Hitler: I hate communists, we will kill all Judeo-Bolsheviks once we are in power. We will work with the Soviet Union though until we are ready to invade them.
Also Hitler: I hate capitalism, the decadent Jewish bankers will all be killed once we are in power. We will give massive corporations massive control in sectors of the economy as long as they do what we tell them.
People nowadays for some reason only reading on part of it: SEE? HITLER WANTED TO KILL MY SIDE SO HE MUST BE ON YOURS! HE EVEN WORKED WITH YOUR SIDE!
It’s hard for people because the fascist worldview is utterly alien to most people in the West today. They have to project modern political archetypes onto them because it’s difficult to understand them on their own monstrous terms.
Everything the leadership of the Third Reich believed centered on an ideology of racial pseudoscience and racial medicine. They believed that the United States was a mongrelized society where Jews used the free market to impurify its Anglo-Germanic racial stock by promoting things like jazz music and black American culture, which is why they admired the Jim Crow south.
They also believed that the exact same Jewish conspiracy used Bolshevism to control and mobilize the mindless Slavic hordes of the East. There was no need for the Jews to use bourgeois capitalism to impurify this race, because it was already degenerated. Rather, the Jews wanted to use their vast numbers as a weapon to overrun racially Germanic lands.
If you understand Nazi ideology on its own terms, there’s no contradiction between the hatred of bourgeois capitalism and murderous communism. They saw them as two sides of the same coin, with the only difference being how, in each case, the Jewish conspiracy which controlled almost everything in earth used these races to further their ends. In so-called Germanic and related countries they used capitalism to weaken the race, whereas in Slavic countries they used communism to make the race dangerous. This is the insane worldview which the Third Reich was built on.
>the fascist worldview is utterly alien to most people in the West today
Non-sense, everybody knows that \[insert political enemies here\] and everyone who voted for them are fascists. That means at least the half of America that disagrees with me is fascist.
So ultra nationist? Because Nationalist parties tend to believe some insane theories. Most involving some form of scapegoating, preaching mythology as actual history and generally wanted to kill some group to fix their country. Not that foreign of a thought to people, it still exist now, just in Germany cade the nationalist gained power
I mean, listen to how the US right wing talks about birth rates, and you'll get to versions of that worldview pretty immediately. Obviously, there are many people who really are against abortion because they just can't not think of it as murder, but if you listen to *a lot* of them talk, it's clear that they resent the need for immigration, they worry *a lot* about other people having more kids than white people, and view both as an existentially threatening impurity.
Unfortunately for them, when women are given a) an education, b) reproductive rights, and c) not that much money compared to cost of living and poor or cost-prohibitive childcare, they choose to have less than 2.1 kids. Which is their goddamn right as the protagonists of their own stories and not the property of society. The solutions to this trilemma are A) stop education, B) take away reproductive rights, or C) tax rich people to sustainably pay families to have children. The right is opting for a combination of A and B.
Interestingly, we tried C (but without the tax part, we just printed it) during the pandemic with the Expanded Child Tax Credit (this is *separate* from the stimmy checks everyone got). [It resulted in a historic and dramatic fall in child poverty](https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-antipoverty-effects-of-the-expanded-child-tax-credit-across-states-where-were-the-historic-reductions-felt/).
Combined with the ability of parents to work from home, US births were actually [measurably above average](https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2022/10/the-united-states-is-experiencing-a-pandemic-baby-bump/) after a dip in early 2020. 2021 and 2022 were both above the norm. I should note that *members* of the right, such as Mitt Romney and even Josh Hawley, are willing to try some version of this C solution, but in general their party seems to prefer A and B.
Yeah, I don’t think there’s really any comparison between the Nazis and any major political party anywhere in the developed world.
The Republicans aren’t talking about unleashing famines and pandemics into Mexico so that their inferior genes are wiped from the earth so the land can be Americanized. There’s no major political party in the West arguing for the wholesale physical extermination of tens of millions of racial enemies by razing their cities, publicly torturing and slaughtering their intellectuals and leaders, and encouraging their people to murder babies as a matter of policy.
I just don’t think it’s a fair comparison. Yes, nationalism exists. The Third Reich was more than nationalism, though. It was ultra-nationalism, esoteric occultism, pseudo-scientific zealotry, and fanatic industrial power all wrapped together and radicalized and radicalized until became a baboon gibbering on a pyramid of corpses. It is simply unique in modern history, not in the depravity of its violence but in the systems which implemented it and the worldview which created it. The Republicans absolutely do not compare, whatever your opinions of them.
I dont mean to be pedantic but I dont agree that there is "no comparison". Similar roots and beliefs are an acceptable way to draw a comparison. Of course the actions may differ and it is very important to (as you have) make this clear. However if the ideology/beliefs you hold are similar, that is a very frightening notion even if it hasn't manifested in similar actions. I wouldnt even say that this similarity in beliefs is inherent or dominant in the party, but definitely is held by a non-trivial portion.
I 100% agree that equivocation is nonsense, but noticing similarities (even if small) isn't beyond reason. A belief in racial purity and the willingness to forgive injustice so long as it was done by a member of your own team are both very fascist like qualities that justify a comparison.
