Was Adolph Hitler A Socialist? Debunking A Historical Myth
https://www.thoughtco.com/was-adolf-hitler-a-socialist-1221367
"Sir Richard John Evans FBA FRSL FRHistS FLSW (born 29 September 1947), is a British historian of twentieth-century Europe with a focus on Germany and World War II. He is the author of eighteen books, including his three-volume The Third Reich Trilogy (2003–2008) that has been hailed as "brilliant" and "magisterial." Evans was Regius Professor of History at the University of Cambridge from 2008 until his retirement in 2014, and is President of Cambridge's Wolfson College and Provost of Gresham College in London."
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany , is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p. 173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’.
The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it.
Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.
When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper-class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.
The belief that Hitler was a socialist seems to have emerged from two sources: the name of his political party, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, or Nazi Party, and the early presence of socialists in it.
THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKER’S PARTY
While it does look like a very socialist name, the problem is that ‘National Socialism’ is not socialism, but a different, fascist ideology. Hitler had originally joined when the party was called the German Worker’s Party, and he was there as a spy to keep an eye on it. It was not, as the name suggested, a devotedly left wing group, but one Hitler thought had potential, and as Hitler’s oratory became popular the party grew and Hitler became a leading figure.
At this point ‘National Socialism’ was a confused mishmash of ideas with multiple proponents, arguing for nationalism, anti-Semitism, and yes, some socialism. The party records don’t record the name change, but it’s generally believed a decision was taken to rename the party to attract people, and partly to forge links with other ‘national socialist’ parties.
The meetings began to be advertised on red banners and posters, hoping for socialists to come in and then be confronted, sometimes violently: the party was aiming to attract as much attention and notoriety as possible. But the name was not Socialism, but National Socialism and as the 20s and 30s progressed, this became an ideology Hitler would expound upon at length and which, as he took control, ceased to have anything to do with socialism.
‘NATIONAL SOCIALISM’ AND NAZISM
Hitler’s National Socialism, and quickly the only National Socialism which mattered, wished to promote those of ‘pure’ German blood, removing citizenship for Jews and aliens, and promoted eugenics, including the execution of the disabled and mentally ill. National Socialism did promote equality among Germans who passed their racist criteria, and submitted the individual to the will of the state, but did so as a right-wing racial movement which sought a nation of healthy Aryans living in a thousand year Reich, which would be achieved through war. In Nazi theory, a new, unified class was to be formed instead of religious, political and class divides, but this was to be done by rejecting ideologies such as liberalism, capitalism, and socialism, and instead pursue a different idea, of the Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community), built on war and race, ‘blood and soil’, and German heritage. Race was to be the heart of Nazism, as opposed to class focused socialism.
Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser .
There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.
It’s worth pointing out that all aspects of Nazism had forerunners in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and Hitler tended to cobble his ideology together from them; some historians think that ‘ideology’ gives Hitler too much credit for something which can be hard to pin down. He knew how to take things which made the socialists popular and apply them to give his party a boost. But historian Neil Gregor, in his introduction to a discussion of Nazism which includes many experts, says:
“As with other fascist ideologies and movements, it subscribed to an ideology of national renewal, rebirth, and rejuvenation manifesting itself in extreme populist radical nationalism, militarism, and – in contradistinction to many other forms of fascism, extreme biological racism…the movement understood itself to be, and indeed was, a new form of political movement…the anti-Socialist, anti-liberal, and radical nationalist tenets of Nazi ideology applied particularly to the sentiments of a middle class disorientated by the domestic and international upheavals in the inter-war period.” (Neil Gregor, Nazism, Oxford, 2000 p 4-5.)
Tags
Who is online
54 visitors
Nothing wrong with being an amateur historian, except when you cannot accept the truth.
Socialism is related to class struggle. Nazism was not.
socialism | Britannica.com
socialism : Social and economic ... A scientific understanding of history shows that these struggles will culminate in the triumph of the working class and the ...
================================================================
Early on , there was a hint of socialism in Nazi preachings. But Hitler was never a socialist. He was a nationalist/racialist.
