Was the Nazi Party socialist?

[ImaLooser]

The official name was the National Socialist Democratic Workers Party. However this is of no use. They certainly weren't democratic, so why should we believe they were socialist?

The party worked in the interests of workers by imposing price controls. The controls were on retail prices, so shopkeepers had to absorb the losses. Naziism was no friend to small business.

As to state ownership of business, the party did start an arms factory named after Hermann Goering. But generally they worked with existing private enterprise. So would that mean that they were not socialist?

Hitler was a pragmatist and had a record of using people for his purposes until they were no longer of any use, then disposing of them. I think this is what he was doing with private industry. The party was a radical one and opposed to all other institutions -- schools, churches, even marriage -- that might lead anyone away from the parties goals. It is also a fact that the party leadership was corrupt and incompetent. There was no chance that they could manage a factory, and I suspect that the Hermann Goering factory was not a useful one. So the party worked with private industry because that was the only way to get the production they needed for the war. Once the party was able to develop members who could be trusted to run the factories then they would have been seized. So in that sense party was socialist. But if the workers were no longer useful they too would have been discarded. The country certainly wasn't going to be run for the benefit of workers. So perhaps not. It depends on the exact definition of socialism one uses, and future actions of the party that never came to be.

 

[russ_watters]

Starting with the wiki on it, I'm sure there is plenty of discussion of the issue online:

Hitler didn't create the name and objected to it because he didn't want it confused with Marxist socialism. It is fascist and typically considered a right wing ideology, but I subscribe to the theory that the ends of the spectrum curve and join. After all, extreme socialism also has strong, militaristic national governments. In either case, all such extremist ideologies, in practice, are manipulated/utilized for the benefit of the leaders, so definitions can be loose.

 

[SteamKing]

The German abbreviation for the Nazi party (NSDAP) translates to the National Socialist German Workers Party. There was nothing democratic about either the name of the party nor how it functioned.

 

[ImaLooser]

The German abbreviation for the Nazi party (NSDAP) translates to the National Socialist German Workers Party. There was nothing democratic about either the name of the party nor how it functioned.

Oops, you are right. Silly me. I knew that.

 

[BWV]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program#The_25-point_Program_of_the_NSDAP

The 25-point Program of the NSDAP

We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the people's right to self-determination.

We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.

We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.

Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.

Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.

The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen.

Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.

We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.
All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.

The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently we demand:

Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people.

Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race; b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language; c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to anyone denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The good of the state before the good of the individual.[11]

For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.

 

[ImaLooser]

That's certainly a socialist program. They didn't actually practice it. Perhaps they would have if they had remained in power long enough.

 

[arildno]

NSDAP was most definitely collectivist, and regarded state authority as the primary means to promote and defend that collectivism.
This latter point, the centrality of state authority in enforcing collectivism distinguishes NSDAP from those types of reactionary collectivisms that regarded guilds, nobles, and the individual patriarchs as the ones to streamline the population (i.e, pre-modern forms of collectivism).

However, NSDAP was certainly not egalitarian in mentality, neither relative to races, or how the economy ought to be regulated/administered. This is a factor that distinguishes it from at least the ideological pretense of other socialisms.

 

[jim hardy]

You might find Albert Speer's memoir "Slave State" an interesting read.

It ran like any other bureaucracy - individuals competing for position and power.


Their goal was a "Slave State", a core of chosen people living a pastoral lifestyle supported by forced labor of their 'inferior' neighbors.
Does socialism include 'Some pigs are more equal than others...' ?

 

[SixNein]

The official name was the National Socialist Democratic Workers Party. However this is of no use. They certainly weren't democratic, so why should we believe they were socialist?

They weren't socialists, and they were anti-labor. Unions were expressly forbidden in Nazi Germany. In addition, socialists were rounded up and sent to concentration camps even before the Jews. In fact, it's well worth pointing out that the Nazi's had many capitalist sympathizers in the United States. Henry Ford won the highest medal that Nazi Germany had for foreigners, and GM and Ford was instrumental in the Nazi war effort.


Here is an article by a supporter of Socialism (Albert Einstein) on what socialism is about:
http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism

Unfortunately, it's still taboo.

 

[lpetrich]

I've seen the Nazi Party's name explained as a way of bridging the left and the right, by using each side's favorite words in the party's name. Sort of like a US party called the Democratic Republican Liberal Conservative Party.

