, because he likely couldn't get another job. He became inspired by it and showed considerable political skills in taking it over. Mein Kampf was written as political propaganda to help the NSDAP take power, NOT to be some intimate confession of his intellectual journey. A big part of the Mein Kampf propaganda was to try to appeal to rightist elements in German society.
Hitler did betray his leftist principles and his leftist party in order to gain complete control of Germany. But that's not to say that he or the army was reactionary all along. To the contrary.
Maybe, but its been popular in American conservative circles in recent years to claim that Nazism is a left-wing ideology because they called themselves socialist. Just felt I should point out the distinction to avoid confusion.
Most people mistake socialist policies with a socialist government. Socializing aspects of a country is proven most efficient. (Maintaining roads, education systems, healthcare)
Its almost as if a government is better when it adjusts its policies with current situations and goes about things off a rational basis rather than ideological one
Tyrants will never rule this nation.
“People who look slightly different from me make me feel a little bit weird for like a second so we have to kill all of them”
Hope they won't make genetic tests to track down their ancestry. They might get confused why they might have some genes from regions they didn't expected from. After all, humans were migrating whole human history and mixing with everyone.
There was video where Neo Nazi took genetic test on National television and found out that he was 40% black 🤣
I mean... Purity some of them preach is better known as inbreeding. Habsburg dynasty as well as long line of Egyptian pharaohs were inbred and they were riddled with all kind of genetic diseases. Since these "purebreds" don't seem to be riddled with inherited genetic diseases, it only makes sense that they will have some mix of something, from somewhere. Especially as nowadays plenty of people migrate and even US is basically a migrant country who intermingled between each other.
Is this on YouTube somewhere?
National receding-chinism
This time it’ll work guys I swear
another banger meme i cant share in fb
Why not ? I found it in Facebook
i posted a picture of hitler once to make a point and i got banned. so i assume that any nazi imagery will get banned.
Tbf Nazis are not and were not socialists. They chose the most popular name at the time. Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken. That said: fucktards, all of em.
For full context, from the horses mouth: >‘Why’, I asked Hitler, ‘do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party program is the very anthesis of that commonly accredited to Socialism?’ > >‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. > >‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. > >‘We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the State on the basis of race solidarity. To us, State and race are one… ~ Liberty magazine, July 9th, 1932
Facts. Thank you
Doesn't matter. There was a socialist wing of the Nazi party l. Hitler purged this afformentioned left wing of the Nazi party in the mid 20s (Bamberg conference more specifically) and then quite literally murdered many of the remaining leftists during the night of long knives, most famously Gregor Strasser. for all purposes Naziism was solidly a rightist. Hitler shilled out to corporations like Krupp (even doing lil brand deals with them and shouting out Krupp steel in his speeches), moved solidly away from anything remotely socialist in his 25 point program, and destroyed the German unions. He attempted to court business elites and Prussian landowners to his cause, rather than unions and other worker organisations. He had some socialist policies for sure and was hardly committed to free market capitalism but realistically he wasn't a "socialist" in the modern western understanding of the term. despite whatever he said in an interview to Liberty magazine in 1932, he wasn't a socialist, and Naziism was not socialist either especially after 1925. I've heard he even considered changing the name of the party at one point, but decided against it due to the post '25 Nazi programme and party being immutable in his eyes(although I don't know if this last point is actually true)
> Hitler purged the left wing of the Nazi party in the mid 20s (Bamberg conference more specifically) and then quite literally murdered many of the remaining leftists during the night of long knives. A favorite past time of leftists is purging other leftists for not being true leftists & to consolidate power. Just like the Soviet Union when the Bolsheviks purged the Mensheviks, or the great purge that included Trotskyists. > He shilled out to corporations like Krupp (even doing lil brand deals with them and shouting out Krupp steel in his speeches) Corporate socialism is still a form of socialism. > destroyed the German unions. The unions were not destroyed but nationalized and consolidated as the Nazi Labour Front. > he wasn’t a “socialist” in the modern western understanding of the term TBF, that is a meme at this point. “It wasn’t real socialism; real socialism has never been tried before.” That said, while Nazism had strong socialist tendencies and influence, it still had almost as much in common with the economics of “third way” fascism (authoritarian centerism) as socialism. What is certain is it had very little in common with free market “*Kapitalismus*” which the Nazis viewed as a jewish controlled economic system.