Of,course it was about class struggle. Nazism was socialism in one country, communists wanted international socialism that eradicated countries. Here's one explanation from goebbles
I can love Germany and hate capitalism. Not only can I, I must. Only the annihilation of a system of exploitation carries with it the core of the rebirth of our people.
We are nationalists because as Germans, we love Germany. Because we love Germany, we want to preserve it and fight against those who would destroy it. If a Communist shouts “Down with nationalism!”, he means the hypocritical bourgeois patriotism that sees the economy only as a system of slavery. If we make clear to the man of the left that nationalism and capitalism, that is the affirmation of the Fatherland and the misuse of its resources, have nothing to do with each other, indeed that they go together like fire and water, then even as a socialist he will come to affirm the nation, which he will want to conquer.
That is our real task as National Socialists. We were the first to recognize the connections, and the first to begin the struggle. Because we are socialists we have felt the deepest blessings of the nation, and because we are nationalists we want to promote socialist justice in a new Germany.
A young fatherland will rise when the socialist front is firm.
Socialism will become reality when the Fatherland is free.
Why Are We Socialists?
We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.
Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and regaining German freedom. Socialism, therefore, is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total fighting brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a mere theory, a castle in the sky, a book. With it it is everything, the future, freedom, the fatherland!
We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.
He can call himself the King of Siam, that doesn't mean he is.
What an empty response.
Nazism is just a branch of socialism that incorporates nationalism and a Margaret Sanger like belief in racial superiority.
It's like claiming there is no shared beliefs between catholicism and methodism, when buddhism is in the picture. In this scenario, Classical liberals (capitalists who believe in property and individual rights) would be the buddhists, while Communism and Nazism are the differing interpretations of Christianity.
"It is, however, a total misnomer, it's like the World Series, or Democratic People's Republic of Korea"
Hitler and his group used the word "socialist" in their name to appeal to some of the communists with which they were competing for popular support. Socialism to Hitler and Goebbels did not mean the same thing that it means to, well, socialists.
True. Socialism is the last thing Hitler would have wanted. Yet another example of using the label 'socialism' as a beard to advance an entirely different agenda.
Indeed. That's their favorite game.
Ahh, we have a Godwin's Law violator and, therefore, a self-declared loser.
But the inconvenient truth remains is that socialism has never worked, and never will. It's against human nature.
Socialism, in its broadest sense, is how the human race survived at all.
Good point.
In a sense all of Nature itself exhibits relationship dynamics that are characteristically completely sharing.
Agreed.
And yet, human nature is where the basic philosophy of socialism actually comes from.
Human nature is multifaceted. While it may be in one person's nature to seek to derive wealth and power from the labor of others, it is also in the nature of others to reject and resist exploitative social or economic circumstances. That latter facet of human nature is where socialism comes from.
The philosophy has certainly evolved over time, and continues to do so today, but it does in fact derive from human nature, and as such is not going away.
I don't really give a flying fuck what all your Cambridge academic socialists now want to analyze Hitler away from their beloved socialism....
HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST! HE SAID SO HIMSELF!
HE PREACHED A SOCIALIST LINE RIGHT DOWN THE LINE!
You can wipe out everything he said wrote and preached to push your own paradigm and rehabilitate the image of socialism.
Hell Even Tig claims that Communism isn't Socialism!
What more proof do you need?
Socialism is a HORRID social experiment that has failed miserably where ever it has been tried.... (naw, more like forced upon a people)
Built to DESTROY societies.
The socialist re-writing of plain fucking history is in full swing.....
It makes no sense to use ‘socialism’ or ‘communism’ without first defining what you mean by these terms.
If using Marx’ definitions then communism is an idealized stateless society and socialism is the phase of transition from capitalism.
However, some hold socialism to be government public programs, or state control of industry, or a pure egalitarian condition where everyone is economically identical, or ....
Socialism is one of the most overloaded / abused terms we have.
Agreed. It makes a lot of those lacking in any real level of knowledge of the word or its meaning feel superiorly erudite to all the others like them.