National (right) Socialist (left) German (right) Workers (left)

 

[Nikitin]

Nope. It's just a myth.

Facism has some things in common with socialism as both ideologies are collectivist in nature. So in both you have mixed economies, socialized health care and so on - social structures in place to take care of your own.

However, the difference is in the type of collective these two ideologies take care of. In fascism,it's the ethnic national group. In socialism, it's about taking care of everybody. In essence, fascism is ultra-nationalist and extremely anti-egalitarian, while socialism is internationalist and very egalitarian. These are fundamental differences that make the ideologies wildly different.

I also don't buy Russ Watter's claim about socialism being extreme: Unless we're talking about communism, ordinary socialism is a proven concept that works very well in Europe. There's nothing extreme or dangerous about it; IMO it's common sense. Socialism mixes well with democracy (and authoritarianism).

 

[Czcibor]

However, the difference is in the type of collective these two ideologies take care of. In fascism,it's the ethnic national group. In socialism, it's about taking care of everybody. In essence, fascism is ultra-nationalist and extremely anti-egalitarian, while socialism is internationalist and very egalitarian. These are fundamental differences that make the ideologies wildly different.

Are we discussing here:
-declared ideology?
-practice?

If declared ideology - then they even used "socialist" in their name.
If practice - then the Soviet Union presented very high dose of Russian nationalism, including genocide of undesirable ethnic groups (like Holodomor) or mass deportation based on ethnic origin.

Anyway, within "the race" Nazism was quite egalitarian with really good welfare state by standards of its era; sure it had to be financed by looting conquered countries. One of reasons why Germany had so high morale during WW2, was that in contrast to WW1 German cared much more about wellbeing of masses.

 

[Hornbein]

There is a very interesting book available free online whose title I unfortunately forget. It was interviews with ten ordinary low-level Nazi in a town in Germany shortly after the war, asked why they joined the party. Their views were that they didn't like democracy because the legislature was dominated by the rich and ordinary people weren't getting anything. Industrialists who had gotten rich off of WWI were particularly despised. The people had gotten a better deal in the days of the Kaiser, who could and sometimes did decree a benefit for the people. They didn't want to go back to the Kaiser though. What they wanted was a government for the benefit of ordinary laborers. This is what they meant by socialism. They didn't like Communism because it was under the leadership of the USSR. They wanted a German nationalistic socialism. Hence the National Socialist German Workers Party.

The party imposed wage and price controls. Shops had to sell certain items at a loss and had to resort to subterfuges to stay in business. Their party literature regularly denounced profits and business, so I would say that it was basically anti-business.

So, why did the Nazis get so much support from business and even royalty? The main reason was that Hitler was a both a pragmatist and a very convincing liar. The Nazis were a bunch of drunks and thugs and could not run an industry. They tried with the Herman Goering factory, which was hopelessly corrupt. The hated war profiteers were needed to support the war. I'm sure that after the war was won the plan was to get rid of them. The Nazis wanted total control and in the long run no other power center was to be tolerated. The Nazis also lied to royalty, telling them they would be reinstated. Goebbels aide de camp was a Bavarian prince. There was absolutely no chance that this promise would be fulfilled. it was a lie that royalty wanted to believe. Another example was the Catholic church. The Church is protected in the party platform, but Hitler said he would deal with them after the war.

When you read about them it was a truly totalitarian state. Hitler even wanted to do away with the institution of marriage to further his eugenics program. Ordinary Nazis thought his eugenics kooky, laughable, and refused to carry out his program of euthanasia.

Fascism was an Italian concept and I haven't studied it.

 

[SteamKing]

I also don't buy Russ Watter's claim about socialism being extreme: Unless we're talking about communism, ordinary socialism is a proven concept that works very well in Europe. There's nothing extreme or dangerous about it; IMO it's common sense. Socialism mixes well with democracy (and authoritarianism).

As the late Lady Thatcher reportedly said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Margaret_Thatcher

Or, to put it another way,

"Socialism always starts with the same promises, and ends with the same failures. And yet it’s always presented as something shiny and new!" - Glenn Reynolds

Socialism always works for a while, but even in Europe, the cracks are starting to show and grow. That's what the periodic European financial crises are about: the southern European countries want to spend way beyond their means, and they expect the northern countries to work hard and pay the bills, generating all sorts of recrimination and resentment between the two camps. Throw in a dash of declining fertility rates, which means fewer young people entering the labor force, and an increase in the elderly population retiring and receiving benefits from the state, like a pension and health care, and you have a rather interesting stew bubbling on the stove.