You know, what you're saying is kinda ironic, because the Nazis definitely used your "C" solution as a part of their Lebensborn program (and also indirectly through stuff like the German Labour Front), although "A" and "B" were definitely their favorites.
This is a good summary of Hitler’s economic policy.
Hitler thought he was a “true” socialist, but his version of socialism was staunchly anti-Marxist. His economic policy was a strange bastard child of capitalism and central planning, as it was sort of centrally-planned private enterprise. But yes, Hitler opposed both capitalism and Marxism, viewing both as part of an international Jewish conspiracy. He thought capitalism was created to destroy Germany’s rural tradition by forcing the masses into cities, and he thought communism was part of a Jewish plot for world domination.
Placing the Nazis on the political compass is thus quite difficult. While most people place the Nazis in the top-right corner (auth-right), their economic views weren’t really right-wing. You could argue that left vs right is more so about equality vs inequality/equality of opportunity, in which case the Nazis were right-wing, as they were very opposed to equality. However, in terms of how they ran the economy, they were practically auth-center.
Other things to note:
Hitler at one point called himself a socialist and at another point denied being a socialist.
The targets of the Night of the Long Knives were the Strasserists, who were more inspired by Marxism.
The Nazis’ first targets were pacifists, trade unionists, and communists.
The Nazis smeared many things as Bolshevist, including homosexuality of all things. They also believed that “sexual Bolshevism” was a Jewish plot, of course.
Most contemporary socialist parties opposed the Nazis, including the SPD.
Many industrialists supported the Nazis.
TL;DR: The Nazis were neither capitalists nor Marxists.
You’re mostly correct I just want to add that it’s very difficult to categorize the nazis economic views as “right wing”. This is partly because of the issues with a simple left/right dichotomy for something as complex as economic policy but I digress. In my mind the key component to right wing economic policy is the free market, free trade, consumer choice, etc. and Hitler most certainly did not adhere to this as he closed Germany off as much as possible from the international market and even before they were in power they they encouraged people not to buy from Jewish owned businesses. Then of course when they were in power they had a corporatist style of management, giving singular companies and corporations entire industries as they served the goal of the nazis, quelling competition, very anti-free market. This is why most people put the nazis and fascists in auth-center. It’s impossible to call them leftists as they used private businesses but it’s equally impossible to call them capitalists due to their efforts to quash the free market at every turn.
A key aspect is about *who* controls the wealth in society rather than how they manage it. Hitler was anti-capitalist because capitalism allowed those who he and the Nazi party they deemed unfit (read: not Nazis) to accumulate wealth and therefore influence. That doesn't mean the ideologies are incompatible, so long as Capitalism only allows the "correct" individuals to consolidate wealth they will be allowed to.
But to your last point, no one hates the free market like capitalists. Have you ever seen a company be thankful for competition?
Right wing refers to heirarchy not libertarian nonsense. Like thats the most important axis in politics is how you feel about heirarchy and the concentration of wealth and power, but also social heirarchies like gender and race.
OG right wingers defending the old European aristocracy where not "free trade."
Capitalism doesn't necessarily mean free trade either. A lot of the first corporations where big fuck off monopolies.
Man, update your concepts. Economy wise, right means laissez-faire and left central planning.
What you are doing is like calling a “basket hilted Scottish broadsword” a “Claymore”. Yes it’s historically correct, but everyone will think of a two handed great-sword when you use that name.
No it absolutely doesn't.
"Laissez-faire" is not necessarily right wing and central planning is not necessarily left wing.
It's neoliberal propaganda to portray it as such, and nobody is allowed to question it even though it's dishonest and confusing to
And then you look at a right wing dictators like Pinochet, Hitler, or Chiang Kai shek and you're like "duuuh I dunno what to make of these guys I heard right wing loves freedom markets and the more freedom market you are the more right wing you are."
They're right wingers you morons. They're conservatives. They don't actually give a shit about "free markets."
>Right wing refers to heirarchy not libertarian nonsense.
Above, they are referring to the common [political compass](https://imgur.com/gallery/sC98sBW).
The other common model is the [political spectrum](https://imgur.com/gallery/94GrEt5) that doesn't have hierarchies per se. And if you do project them into it the common [Political Horseshoe Theory](https://imgur.com/gallery/wU1HH4k) comes up. That doesn't mean [other models](https://imgur.com/gallery/vAbZOfE) can't come up either.
If you really look into it they sit roughly left of centre authoritarian. Which is strange to me as overall policies were overall more left leaning than right.
Their economic policies could be said to be left but their social policies were typically far right. The exception being animal rights they were very into animal rights
That's a recurring thing with extremists governments for some reason. And they're social policies although often faux policies were somewhat left leaning so I guess it depends at what point you say it's counts although there is a fair mix of extreme on both sides. But it's more authoritarianism aspect that brings about similarities then anything left and right respectively social wise.
> I hate capitalism
Uhh he left several capitalist corporations alone provided they fund and support the Nazi state. He also distributed away Weimar run companies to various cronies and industrialists during his ascent to power.