Maybe so, but to completely ignore the entire Nazi state and their entire body of political work in describing National Socialism, is sophistry at best, and downright lying at worse.
the only point that can be had by such is to minimize the ideals of what it stood for to open the door for explaining it away as an aberration of socialism. And the only reason for that is there are some elitists that wish to develops socialism to the point it will work. At least that is what is hoped by the socialists of today. You and I Tig also had this discussion a month or two back. I believe we came to a consensus even if we didn't completely agree that Nazism and Communism are alterations to the basic premise of Socialism.
But also that even Marx's ideals of socialism would not work, this is why it is still being experimented with in attempts to come up with some sort of socialist utopia that will work. Your ideal is the offshoots and manipulations that socialism have given it such a bad name that it must be rehabilitated, my view is that it is a fa8led system that will only work if forced, it fails cause no human can follow it's rules.......
We left it there.....
But as a historian, even as an amateur one, I still follow the precepts of History in my learning and analysis. and National Socialism, based upon it's founders precepts, is socialist in nature which is necessarily a leftist political paradigm.....
And plain factual history bears actual witness to that understanding and truth.....
No, rehabilitation is ever going to correct the evil stain that has placed upon human history.
With all due respect, that is my position, and anyone else preaching or teaching otherwise is doing a disservice to mankind....
I understand TiG's position and in part agree, I just wish the brainless that are parroting the false narrative that Nazism is not socialist in nature stop spreading the damned lie.....
lol. NM takes his own word for everything over world renowned historians.
It is an old story on NT though, for those who have been here to witness it.
Your world renown historians can ignore the man who wrote the book all they want. But that is your opinion.
I will not ignore the plain facts of history.....
and given the widespread belief in such, we are going to have to do it all over again.....
Kill hundreds of millions of people to again save the world from those that want to socialize it all over again.....
that is a damned shame.
Yes History repeats itself over and over cause man refuses to learn the lessons from it....
Not according to what came out of Hitler's own mouth.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=hitler+speech+on+liberalism+and%2c+marxism&view=detail&mid=BED057F95E21D3821642BED057F95E21D3821642&FORM=VIRE
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=hitler+speech+on+liberalism+and%2c+marxism&view=detail&mid=A5376766FBA6308B2E8AA5376766FBA6308B2E8A&FORM=VIRE
It seems to me that Hitler would have made a good Republican.
Soooooo, you're for the Nazi final solution??????? Wow. What's your real name so I can tell the FBI were to find you.
My comment is that socialism has many wildly different meanings.
Too simplistic. This is a complex subject which includes fundamentally different systems - some practiced, most simply theoretical.
How is Economic Democracy (a form of Market Socialism) different from what was implemented by the former USSR?
To consider these to be systems that have anything in common other than a label shows a lack of research.
If people had knowledge as you propose, then why are they even bothering to discuss issues such as this when they don't seem to know or understand the difference in the actual meaning of the words they are arguing about? They are arguing over apples and oranges and trying to defend them as being one in the same thing. Doesn't make any sense at all.
But, what the heck, its all for the sake of having something to argue about anyway. Right?
I disagree. The Nazis used the label socialism for propaganda purposes. Hitler made no attempt to implement socialism. He went to fascism instead. Why given all that we now know would anyone want to claim that Hitler sought to provide distributed economic freedom to all those in his sphere of influence? That is demonstrably nonsense.
Germany has always had a capitalistic economy since it emerged from mercantilism. It remains so today. The reason one would not label Germany as being socialist is because Germany is not technically socialist. However it would be correct to label Germany a social democracy.
To be socialist (defining the term now as I use it) a nation would have evolved to a condition where the productive / life-sustaining forces of the economy are controlled by the majority - not the minority. Note: an authoritarian government is a minority just as the collective leaders of private enterprise are a minority. I use the term 'evolved' because I think the people need to be culturally disciplined and sufficiently informed to make such a system work I see no evidence that either of these conditions will be met in the USA within any of our lifetimes.