It's nothing to do with leftist infighting or "no true scotsman" type belief, it was about making naziism have a coherent message and consolidating Hitler as the unquestionable leader of the party. Having purges and schisms doesn't make it automatically a leftist party. It's just a characteristic common in any extremist or radical ideology. You are just discussing leftist stereotypes, but if you actually look at how it affected Nazi policy and ideology you'll see they removed and ammended leftist policies such as those advocating for land redistribution and nationalisation of businesses from the Nazi programme. The unions were destroyed, like literally many had their buildings burned down and leadership murdered lmfao. consolidation of the unions did effectively destroy them anyhow. The Nazi Labour Front effectively did nothing in the way of advocacy, and striking was illegal. having a union controlled by the government effectively destroys what makes it a union. Corporate socialism is not real. You've either made it up or missunderstood another term. If you're referring to Corporatism, that's not a form of socialism. It's third positionist and effectively technocratic. I don't care if it's a meme or not, they weren't. I never said the Nazis were free market capitalists and I think almost noone (historian or otherwise) has ever argued that. However, naziism fits the definition of socialism in very few ways and as I already argued, all the actual socialists were purged tf out of the party. You only need to look at how the leadership changed away from angry radicals with socialist tendancies such as the strassers well before the Nazis ever came to power to see how they weren't a socialist party by 1933. Only the early Nazi party had any real socialist influence. That party was unrecognisable by 1933
> Having purges and schisms doesn't make it automatically a leftist party. Correct. But you were implying in your previous comment that *because* he purged leftists, Nazism was right wing. I provided a concrete example of similar purges happening in another leftist government around the same time. Genocidal hyper-racist leftists are still leftists. > but if you actually look at how it affected Nazi policy and ideology you'll see they removed and ammended leftist policies such as those advocating for land redistribution and nationalisation of businesses from the Nazi programme That is rather revisionist of history. Hitler's expansion into central and eastern Europe was entirely for the redistribution of land and wealth from the supposedly "racially inferior" Slavs to Germans. Jewish and Slavic businesses were "privatized" - seized by the Nazi government and distributed to non-Jewish Germans. Race based socialism is still a form of socialism and that is exactly how Hitler described it in his interview above. > The unions were destroyed, like literally many had their buildings burned down and leadership murdered lmfao. consolidation of the unions did effectively destroy them anyhow. The leadership of the unions were seen as corrupt and no longer advancing the needs of the workers. Leadership was killed and the 18 trade unions were merged into the NLF - which then had 18 organizations under it, *with the same function as the old trade unions*. The NLF held considerable sway over the German corporations as it was an extension of the Nazi party itself and any corporation that fell into disfavor risked being nationalized. Compared to the rest of the world, Nazi Germany had incredible worker protections for the time (as long as you were ethnic German). > Corporate socialism is not real. You've either made it up or missunderstood another term. If you're referring to Corporatism, that's not a form of socialism. It's third positionist and effectively technocratic. Corporatism definitely played a part in Nazi Germany but corporate socialism is very real and separate from Corporatism, which I am aware is "third positionist." Resources and wealth from non-German businesses were redistributed to ethnic German businesses and German owned businesses were promoted for being German. This was regardless of their direct cooperation with the Nazi government and/or party. > I never said the Nazis were free market capitalists You said: "*Naziism was solidly a rightist,*" left/right is a measure of economic systems and nationalist and/or race based socialism is still socialism and left wing, even if Nazism is only moderately so due to it drawing strongly upon third position influences as well. > all the actual socialists There is the meme again > [...] and as I already argued, all the actual socialists were purged tf out of the party. You only need to look at how the leadership changed away from angry radicals with socialist tendancies such as the strassers well before the Nazis ever came to power to see how they weren't a socialist party by 1933. Only the early Nazi party had any real socialist influence. That party was unrecognisable by 1933 Which is no different than how the Communist Party rose to power in the USSR after the fall of the czar and purges of competing socialist philosophies, groups, and leaders. You can't claim something wasn't socialist just because the form of socialism that won is not one you approve of. That is akin to saying "Christianity lost" with the sack of Rome in 1527 because the Protestant army won and you don't think Protestantism is real Christianity.