Or you can ask the Japanese: they have tried an eclectic mix of international capitalism in their export markets, while maintaining a rather socialist domestic policy for the folks in the Home Islands. There too, adverse population demographics threaten to bring the whole structure collapsing down. Young Japanese adults are not making more Japanese children, in spite of incentives offered by the government, while the over 65 population increases every day. The Japanese economy has never rebounded from the stock market crash of the early '90s and it may never fully recover.

Socialism may mix well with democracy and authoritarianism, but experience has shown that socialist democracies tend to shift toward the authoritarian end of the political spectrum over time when democratic policies are no longer sufficient to keep the socialist machinery functioning. Post-war Europe started as a collection of little socialist laboratories, but when stagnation set in, the EU was introduced to fix things, with all of its mandates and directives coming out of Brussels.

 

[jim hardy]

Benign dictatorship is the best form of government. Difficulty is keeping him benign.

Machiavelli is reviled because he spoke of "The Masses" as a largely unwashed and illiterate lot. Well, back in 1513 there was probably some truth to that.
His "The Prince" would be decent advice for a benign dictator.

The trouble with socialism is some animals become "more equal than others" by self appointment. At least with a representative republic we can periodically "Throw The Bums Out".

hmm, i kinda like that idea for a bumpersticker - a whisk broom, with logo TTBO.

 

[ArtsDegreeGuy]

It was a combination of both

To start off, I think this quote from Hitler is a good reference point to start from when asking this question.

"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberal concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of the humanity, and to substitute for them the Volk community, rooted in the soil and united by the bond of its common blood.” 1937

It objected to ideas that came out of the French revolution regarding liberty and individual rights. It also rejected Marxism, because it 'binded' workers around the world together (regardless of race or religion) and this contradicted what the Nazi's wanted to do with Europe. It also rejected extreme capitalism, because it valued money over the national interest. An illustration of this is the motto that was on German coins at the time which read "Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz" or translated to ""Public need before private greed".

During the time of Fascism, it was seen as a 'third way'. Capitalism had failed Germany and Italy( and later on during the Wall st crash, other Western countries too) and communism was viewed as a threat to Europe.

To make a quick list of two issues that I would put Nazism down for in the left/right wing spectrum...

left: 1.)Nazism was fundamentally a collective ideology. 2.)Government involvement in the economy. ( Very similar to FDR's reforms) so therefor not for completefree markets.

Right. 1.) Extreme nationalism and emphasized the countries' history and myths 2.) Viewed communism as a danger to national cohesion.

Another interesting point to make that I think will make the answer to this question 'click' all of a sudden for you is this. Hitler regarded economics as something that was secondary to changing the 'will' of the people. Economics was something to be used as a means to an end. ( The end being Nazi philosophy dominating Europe) So therefor Hitler was very pragmatic with his economic policies, sometimes relying on Government programs while other times small and big business would play its part.

So therefor you ask yourself, where do these non-economic tenants reside in the left/right paradigm ? ( Extreme nationalism, strong military, pre-emptive strikes against other countries) Where do you personally place extreme nationalism ? Left or Right ?

To conclude, the answer is NO, because socialism is based on collecting people through class and seeing the world as a class war and Nazi Germany didn't meet this criteria. left/right politics is just a guide and shouldn't be taken too seriously. It is not an exact science.

In my opinion, of course.

 

[SteamKing]

Benign dictatorship is the best form of government. Difficulty is keeping him benign.

Benign dictatorship is the best form of government, as long as I get to be the dictator.

 

[Hornbein]

An illustration of this is the motto that was on German coins at the time which read "Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz" or translated to ""Public need before private greed".

I would translate that as "Use for the collective goes before use for the self," since benutzen means "to use."

 

In 1934 "The night of the long knives" happened. In short Hitler had, amongst others, the leaders of the Socialist wing of the nazi party murdered.

In response to the 25 points, in your own link right above it, it states that Hitler only mentions it once in Mein Kampf when he calls it "the so called program of the movement". I don't know about in German, but in English that means he doesn't agree with it.