To evaluate this one must know what one means by 'socialism'. If these elitists want to somehow fix the system of the USSR (or say fix the system of Venezuela) and make it 'work' then I would say they are trying to forge a diamond from a pile of shit. However, if they are looking at methods to increase the economic responsibility and control of individuals while retaining market dynamics, unequal results, etc. then by all means let's see what they propose. It would be irresponsible to dismiss ideas simply because they technically fall under the broad category of 'socialism' yet consider ideas that fall under the broad category of 'capitalism'. Note, as an example, oligarchic systems fall under the category of 'capitalism'. Control by transnationals is a manifestation of capitalism. My point is that just because a system is capitalism does not mean that it is necessarily good.
Nowadays one could argue that every economic idea that is considered bad is simply labeled 'socialism' and every idea that is considered good is labeled 'capitalism'. The ability to intelligently discuss this topic is hampered by the absurd level of semantic overload on the term 'socialism'. Better to discuss concepts and leave the labels to propaganda.
I think Marx placed too much faith in the idea that most people will rise to the occasion. I wish that were true, but IMO most people are happy to take what they can get and do as little as possible to get it. There are those who rise to challenges and seek to achieve and then there are those who will follow these leaders and excel (with proper motivation). But ultimately I think most modern human beings need to have continual short-term motivation to work hard. Maybe Asian cultures might have a chance to effect a form of socialism (distributed economic freedom) given the discipline and work-ethic already well-established in their culture. But in the USA, I am sorry to observe that this culture is not ready for anything close to distributed economic freedom.
If you equate socialism with the system of Stalin then there really is no point having a discussion using the term 'socialism'. The USSR system was, in a word, horrible. If that was the definition of socialism then I would agree with you wholeheartedly.
One can also deliver quotes from Hitler claiming to be socialist and claiming not to be socialist. People say all sorts of things and use language in all sorts of ways. What really matters is what was actually done.
IMO the Nazis were indeed against capitalism (as in a private sector operating within the law but free of authoritarian rule). History shows this to be the case and also shows the system that the Nazis genuinely favored. We call it fascism.
Here is an excellent venn diagram of the communism vs fascism
Ouch.
Galen, when someone tells you to have an apple, do you take the whole bushel instead? You're comment made it an either or case. You don't have to take Nazism if you don't take Communism or its sister Socialism. You can take Capitalism with a touch of Socialism. The only problem is a touch is never satisfactory for the Socialist. Remember also, Socialism is for the people, not the Socialist. Capitalism is for everyone.
You mean these guys or their students? Seems the Left are the people who are debating whether Communism and Fascism are born from Socialism.
Survey finds notable increase in proportion of professors who identify as "far left" or liberal, and declines for all other groups.
Professors' Political Identification, 2010-11, by Sector
It's no wonder they would want to deny Communism and Fascism are both born from Socialism.
Without those intersecting characteristics neither Communism nor Fascism could exist and both are born out of Socialistic ideologies.
If the word "socialist" was not associated with the NAME of the Nazi party, no one would have ever claimed Hitler was a socialist.
"In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.
Hitler , therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood." Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.
In February 1920, the NSDAP published its first programme which became known as the "Twenty-Five Points." In the programme the party refused to accept the terms of the Versailles Treaty and called for the reunification of all German people. To reinforce their ideas on nationalism, equal rights were only to be given to German citizens. "Foreigners" and "aliens" would be denied these rights.
To appeal to the working class and socialists, the programme included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education.
On February 24, 1920, the NSDAP (later nicknamed the Nazi Party) held a mass rally where it announced its new programme. The rally was attended by over 2,000 people, a great improvement on the 25 people who were at Hitler's first party meeting."
was not associated with the NAME of the Nazi party, no one would have ever claimed Hitler was a socialist
If you'd actually read what Hitler, Gobbels etc.. were saying, you'd know that was nonsense. Their views on capitalism are indistinguishable from Bernie Sanders, for instance.
What? The demagogue in chief and his future minister of propaganda? Listen to them?
Don't forget about the zeitgeist of the time. They knew they needed to pander to the workers movement if they were going to get anywhere. It was a pretty big deal in the 20's and 30's.
Shouldn't we judge any so-called "socialism" more by their actions once in power than by populist propaganda spewed to help them gain power?