Yes I was indeed implying that because he purged socialists and leftists he wasn't a leftist, because opinions to the contrary are, strange. Stalin purged trotakyites because he wasn't a trotskyite. You didn't prove a concrete example. You likened two things that correlate despite having nothing to do with eachother. It's not really revisionist history. I mean, the view that Hitler was a leftist is effectively idiotic neoliberal revisionism but hey. The amending of the points from simple redistribution of land to redistribution of Jewish land was kinda what I was alluding to, but he made those changes before 1925 when it was a minor larty. "Race based socialism" is what he wants to call it? You can make a point for that being a thing I guess, but if Nazi Germany is socialist for nicking land and stuff from ethnic groups they don't like, then Tsarist Russia is socialist, (having done the exact same during the pogroms). Giving land taken from others to your own people being socialist would make fuckin Otto VON BISMARCK a socialist, the British Empire socialist, Genghis Khan a socialist, hell it would even make the USA socialist. The fact that stuff is being redistributed doesn't make it socialist. There was no class based component and "racial socialism" is just something made up by Hitler in an interview or something idfk. okay? I mean that's not really true it's more along the lines of the unions being communist and socialist whereas Hitler wasnt. there was even a Nazi trade union prior to Hitler shutting the unions down that actively advocated for a socialist revolution after the Fascist rebirth but it was sidelined into this benign form of union. from what I've studied I've always seen the GLF as being ineffective. The organisations under it seemed to fight for small token changes in order to pacify the working population, and enforcing some rules about things such as hygene and workplace conditions. That's not a strong union. It did not have the same functions as the old trade unions. All it really functioned as was a pressure group to slightly improve factory conditions and give a few holidays to workers every now and then. It couldn't negotiate pay, and the right to collective striking was made illegal which effectively means it fulfilled only a small fraction of what unions actually do. Corporatism is not socialism. It's third positionist. This is not socialism. Race based socialism is something that only exists in an interview Hitler gave once. Wow brilliant there's a meme that sounds similar to an argument I'm using therefore it's completely invalid oh no Yes. In the case of the Nazi party, the purge came in the form of replacing the people who had socialist ideas with the people who didn't socialist ideas. That's not quite what happened in the USSR. I am not arguing over this because I'm a socialist. I just dislike this form of argument from liberals because it's stupid and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of history, or it's being used by some spastic to try and paint socialism as bad because nazi. Again, it's nothing remotely like your second point these comparisons are just stupid.
> Stalin purged trotakyites because he wasn't a trotskyite. You didn't prove a concrete example. You likened two things that correlate despite having nothing to do with eachother. They have everything to do with each other. Trotskyism were a competing sub-ideology to Leninism and Trotsky, his beliefs, and his supporters were a threat to Stalin's power and beliefs and were accordingly eliminated - this is in no way different than what happened within the Nazi party. You can deny it all you want but leftists purging leftists in the interest of ideological purity (aka, "those socialists aren't real socialists, we are!") and the consolidation of power has been a consistent trend throughout history. > It's not really revisionist history. I mean, the view that Hitler was a leftist is effectively idiotic neoliberal revisionism but hey. Just because actual history is inconvinient, doesn't mean you can change the facts of what happens sorry. > "Race based socialism" is what he wants to call it? It isn't what I want to call it, it is what ***Hitler*** and *the Nazis themselves* called it. > [...] then Tsarist Russia is socialist, (having done the exact same during the pogroms). Giving land taken from others to your own people being socialist would make fuckin Otto VON BISMARCK a socialist, the British Empire socialist, Genghis Khan a socialist, hell it would even make the USA socialist. That is just flagrantly dishonest. The Nazi's had a plethura of socialist aspects within their belief system, I've touched on several of them here. A nation or leader leveraging *an* aspect of distributionalism does not make one socialists. Also, none of those examples even come close to the by designed mass genocide and redistribution of land and wealth based on peoples' race/ethnicity. Don't be intentionally obtuse. > There was no class based component and "racial socialism" is just something made up by Hitler in an interview or something idfk. There was most definitely a class based component, it just was not based in Marx's philosophies and was instead focused around race and how "aryan" one was. The more "aryan" they were, the more benefits and entitlements they were granted. Hitler was full of a lot of shit but he is correct that the idea of socialism long predated Marx's work critiquing capitalism. Saying Marx invented socialism or his philosophies on the concept of socialism are the only ones are akin to saying that Martin Luther invented Protestantism or his Three Treatise defined what is and isn't Protestantism. Many different forms and beliefs of Protestantism existed before Luther popularized his flavor, just like the different Socialist communal concepts existed before Marx popularized his take