Was the Nazi Party socialist?

  • Thread starter ImaLooser
  • Start date
  • #26
1,176
84
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
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #27
1,176
84
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
 
  • #28
2,161
79
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
1,176
84
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
 
  • #30
2,161
79
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
1,176
84
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
 
Last edited:
  • #32
1,176
84
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
 
  • #33
DavidSnider
Gold Member
502
143
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.
 
  • #34
1,176
84
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
 
Last edited:
  • #35
DavidSnider
Gold Member
502
143
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.
 
  • #36
Evo
Mentor
23,504
3,048
Closed pending moderation.
 

Related Threads on Was the Nazi Party socialist?

  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
946
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
124
Views
21K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
21K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
66
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Top