I mean, they didn't even try to hide the fact that Goebbels was a propagandist. His whole job was to concoct narratives aimed at gaining and solidifying support.
Is the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea run as a Democracy and/or a Republic?
It's never clear that the pushers of this idea of Nazi "socialism" (i.e., nationalism + "socialism," but, über alles, hyper-nationalism) are just ignorant of history or can't help but absurdly re-writing it fit their idiotic ideology--or idiotology for short. The "socialism" bit was bait to draw working class Germans away from the communists and the hyper-nationalism was to feed their highly developed racism and anti-semitism. Hitler's "socialism" was just another ruse he used to enlist the people in his effort to "purify" the German people. But it's always hilarious to watch them pretend that just because the word, "socialism" was part of the name of the Nazi party that it meant that they really practiced any form of economic justice. As Mussolini put it, he felt the word "corporatism" was more apt.
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
Adolph Hitler - May 1, 1927
I think he pretty much defined himself with this, a socialist.
We're going to need a bit more of a source than a random date. But, of course, as I said above this was when Hitler was trying to woo the German working class away from actual socialists and communists which were gaining followers. This "socialism" was just a political sop to the working class much as what most of the shit that poured out of Trump's mouth during the campaign and even now to get disgruntled, heart-burned white working class votes (and immediately begin screwing them once he got into office).
That is the date he said it according to what I found. It is not like I pulled the date out of the air.
After quick Google search (granted wiki ... ):
Really? I don't recall Trump saying anything close to "we are socialists" or professing to be "against today's capitalist economic system", or promising to destroy the capitalist system in order to get votes. You sure you're thinking of the correct campaign? Even if one doesn't consider what Hitler eventually became as being "socialist", one can't deny precisely what he said and how he used it to come to power. Perhaps you might explain why we should trust those who today use those same or very similar words and anti-capitalist stances?
Ummm, no. What Hitler called socialism was nothing more than fascism.
Watching liberals simply ignore the overwhelming, original evidence that Hitler, Goebbels, etc considered the Nazi movement socialist in nature and offering unsupported conclusions that Hitler wasn't a socialist because they don't think he's a socialist, is similar to Mufti Obama issuing fatwas about who and who wasn't a real Muslim.
The ISIS terrorist who considers himself a Muslim and justifies his actions by the Koran isn't a real Muslim, because Obama say so. Just like the German who calls himself a national socialist and makes socialist arguments isn't a "real" socialist, because it's inconvenient to recognize him as such. Their position ignores the reality in favor of what is politically expedient. Progrssives don't like admitting they share a ideology with Nazis.
They wanted to gain and consolidate power. Hitler was a big believer in the strong (individuals) should rule. Is that a socialist precept?
Here is an article that I think points out the shortcomings of your approach Sean
Hitler was not a socialist, even if he did stash champagne
Were the Nazis socialist? Libertarians continue to insist they were. But quotations should not be taken out of context, and the word of the Nazis not taken at face value
8:00AM BST 06 Jun 2015
A little while ago, I entered a debate with the brilliant MEP Dan Hannan about Hitler. Dan said that he was a socialist, I disagreed. Now Dan is back with a video in which he drops what appears to be a killer quote by Joseph Goebbels proclaiming that victory over the USSR will herald the arrival of “der echte Sozialismus” : real socialism. I remain unconvinced.
I don’t wish to retread old ground. You can read Dan’s original article on the subject here and my reply here . Dan says that the National Socialists were collectivists and self-identified socialists (“the clue is in the name”). I argue that Hitler was in fact a racist who used the language of socialism because it was useful. Yes, Goebbels wanted to eliminate both Bolshevism and capitalism from Russia. But that’s because he believed both were Jewish. He may well have been anticapitalist, but that does not necessarily mean that his concept of socialism sits within the Marxist tradition.
But I’d like to share something that might cast some light on this subject. And, no, it’s not the recent discovery that Hitler hid some cognac and champagne from the Allied air raids. Yes, socialists do like champagne - but let's not damn them by that faint association .