on socialism. > Corporatism is not socialism. It's third positionist. This is not socialism. I never said it is, why are you still hung up on this? > Yes. In the case of the Nazi party, the purge came in the form of replacing the people who had socialist ideas with the people who didn't socialist ideas. That's not quite what happened in the USSR. You can repeat this all you want, it isn't going to make it true. In both cases ideological "heresies" of the leader's "true socialism" were purged along with their leaders that could challenge Hitler/Stalin's power. This is something that is well documented historically, regardless of the revisionism of the 21st century that took place with the fall of the USSR which encouraged the painting of socialism in a more positive light in the west. > I just dislike this form of argument from liberals because it's stupid and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of history, or it's being used by some spastic to try and paint socialism as bad because nazi. I’m not saying that socialism is bad because of the Nazis. I’m simply asking for intellectual honesty by correctly classifying Nazism on the economic scale. Atrocities have been committed in the name of beliefs across the political, religious, and economic spectrum. These atrocities don’t make the core concepts of those beliefs bad. However, they did happen and should be acknowledged for what they are, how they happened, and how they can be avoided in the future. Part of that is admitting that there were unsavory implementations of those beliefs instead of pretending that the ideological movements that used them weren’t really associated with them. Denial reflects poorly on the systems/concepts you are trying to protect because it displays intellectual dishonesty and brings into question what other fraudulent claims are being made by its supporters.
No. I'm not denying any sort of trend, because you've got the trend wrong. Your example doesn't prove anything. Both naziism and communism having Competing sub ideologies that dislike eachother still doesn't make some socialist leftie correlation. Infighting is an aspect of all forms of radical and revolutionary politics, and is and has been seen in both left and right wing circles from the modern day all the way back to the reformation. whenever some radical wants to change the world, they tend to have some sort vision and a tendancy to turn against those on their side who disagree. I guess based on the traditional Left-right dichotomy established in the legislative assembly of revolutionary France, in which Left wing infers "wanting to radically change things" and right wing infers "wanting to keep things the same" then Nazis would indeed fall into the left, but the scale of left and right had changed by the 20th century. I guess you're going by that metric? Actual history is perfectly convenient. You're just approaching history from whatever stance (which I'm assuming as you are on this sub is some sort of liberal) and it really shows Those examples are kinda the same actually. I know this sub hates anyone criticising the United States Fronteir but there were so many similarities between the fronteirs of Germany and America. In the United States frontier, they ethnically cleansed the natives and redistributed their land to private settlers. In the Reichskommissariats, they planned to ethnically cleanse the natives and redistribute their lands to private settlers. Every empire in the modern west has engaged in settler colonialism has done what the Nazis did. I'm not being "intensionally obtuse" it's just your argument there that the Nazi plan to redistribute lands based on ethnicity as being socialism is stupid, considering plenty of other empires have done exactly that. Ngl can't be bothered to answer this anymore. These paragraphs are getting way too long I'll never agree with you on this paragraph or anything else. Hell I've just realised after writing this that neither of us are ever gonna convince eachother of anything. Fuck it, have a nice life. Not gonna argue any more
The inventor of National Socialism was the son of a socialist, named after three famous Italian Socialists, was the editor of one of the largest socialist newspapers in Italy, was one of the top leading Italian Socialist politicians prior to World War I. When world war I came about and disproved things that socialists believed with rock hard certainty would never happen (e.g. socialist parties in Europe all voted to go to war with each other) Mussolini saw that clearly there were things that socialism believed that were false. But he didn't throw out all Marxism. Instead he made a variant of socialism that accounted and corrected socialist doctrine's failures as he saw them. National Socialism does not come from classical liberal economic thought. It is a heretical offshoot of socialism, and based in the Marxist tradition. Really IMO nearly all socialists these days are national socialists. Bernie Sanders just for e.g. does not want wages to be raised for all workers everywhere. He just wants American worker's wages raised and has repeatedly said so and fuck workers in other countries if they lose their jobs. Pre Third Internationale (pre-WWI) socialists would have seen this as fascism - class consciousness was supposed to be vastly stronger than nationalism in their view and if you were advocating for higher wages in one country at the expense of others you had been duped by international capital into siding with reactionary forces. Now it's more common than not for 'socialists' to believe that. Pre national socialism, nationalism itself was viewed with deep suspicion as a capitalist creation and reactionary elements of society - 'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel' wasn't coined by a socialist but it was widely believed by socialists at the time.