 

[konghouyun]

Nope,they are left wing party but they r not socialist

 

[cabraham]

Third Reich was definitely a leftist thought process. These planks affirm the leftist nature of said 3rd Reich:

Nationalization of heavy industries.
Division of profit among workers.
Firearms controlled by central govt.
Private and religious schools prohibited, compulsory public school attendance with federal mandated secular curriculum.
National interest placed above private profit motive.

Anybody who calls the 3rd Reich "rightist" is obviously misinformed. Just for the record, rightism & leftism do not join. There is a difference. Rightism promotes less govt, more individual initiative, profit motive, property rights, private ownership of firearms, free choice of secular or religious schools, religious liberty, states rights in spheres not specifically assigned to federal jurisdiction by Constitution, free market economics, individual responsibility, and so on. If rightism is taken to the extreme, the result is no govt at all, or anarchy. This is a very bad thing, but it differs from leftism in its extreme. The extreme left is totalitarianism, also very bad.

Both right and left should not be carried to extreme, but they are not joined at any point. Rightism and leftism are different, and when rightism is practiced by citizens who are motivated, independent, moral, compassionate, and just, small govt results in great human happiness.

When people don't care about helping others or themselves, the govt steps in and bankruptcy is where it ends. Socialism is a transitional phase from civilized culture to anarchy and poverty. Socialism never worked anywhere. Europe has never had the standard of living like that of the US. If subsistence is all one aspires for, then they may like socialism. But if one wishes to thrive, prosper, and achieve great things, the best environment to achieve that is a capitalist culture.

Capitalism and socialism pros & cons are not even a legitimate debate. Capitalism is better period. Nobody with objectivity would even question the superiority of capitalism. Those who favor socialism are disenchanted with capitalism results. The socialist wishes to play God and decide who succeeds and who fails. Capitalism reminds the socialist would be rulers, that they are not in charge. Socialists hate more than anything, the fact that some people they do not like end up succeeding. It kills them.

Claude

 

[SixNein]

Third Reich was definitely a leftist thought process.

The Nazi party was a well documented and highly authoritarian right wing movement.

you can read more about that here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Capitalism and socialism pros & cons are not even a legitimate debate. Capitalism is better period. Nobody with objectivity would even question the superiority of capitalism.

Tell that to Albert Einstein.
http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism


Quite frankly, you strike me as a person who views everything through some kind of ideological lens.

 

[Hornbein]

The concepts of left and right wing are vague catchalls that everyone defines differently. I find it more productive to discuss specific issues.

 

[Helios]

Yes, I think left and right wing labels are pseudo-intellectual. Firstly, socialism, whatever that is, apparently can be called left or right. In either case, it's a bunch of pesky rules imposed on an otherwise free people.
I don't like the -ism in Capitalism. It suggests that it is some technical social plan by some theorist. No, instead it is one of the oldest things. It is the natural state of affairs, neither left or right, anarchic.

The content of National Socialism isn't as important as when National Socialism became Hitlerism. It's easy to understand from here. The policy was to destroy by death everything that Hitler didn't like. There would be perpetual enemies and perpetual war. War was healthy because of the Darwin's selection process to improve the race. Eventually 9 ft. mega-Aryans would rule the Earth. This was perhaps a hallucination he gathered as a WWI soldier. He was of course a crank, he liked swastikas, and I don't know the name of his condition was that made him so militant and determined.

 

[jim hardy]

and I don't know the name of his condition was that made him so militant and determined.

There's an interesting book called "I Was Hitler's Doctor" by Kurt Kreuger (probably a pseudonym) who claims to have treated Hitler for about fifteen years, 1919 to 1934. He describes Hitler as the product of a traumatic childhood with domineering abusive father and an overprotective mother; a fear and rage filled puer aeternus.
Kreuger fled to New York because Hitler was killing everybody who "had any goods on him".

I stumbled across a 1941 copy in a thrift store:
http://www.abebooks.com/Hitlers-Doctor-Kurt-Krueger-Biltmore-Publishing/9044081166/bd

and it's been reprinted:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1417992263/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Opinion as to its authenticity vary. Nonetheless it is an interesting one to read.

http://www.henrymakow.com/hitlers_psychiatrist_cites_imp.html

"I Was Hitler's Doctor" exposed in 1941 many aspects of Hitler's career and character that are little known even today. Hitler was impotent. He was a homosexual and bisexual. He had been Capt. Roehm's lover. He was employed by the army to monitor rabble rousers. He met regularly with Steel Baron Fritz Thyssen.