Rather, consider this dialogue between Hitler and the Strasser brothers in 1930 – when the Nazis were approaching the margins of power. Otto and Gregor Strasser represented the wing of Nazism that certainly did self-define as socialist. The Strasserites went so far as to demand the nationalisation of industry and even cooperation with the Soviet Union. If Hitler was a socialist then we’d expect the men to have flourished in his government. Instead, Otto was purged in 1930 and Gregor died along with the remnants of their ideology in the Night of the Long Knives in 1934.
In May 1930, Hitler met with the Strassers in Berlin to try to persuade them to shut up about a socialist revolution. Hitler began with a lecture on art, arguing that true art conformed to eternal ideas. There were no “breaks” in true art but continuity through inheritance. By implication there could be no “revolution” but simply an assertion of the one truth that mattered to Hitler: racial superiority reflected in authority. Dan Hannan quotes Hitler then telling the Strassers "I am a socialist!", which sure reads like a smoking gun. But consider what Hitler goes on to say about the working-class:
“The great masses of workmen want nothing else than bread and amusement; they have no understanding of idealism; and we can never count on being able to gain any considerable support among them. What we want is a picked number from the new ruling class, who – unlike you – are not troubled with humanitarian feelings, but who are convinced that they have the right to rule as being a superior race, and who will secure and maintain their rule ruthlessly over the broad masses.”
As for class relations, Hitler asserted that workers had no right to have a say in their own management as it was a perversion of that eternal natural order of the survival of the fittest. The industrialists: “have worked their way to the top by their own abilities, and this proof of their capacity – a capacity only displayed by a higher race – gives them the right to lead.” And on the subject of reforming the economic system, Hitler offered this not very Left-wing observation: “Socialism is in itself a bad word [if it is used literally]. But it is certainly not to be taken as meaning that industry must be socialised.” So long as industrialists acted in the national interest, they can keep their property. Indeed, “it would be little short of a crime to destroy the existing economic system.”
I don’t want to play “drop a quote” on the subject of Hitler and socialism. On the contrary, the fact that Dan can quote Goebbels being pro-socialist and Hitler being pro-capitalist indicates that Nazism was an ideology upon which its followers projected their fantasies and desires. Joachim Fest, reflecting upon the Strasserite dialogue, argued : "Hitler's party was socialist only to take advantage of the emotional value of the word... As with Hitler's protestations of belief in tradition, in conservative values, or in Christianity, the socialist slogans were merely movable ideological props."
At the centre of Nazism was a personality cult; its glue was hatred of the Jews; and its leaders were ruthlessly pragmatic if pragmatism served the acquisition of power. It is not easy to define this historical phenomenon, and both Marxist and libertarian attempts have proven flawed. How, for instance, does one explain the fact that Hitler combined building a welfare system with euthanising the vulnerable? Socialists use welfare to protect the weak. Hitler used it to iron out the iniquities of capitalism (mostly unemployment) in order to let the "strong" flourish. The strong were, in his opinion, always the Aryan race. He was beaten, in the end, by an alliance of decadent Western democrats and Slavic communists.
Long before that happy liberation, the destruction of the Strasserite element of the Nazi Party in the Night of the Long Knives (1934) was ordered to satisfy two traditional enemies of socialism: the aristocratic army and the nervous bourgeoisie. That Hitler did this to appease these powerful reactionaries sums up his approach to politics better than a million quotes.
"...Indeed, the first concentration camps, notably Dachau, built near Munich in 1933, were meant for left-wing dissidents. In 1936, a typical year, 11,687 Germans were arrested for illegal socialist activity..."
I can only offer my opinion after having read multiple books on Hitler and his rise and fall - Hitler/Nazism cannot be pigeonholed into a label beyond 'Evil Bastard' ... he took advantage of anything and everything that advanced him and his cause!
Snopes has kind of an interesting read on the subject as ...
I like Dinesh D'Souza - he sure got in hot water with the Obama administration over that campaign finance violation - I wonder how often a straw man is used to make donations to campaigns?