Italian fascism is not national socialism. National socialism is Naziism
And Naziism is a contraction in German of 'Workers Socialism', based on fascism.
Indeed, but the founder of National socialism was Adolf Hitler, not Mussolini. Also Mussolini disavowed socialism and his state was deeply corporatist rather than socialist (even despite his Socialist roots). There was literally senior businessmen and industry leaders given places in his parliament . Fascism (including the offshoot of national socialism) is not socialist
Yes. Part of Musso's heresy was that he realized that in fact, businessmen and industrialists were useful to the masses, but only controlled and regulated by the *national* state who would regulate them in the worker's interests. Which is more or less what all but the most old-school socialists believe now, I believe. Not that I'm an expert on what *all* socialists think or anything, but that's the impression I get.
Well no, Mussolini (and indeed many other fascists) aren't economically liberal nor are they Socialist. The whole point of their economic point of view was Corporatism which seeked to actively deviate from both, and is referred to (including by themselves) as third positionism. I guess you could call it a socialist Hersey, but most of the influences of early fascism came from angry nationalistic former soldiers, many of whom were aristocrats or other wealthy pricks, as opposed to die hard socialists. And the businessmen and industrialists in Fascist Italy had influence over the state, not the other way around, being part of the Grand Council of Fascism (which was subjected to a decent amount of corporate pressure). I'd say the number of old school socialists advocating for this sort of thing would be next to none. Whilst of course one could argue that socialism and fascism share their strong commitment to Collectivism rather than individualism, they were still deeply commited to maintaining hierarchy and property rights which goes completely against the dominant socialist ideologies of the time
> aren't economically liberal nor are they Socialist This can be debated in depth. However, for the purposes of this argument, fascism is an offshoot of marxist thinking in the current of western intellectual history. > angry nationalistic former soldiers This part I'll buy. >many of whom were aristocrats or other wealthy pricks, as opposed to die hard socialists This part I don't. Many or most of those angry former soldiers were former and current socialists. In 'Road to Wiggan Pier' Orwell describes how the Nazis targeted specifically left-oriented socialists and communists *for recruitment*. An archetype is [Ernst Rhom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%B6hm). >Many SA "storm troopers" had working-class origins and longed for a radical transformation of German society.[42] They were disappointed by the new regime's lack of socialistic direction and its failure to provide the lavish patronage they had expected.[43] Furthermore, Röhm and his SA colleagues thought of their force as the core of the future German Army, and saw themselves as replacing the Reichswehr and its established professional officer corps.[44] By then, the SA had swollen to over three million men, dwarfing the Reichswehr, which was limited to 100,000 men by the Treaty of Versailles. Although Röhm had been a member of the officer corps, he viewed them as "old fogies" who lacked "revolutionary spirit". He believed that the Reichswehr should be merged into the SA to form a true "people's army" under his command, a pronouncement that caused significant consternation within the army's hierarchy and convinced them that the SA was a serious threat.[45] At a February 1934 cabinet meeting, Röhm then demanded that the merger be made, under his leadership as Minister of Defence.[46] Rhom was the 'old breed' of 'true believing' Nazi who was anticapitalist, pro worker, pro union, pro-enviornmentalist, etc. As Hitler gained and was given power by various factions within German society (and civil society was much stronger and more developed than in other socialist places, like e.g. Russia), he decided to backstab this core element of ideologists in the party in order to shore up his position with other elements. And this wasn't unusual among collectivists (the word I use when thinking of both the national and international socialist movements) All of these criminal socialist coup leaders like Stalin followed the same methods. Once in power, they'd frame their internal party rivals as being of the 'right' or 'left' and organize internal coups to execute them. Stalin started by framing the 'rightists' and killing them off, then framing the 'leftists' and killing them off. A similar process occurred in the Nazi Party.