Later he had engaged in occult ritual abuse with credulous Hitler Youth as willing victims. Kreuger: "He had used a bayonet knife to cut a bleeding swastika between the breasts of a female cultist, and then in a moment of erotic madness, he had made a homicidal attack upon the young blonde girl, whom he rushed to me for treatment." (p.41)

Despite all of this, Kreuger's portrait of a man trying to heal himself is quite sympathetic. I am not going to swear by the book's authenticity but I'm not going to ignore it either. - See more at: http://www.henrymakow.com/hitlers_psychiatrist_cites_imp.html#sthash.N7cUSnur.dpuf

See also Upton Sinclair's review at

http://www.newrepublic.com/book/review/the-man-within

Dr. Krueger’s picture is of a tormented psyche, and the seeing of it leaves us divided between dismay and pity. To sum up briefly Dr. Krueger’s findings, the Fuhrer of all the Nazis and master of most of Europe is sexually impotent, and a victim of the emotional vagaries and abnormalities which this condition frequently causes. The condition derives from deep-seated fears, and produces a sense of inadequacy which drives its victim to frenzied efforts to compensate for his failures. Unwilling to admit himself the inferior of normal men, he must prove himself their superior by means of whips and guns.

EDIT maybe i should have put this in "What are you reading" thread a couple years ago. But the question came up in this one...

 

[cabraham]

The Nazi party was a well documented and highly authoritarian right wing movement.

you can read more about that here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism





Tell that to Albert Einstein.
http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism


Quite frankly, you strike me as a person who views everything through some kind of ideological lens.

Wikipedia is not even peer reviewed. Anybody can publish on Wiki. Not reliable at all. My points show that leftism as known in 20th/21st century US politics, is aligned with Nazism very well on most issues like arms ownership, free market capitalism production/sales/labor etc. Private education is respected by right, scorned by left as well as 3rd Reich.

No doubt that leftists always align 3rd Reich with rightism because it's an embarrassment to leftism. History and logic over-rule a silly Wiki article from any random person.

Socialism produces nothing but austerity, hardship, shortages, bare subsistence, and little to no upward mobility for most people. Capitalism produces abundance and high degree of upward mobility for many. It produces way more in terms of goods and services, and high standard of living. The key is to leverage one's talents and apply oneself.

Einstein got it right on relativity, and wrong on economics. He certainly is no authority on the subject. Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, N. Korea, Cambodia/PolPot, China, Cuba, and many others are totalitarian regimes with poverty everywhere. In N. Korea, the average adult height has been steadily decreasing for 2 generations or more due to food shortages. S. Korea has no such problem.

That speaks louder than Einstein merely asserting his preference for socialism. As far as my ideological lens goes, the socialists are very ideologically driven as well. My ideology is proven through history. Capitalism is superior not because I say so, because countries embracing it are far more prosperous and advanced. In capitalist countries, freedom is larger. Socialism by its nature denies the concept of property rights, meaning that people work for the state. Socialism is involuntary servitude and anti-freedom. People who believe in it are enemies of freedom.

Claude

 

[cabraham]

Also. I'd like to add one more point. Modern day progressives/socialists/democrats are NOT racial supremacists, whereas the 3rd Reich was such. This is the one, and likely the only major platform point where leftism and 3rd Reich disagree. Most modern day socialists have long rejected the idea of a superior race. That is where they differ from the 3rd Reich.

But on most economic and social issues, the agreement between modern leftism and Nazi ideology is very well correlated. It was in Germany, post WW1, where the "social security" experiment was hatched. Instead of workers saving for retirement, and relying on company pension plans, a govt program was created.

Modern leftists not only support SS, but resist any attempt to privatize it, even if done very gradually over the course of a whole generation or more. Leftists do not like religious schools, rightists believe secular & religious both have a right to exist. The 3rd Reich did not allow churches to offer schools as an option, the Reich insisted on public *secular* education mandated for all, in order to indoctrinate youth with Nazi ideology.