This entire article actually misses something that throws out the Adolf Hitler is not a Socialist argument. That item is the resettlement practices of the Soviet Union. They actually performed many of the same acts as Adolf Hitler to the people that made up the Soviet Union and resettled areas like Konigsberg (in what used to be East Prussia), Kiev in the Ukraine, and almost all other areas that are independent but at one time was part of the Soviet Union with actual Russians while moving the native populations out of their native areas or sending them to Siberia to work in the forced labor camps there to die. And, with Socialism being just one step removed from Communism as practiced by the Soviet Union, racism being on the hands of the Nazis cannot be the lone argument for why they were not Socialists, which is what seems to be the argument of the seed.
Hitler was not a socialist.
HITLER AS THE SCOURGE OF SOCIALISM
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany , is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p. 173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’.
The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it.
Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.
When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper-class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.
The belief that Hitler was a socialist seems to have emerged from two sources: the name of his political party, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, or Nazi Party, and the early presence of socialists in it.
Effective propaganda.
I see you fell into the trap. Read that sentence, then reread what I said. Soviets used a very similar system as Nazis, so therefore you cannot claim based on race alone that Hitler was not a Socialist due to Socialism along with Communism being the brainchild of Karl Marx. There is not much different between Socialism and Communism economically, the main difference is the brutality that Communism practices.
Actually, not. Communism as practiced by the USSR was brutal, totalitarian rule. This is the polar opposite of the original notion of Communism. One thing the USSR did accomplish was, demonstrably, to change the meaning of the terms 'socialism' and 'communism'. Quite effectively too since it lingers on even as we approach 2018.
Every single Communist government was brutal, this includes China, North Korea, and Cuba. There has not been an actual peaceful rise to power for any Communist government in history, each one was a bloody coup that ended up killing many in each country that has had it.
No 'they' do not have to use force. Societies (and socio-economic/political systems) evolve over time. We are arguably in an evolution right now. The social democracies (albeit still capitalism) are certainly different than original systems of capitalism. Workplace democracies are clearly part of a gradual change that, if they continue, will lay a cultural foundation for a very different way in which people work together to run businesses. Whether that emerges technically as a form of socialism or capitalism remains to be seen.
The use of force is a loser IMO. For a fundamentally different socio-economic/political system to emerge, the people need to be of the mindset to want and thus work for the system. This is something that will take quite a long period of time (it is evolutionary, incremental) and that is why I have suggested in prior comments that I would not expect any of us to live long enough to see a fundamental change from capitalism (at least in the USA).
That said, I need to comment on your view of socialism:
Socialism does not end property rights. Generally speaking (since there are many views of socialism) there are three kinds of property: public, private and personal. Public property is that which is shared by the public - for example we could say that the USPS is shared by the public. Private property is essentially manufacturing and distribution resources - that which is required to sustain a society - that is owned by a minority, not by the public in general. Personal property is what individuals own (cars, homes, clothes, etc.).
Socialism (in its most general, simplistic sense) is a condition in which the means of production and distribution is predominantly owned by the public and not by private businesses. That is the only 'property' differences that exist. To label this as 'end property rights' is simply incorrect.
State ownership of the means of production and distribution is not socialism - it is state capitalism. The state is a minority - it is not the public. Transferring ownership of MoP/D resources from the private sector to the State (e.g. USSR, Venezuela, ...) just moves control from one minority to another. That is not the idea behind socialism unless you define socialism as 'that which was practiced by the USSR, Venezuela, etc.'.
By the phrasing of your question you are defining communism as 'the system of the USSR, et. al.'. Compare that with the content of my comment. We are talking about two different things.
Looks to me as though you are not interested in discussing socialism but would rather discuss the USSR and similar systems of oppression that used labels of 'socialism' and 'communism' to mask what is correctly labeled as single-party (brutal) authoritarian rule with a command economy.
State ownership of the MoP/D does not necessarily mean public ownership of same.
When speaking in terms of ownership of the MoP/D, 'the State' refers to the those in control of the government. Those in control of the government are a minority. Just like those in control of the private sector are a minority. They are not the public.
Then, as noted above, your definition of socialism is simply authoritarian rule. Blindly using the terms 'socialism' and 'communism' as labels for authoritarian, single-party rule accomplishes nothing of value that I can see.