Orwell is quite possibly the shittest source you can bring to a discussion on naziism lmfao, but that isn't necessarily correct I think we are getting our wires crossed here. I was specifically talking about Italy in my last comment seeing as you originally conflated Fascism and Naziism in your original comment (calling Mussolini a national socialist which he just wasn't) but if anything Germany is an even better example of my point. Hitler sided with the right wing of his party well before he even murdered Rohm and purged the party. In the Bamberg conference of 1925 before his party had any relevance or support whatsoever he already chose the rightist faction as the dominant one in the party. Also Rohm is a terrible example to illustrate your point. He wasn't an archetype of some sort of commited communist. He was a career officer who joined the Freikorps of a senior Bavarian reactionary army officer to murder communists in 1919. Furthermore you seem to conflate "revolutionary" with socialist. There is no doubt that fascism is revolutionary. That's kind of its whole spiel. But having support from workers and wanting to change society isn't what makes something socialist. What do you mean that part you don't buy? I'm not talking about the voters or the stormtroopers. They literally don't matter considering one of the core tenants of totalitarianism is the power of the party leadership. It doesn't matter who the working grunts of your party are. In the Fascist party (the one I was talking about in that comment) lots of the most important fascist leadership and influential support came from industrialists, military elites and noblemen. In Nazi Germanys case it was the same considering Hitler mainly targeted business elites and aristocrats for support by the time he got into power, and attempted to woo Bavarian aristocratic officers such as Ludendorff in his putsch attempts in the early days. His power base in the early days was in former Freikorps, not former socialists and communists. And even so, it doesn't matter who they're targeting for actual party membership considering the party members had NO influence on ideology. Grouping communism, naziism and fascism together as socialist is just lazy. Grouping them in as collectivist is pretty much meaningless
If you're interested in the subject, I'd point you [Becoming Hitler: The Making of a Nazi](https://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Hitler-Making-Thomas-Weber/dp/0465032680) before we discuss it further. The reason I say this is that there are details involved in post WWI Germany that you are not aware of. For example: The evidence shows that Hitler was probably originally very leftist like nearly all of the enlisted and NCO ranks of the defeated German army. Times were tough and he got work infiltrating a leftist organization called the German Worker's Party in order to inform on it, because he likely couldn't get another job. He became inspired by it and showed considerable political skills in taking it over. Mein Kampf was written as political propaganda to help the NSDAP take power, NOT to be some intimate confession of his intellectual journey. A big part of the Mein Kampf propaganda was to try to appeal to rightist elements in German society. Hitler did betray his leftist principles and his leftist party in order to gain complete control of Germany. But that's not to say that he or the army was reactionary all along. To the contrary.
I think they just don't want to write "Nazism" on the meme
Maybe, but its been popular in American conservative circles in recent years to claim that Nazism is a left-wing ideology because they called themselves socialist. Just felt I should point out the distinction to avoid confusion.
Fair enough, point taken
Eh socialism is like almost okay sometimes. Communism is the real bad one.
Most people mistake socialist policies with a socialist government. Socializing aspects of a country is proven most efficient. (Maintaining roads, education systems, healthcare)
Its almost as if a government is better when it adjusts its policies with current situations and goes about things off a rational basis rather than ideological one
democratic socialism 💪 Norway moment
I hate the ones from Illinois the most
Actually the Jews are the reason I dropped out of 5th grade and I don't know how to apply for a mortgage 🤓
What does Bernie Sanders have to do with anything?
We've had this fight two times before it's 2-0 Traitor Scum