The comparison with corporations, profits, R&D, capital expenditure, gun control, church influence on culture, clearly show that the Nazi party is on the same side on almost every issue as today's left. As I said before, today's left does NOT believe in superior races. I give them credit on that one. But if 3rd Reich is in agreement with leftists 80% or more, I would not call it a rightist movement. Rightism is opposed to every plank in Nazi platform.

Also, as a rightist myself (gosh you wouldn't have guessed that would you!), I deplore any concept of racial superiority. I believe all status must be earned, nobody is entitled to fame, fortune, privileges, etc., simply by virtue of their race or heritage. So not only does racial supremacy get rejected by the modern left, but by the modern right as well. Almost nobody on the right feels that they are IT simply because of their heritage/race.

So modern leftists cannot face the embarrassment that the 3rd Reich, one of the most barbaric regimes in human history, is ideologically close to them. It is hard to deal with. So they simply label it a *right* wing movement, but classic definitions of right and left do not corroborate such a claim. If a person is a socialist, that does not mean that they wish to exterminate people or support a master race. Being leftist does not make on a racial supremacist, or mass killer.

The modern left supports a platform like the 3rd Reich socialists supported WITHOUT the racial supremacy. Being a socialist today does not make you a killer necessarily.

Claude

Claude

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Also. I'd like to add one more point. Modern day progressives/socialists/democrats are NOT racial supremacists, whereas the 3rd Reich was such. This is the one, and likely the only major platform point where leftism and 3rd Reich disagree. Most modern day socialists have long rejected the idea of a superior race. That is where they differ from the 3rd Reich. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

To this I would add that the NSDAP was ultra-nationalist rather than "internationalist" and did not nationalize large segments of the economy in peacetime, although many industries were "coordinated" for the war effort.

As was noted earlier in this thread, the right-left spectrum is more of a political convenience than a rigorous construct. In a number of ways, the extremes of the right and left do resemble each other. Mussolini had no problem in moving from his early support of communism to becoming the founder of the Fascist movement.

 

[cabraham]

To this I would add that the NSDAP did not nationalize large segments of the economy in peacetime, although many industries were "coordinated" for the war effort.

As was noted earlier in this thread, the right-left spectrum is more of a political convenience than a rigorous construct. In a number of ways the extremes of the right and left do resemble each other. Mussolini had no problem in moving from his early support of communism to becoming the founder of the Fascist movement.

You make some valid points, but I don't see how "extremes" (whatever that is) of right & left resemble each other. We must define right, left, and the extremes of both in order to have a meaningful point of reference. Please define right & left, and what the extreme for each looks like.

Here is my definition, likely to not be liked by most. In the days of the French Parliament post-revolution, those representatives in favor of laissez-faire policies sat together on the right. Those in favor of govt regulated economy, transportation, education, farming, banking, etc., sat together on the left side. Eventually right & left were used to indicate a person's political leanings. Right = limited govt w/ broad personal freedom. Left = broad govt w/ limited personal freedom. So what are the extremes?

Taking each idea to its extreme results in the following:

Extreme left = totalitarianism.

Extreme right = anarchy.

Based on my definitions, which many will not accept, the extreme left & extreme right are both undesirable and destructive of justice, but they can hardly be similar. Just because 2 things are both bad does not make them similar. They are similar only in the sense that justice cannot survive with either totalitarianism or with anarchy.

Both are deplorable, but they are not similar. Both are definitely to be avoided. Although I believe in free trade, I don't think any & all trade is good, and some trade likely needs to be curtailed. I don't believe in letting contractors of defense equipment sell nuclear hardware to hostile powers. Drugs are debatable, but let it suffice to say that I do not believe in totally unmitigated free trade where anybody can sell anything to anybody.

Anyway I would describe me as right of center, limited govt is great, but freedom should be the general rule. Restrictions should be exceptions, and only with just cause. There should be a compelling reason to restrict something, and burden of proof is on the restrictor. Otherwise people should not be interfered with.

The 3rd Reich did anything it wanted, civil liberties of citizens did not matter to them. They definitely practiced the leftist model of govt/economics relations. They felt that govt can & should regulate business for the good of the state. Freedom under 3rd Reich was narrow, govt power was broad. Was the 3rd Reich big govt/small freedom, or vice-versa? I say the former. They were socialist, anti-liberty, and racial supremacists.