State socialism and state capitalism are close concepts. The distinction is that under state socialism the state is an administrative mechanism effecting genuine economic freedom for the people. That is, the people are engaged in a democratic process of sharing the productive resources of the nation rather than have those resources literally controlled by a minority. The minority, as I noted, can be the private sector or the minority in control of the State.
If the State owns the MoP/D and is calling the shots (see USSR through Venezuela) there is little economic freedom. The economic control is in the hands of a minority rather than shared by the people. That is the key difference between state socialism and state capitalism. The former USSR, et.al. had zero intention of effecting economic freedom. Labeling this socialism was false advertising even in the days of Lenin (who had some genuine intent for socialism) and became truly absurd under Stalin.
My net point of course is that intellectual discussion of socialism ceases as soon as individuals point to nations claiming to be 'socialist' and simply accept, without challenge, the euphemistic labeling these nations employed (and continue to employ) to mask good old fashioned authoritarian rule. To wit, if someone holds that Nazi Germany, the former USSR, Red China, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. are examples of socialism / communism simply because they self-label as such then the discussion will not get past mere labels. Pointless really.
Yes I know you are. You are also simply accepting the empirical definition provided by those who used the terms to mask authoritarian single-party rule. In fact you are dismissing the whole of socialism (which is a complex subject matter) and merely arguing that the USSR, et.al. is the exemplar of socialism. The whole idea behind (useful) discussion is to look beyond what one knows. If you wish to simply insist that socialism is, in effect, ' that which was implemented by the USSR ' then (as I noted) there is nothing for me to add to the discussion.
By making that observation, and implying that I have not defended my position, you tacitly admit that you do not understand why. In my opening reply to you I wrote this:
To wit, the conditions for any system of socialism to achieve its fundamental objectives (economic freedom sans class disparity), do not yet exist. If they ever exist (who knows?) it will likely not be in any of our lifetimes. IMO.
In response you offer examples of 'socialism' such as the USSR and are puzzled why I am not offering examples of nations that have achieved socialism that is not authoritarian rule by another name. So if you are not going to even recognize my opening point there is no way to discuss this topic.
Indeed! We agree on something. Note how that relates to my opening point.
If the representative government MUST follow the will of the people regarding sharing of resources then it is truly acting as an administrative agent. Note how this aligns with state socialism. Do you consider our representative government in the USA to be following the will of the people? For example, do we really want a $20+ trillion national debt? As noted, I see no evidence that the USA will achieve even a basic foundation of economic freedom (as per socialism) in any of our lifetimes.
You keep tossing that out as the example. What else am I to think based upon what you have written?
They aren't even socialism-lite IMO. They are statist systems wherein a government engages in strong control over a capitalistic economic engine, imposes heavy taxation and then offers extensive public services. I am not against safety nets, public services, etc., but the existence of these (regardless of degree) have nothing to do with socialism. Redistribution of wealth is not a road to socialism. Statism in general is not a road to socialism. It is, however, a road to state capitalism, etc. Enabling effective workplace democracy (in contrast) is a road to socialism.
Well when (if ever) they actually are represented in terms of sharing of productive resources that would enable at least state socialism.
Clearly. Supporting the rhetoric of authoritarian single-party system does not advance the discussion. There is no nation on the planet with an economy that actually achieves socialism. Not even close. IMO. Labels are meaningless - the results (economic freedom) are what matters. The closest thing to emerging socialism that I know of is the Mondragon Corporation in Spain. This is the largest workplace democracy on the planet. This is not, technically, socialism since it is not a national economic system. However, this (for Spain) is a rather strong enabler for socialism down the road. By the way, Spain may simply end up with a form of capitalism that is heavy on workplace democracies. No way of knowing. No judgment either on whether that would be good or bad.
The point, however, is that I know of no historical or extant system that has tried to implement socialism other than simply use the label.
This is your understanding of this rich, complex subject matter?? You net all of socialism down to redistribution of wealth? Redistribution of wealth does not effect socialism - in fact it would be a great way to kill any evolution of socialism. Care to speculate as to why?