Today's rightists are capitalist, pro-liberty, & non-supremacists, opposed to 3rd Reich on 3 out of 3 of these points.

Today's leftists are socialist, anti-liberty, & non-supremacists, opposed to 3rd Reich on 1 out of 3 points. Anti-liberty is a strong accusation, but today's leftists want to restrict education to public secular schools, tax w/o consideration as to who earned it, restrict gun sales, etc. They believe these anti-liberty measures will produce a better world, but they are still anti-liberty. The fact that they believe that trading liberty results in security does not change the fact they are anti-liberty.

Once again, today's leftists are NOT racial supremacists. I salute them for that. That is 1 point, albeit just 1, where they are NOT like the 3rd Reich.

Claude

 

[SW VandeCarr]

You make some valid points, but I don't see how "extremes" (whatever that is) of right & left resemble each other. We must define right, left, and the extremes of both in order to have a meaningful point of reference. Please define right & left, and what the extreme for each looks like.
left = totalitarianism………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

I don't have a definition other than to say the democratic left of the US and Canada (I don't know about Europe) generally thought of Stalin's regime as "extreme", while the democratic right in the US and Canada, generally rejected Hitler's regime as "extreme". Both regimes were police states. Beyond that, there are just opinions, such as the one you express. Could you cite a source for the opinion you express? Otherwise, I have to tell you that expressing personal opinions regarding the substantial issues in the thread is against PF rules.

EDIT: I think the German capitalists such as the Krupp, Thyssen and Bayer families would be very surprised to find the NSDAP was a party of the left.

 

[cabraham]

Cite a source? Examine any history of 3rd Reich Germany. The Nazi platform covers industry, capitalism, firearms, education, etc. I was born in 1955. Since I can remember I don't recall a week in my life where there wasn't a documentary on television examining the 3rd Reich. I saw speeches from the Fuhrer himself proclaim "we are national socialists, do not forget".

The actions, enactments, policies of the 3rd Reich are printed in every library, on line at dozens of web sites. The acronym "NAZI" literally translates as "National Socialist Workers Party". The OP question is "were the Nazis socialist?" Now you ask me to "cite references" that the National Socialist Workers Party was a socialist outfit! Good grief. That's like asking me to cite references to prove that Pearl Harbor invasion really happened. Get real!

Claude

 

[cabraham]

I don't have a definition other than to say the democratic left of the US and Canada (I don't know about Europe) generally thought of Stalin's regime as "extreme", while the democratic right in the US and Canada, generally rejected Hitler's regime as "extreme". Both regimes were police states. Beyond that, there are just opinions, such as the one you express. Could you cite a source for the opinion you express? Otherwise, I have to tell you that expressing personal opinions regarding the substantial issues in the thread is against PF rules.

EDIT: I think the German capitalists such as the Krupp, Thyssen and Bayer families would be very surprised to find the NSDAP was a party of the left.

So why would anyone, including the families you cite, ever propose that Nazi party is a rightist movement? What in the Nazi platform resembles rightism? Rightism is limited govt & broad freedom per French Parliament coining the terms right & left. How can Nazi govt be limited when they did anything they wanted. They rounded up citizens & exterminated them (do I need to cite proof that it really happened?). They invaded countries (do I need to prove that?). They saw their govt as having no limits on what they can do. They nationalized private property.

How can anybody call that rightist? Get serious dude. Nazi & rightism are as far removed as night from day. Frankly the only reason you would even question me is that you are a leftist that hates racial supremacy. I hate that too. But Nazi party being leftist makes you uncomfortable because you hate them and want to distance yourself from their horrible deeds, same as me.

It is hard to accept that virtually every point in the Nazi platform, available at many web sites, is parallel to modern leftism, from social security, socialized medicine, gun restriction, govt controlled secular public schools etc. Being a leftist does NOT make you a Nazi.

Nazis are leftists. But - MOST leftists today are NOT Nazis, nor any type of racial supremacist.

I am NOT calling anybody here a racial supremacist. I emphasize that strongly.

Claude

 

[DavidSnider]

The definition wikipedia has for 'Right Wing' almost certainly applies to Nazis:
"Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social hierarchy or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically justifying this position on the basis of natural law or tradition."

That's exactly what the Nazi party believed as with every other ultra-right wing fascist regime of the 20th century.

 

[cabraham]

The definition wikipedia has for 'Right Wing' almost certainly applies to Nazis:
"Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social hierarchy or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically justifying this position on the basis of natural law or tradition."

That's exactly what the Nazi party believed as with every other ultra-right wing fascist regime of the 20th century.

Are you serious? That is nonsense. Inequality being natural has nothing to do with Nazi. My pitching ability is pathetic compared to a major league pitcher. To say that I (Claude) and Josh Beckett are naturally unequal at throwing a fast ball is not Nazi in any way.

Right wing accepts differences among people regarding ability. I sing, but nowhere near as good as Mike Bublet. Have you watched American Idol auditions on tv? Other shows like the Voice etc., have singers audition. It doesn't take long to realize that inequality is a natural condition of the world. Some can sing, some can't, some in between.

Proclaiming that singing ability varies among people, and that inequality is the natural state is truth. Truth it is, not Nazi. I have horrible athletic ability, artistic skills limited to music, bad dancer, but good at math & engineering. In the industrial age we leverage our strengths and work in a field suitable to our natural ability. We are grossly unequal. The great singer you hear is likely awful at most other things.

In leftist regimes, like China, Soviet Union, etc., this natural inequality is acknowledged. In Europe there are laborers, waiters/waitresses, teachers, doctors, etc. Every culture, right, left, in between, knows that we are not equal at all.

Where the Nazis got it wrong was deeming whole races of people as unfit to live. They exterminated people not for deeds committed, but for who they were. Their inequality was that they believed they have the right to play God and decide who lives and dies.

If acknowledging that inequality is natural makes one a Nazi, then every society in the world would fit that description. Natural differences among people are inevitable. I tried out for X Factor in 2011 & 2012. Around 13,000 unequal singers were there in Chicago with me. Around 30 or so were passed to the next round, the rest of us kicked to the curb. This does not make them Nazi. They can't put everyone on tv. Inequality is a fact, and acknowledging that is not bad.

As long as people have the chance to try out, they are being treated fairly. The Nazis would not even let certain people try out. Inequality of natural ability is different from inequality of respect and opportunity to try out.

This is insane. Rightism is nowhere close to Nazi. If that is your "proof", you have no case.

Claude

 

[DavidSnider]

Are you serious? That is nonsense. Inequality being natural has nothing to do with Nazi. My pitching ability is pathetic compared to a major league pitcher. To say that I (Claude) and Josh Beckett are naturally unequal at throwing a fast ball is not Nazi in any way.

Right wing accepts differences among people regarding ability. I sing, but nowhere near as good as Mike Bublet. Have you watched American Idol auditions on tv? Other shows like the Voice etc., have singers audition. It doesn't take long to realize that inequality is a natural condition of the world. Some can sing, some can't, some in between.

Proclaiming that singing ability varies among people, and that inequality is the natural state is truth. Truth it is, not Nazi. I have horrible athletic ability, artistic skills limited to music, bad dancer, but good at math & engineering. In the industrial age we leverage our strengths and work in a field suitable to our natural ability. We are grossly unequal. The great singer you hear is likely awful at most other things.

In leftist regimes, like China, Soviet Union, etc., this natural inequality is acknowledged. In Europe there are laborers, waiters/waitresses, teachers, doctors, etc. Every culture, right, left, in between, knows that we are not equal at all.

Where the Nazis got it wrong was deeming whole races of people as unfit to live. They exterminated people not for deeds committed, but for who they were. Their inequality was that they believed they have the right to play God and decide who lives and dies.

If acknowledging that inequality is natural makes one a Nazi, then every society in the world would fit that description. Natural differences among people are inevitable. I tried out for X Factor in 2011 & 2012. Around 13,000 unequal singers were there in Chicago with me. Around 30 or so were passed to the next round, the rest of us kicked to the curb. This does not make them Nazi. They can't put everyone on tv. Inequality is a fact, and acknowledging that is not bad.

As long as people have the chance to try out, they are being treated fairly. The Nazis would not even let certain people try out. Inequality of natural ability is different from inequality of respect and opportunity to try out.

This is insane. Rightism is nowhere close to Nazi. If that is your "proof", you have no case.

Claude

I don't think you understood what the paragraph was saying. It wasn't saying that recognizing natural inequality is a characteristic of the right wing, it was saying that justifying social inequality on that basis is.