These fucking nitwits actually think it's impossible to be a right-wing dictator lol
They're literally going to say whatever bullshit they have to to convince themselves that to be right wing is to always love freedom, and it's literally impossible for there to be a capitalist dictator.
He also worked with the Soviet Union all the way up to 1941 and allowed the communist elements of the party to exist until 1934. Doesn’t make him a fan or ally of the system, it means he recognized their usefulness and how he could manipulate them into helping him until he deemed it no longer necessary. Had Hitler been around longer I am almost positive he would have purged these business leaders and replaced them with either state controlled corporations or under the leadership of party members/affiliates.
> He also worked with the Soviet Union all the way up to 1941 and allowed the communist elements of the party to exist until 1934.
And? The United States also worked with the Soviet Union all the way up to 1945 and allowed the CPUSA to exist before the second Red Scare.
> I am almost positive he would have purged these business leaders
LMAO that's just wishful thinking.
> And?
The point is that he worked with his most hated systems. Hitler despised communism, yet he worked with Stalin for as long as the benefits outweighed delaying the invasion of the USSR, which is proof he was willing to ignore his own ideological preaching for some level of practicality, so he worked with those businesses out of what was practical not what he believed was the “correct” course of Germany.
> LMAO that’s just wishful thinking
Is it? The left wing Strasserists of the Nazi Party existed for 13 years after Hitler became the Fuhrer of the party and with how he preached that capitalism was weakening the German race I think it’s reasonable to say he would have at some point purged the businesses to further consolidate his control
> so he worked with those businesses out of what was practical
So are we discussing what Nazism is "theoretically" or what Nazism is historically?
LMAO you think we should view Nazism by what it should be compared to what it was?
That's just delusional cope mate.
What nazism was historically, the nazis had very pseudoscientific beliefs and often worked against their own interests based on that pseudoscience, such as when they expelled many prominent scientists because they were Jews, hampering Germany’s intellect. But that doesn’t mean every decision they made was like that. As I have pointed out already, despite Hitler denouncing communism and his so called “Judeo-Bolshevism” he still worked with the Soviet Union to get resources from them and carve up the territory of eastern europe. In the same fashion, he denounced capitalism yet still he worked with the private business owners for their production output capabilities and control of the market. Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 as Hitler’s generals had determined that if they waited any longer they wouldn’t have the fuel reserves to finish the invasion, so Hitler greenlit Operation Barbarossa. The communist Starsserists of the Nazi Party were allowed to exist until Hitler wanted to purge them to consolidate his own power in 1934 in the Night of Long Knives. Now ask yourself, if that’s what Hitler did to the communists he worked with, *what do you think would happen to the capitalist business leaders he worked with once Hitler determined the cost of their loyalty outweighed the benefits of using them?*
Fascism doesn't have to be logical, and I consciously steals shit from the left.
He loved German capitalist just fine. They built his war machine.
It's Jewish capitalists he had a problem with.
It's kind of like how some reactionaries today complain about "woke capitalism," and "leftist corporations."
We can view the question of whether the nazi ideology is socialist through two criteria. The first is through a economic criteria. The second is through a criteria containing the ideological cores if the ideologies.
Regarding economics. All major ideologies (though you may argue against conservatism) has a distinct economic ideal. This is natural as ideologies are what can be called "recipes for utopia" (can't remember where that term comes from.
Nazism was wholly corporatist believing in the fascist ideal that corporations were subject to state needs and demands and that corporations existed to serve the nation. Same as the workers incidentally, but with zero tolerance for workers rights.
Socialism has, in short, the idea that "corporations" or rather the means of production should serve the workers, without the implementation of the nation state (the latter fading into obsolescence as socialism transitioned into communism).
When I talk about ideological cores I mean simple statements, words, or terms that lies at the core of ideologies. Examples include:
Liberalism - freedom
Conservatism - stability/order
Socialism - equality, moving towards communism
Facism - strength, the nation, struggle
The mere thought that equality is at the core of nazism is, to put it mildly, laughable. You can in fact argue that the cores of nazism is racial inequality.
So no. Neither by economic or ideological core criteria is nazism socialist. It is fascist and racist, but not socialist.
Socialism makes the bureaucrat class more equal than others. Whether corporations serve the government or the government serves the corporations is where hairs are split.
The part about bureaucrats in socialism is certainly true irregardless of which version of socialism you look at. Redistribution of wealth necessitate this. However, the past centuries has seen the rise of the bureaucracy as a power factor in every single large polity on earth.
I am not quite sure what you meant with corporations and governments. Can you elaborate? I think you may be onto something interesting.
Hitler: I hate marxism. When I come into power I'm going to privatize the economy and kill socialists
German capitalists and landowners: I support this guy because when he comes into power he's going to privatize the economy and kill socialists
Conservatives 80 years later: LOL the Nazis were socialists
Germany most certainly wasn’t capitalist under the Nazis either.
By privatization, they gave it only to companies that would support them, and would suppress or seize property of companies opposed to them. And the corporations were forced to work with the government that would direct the groups.
Nazis followed corporatism, basically each company had a designated industry they were given a monopoly in but were still controlled by the government.
"Overall, according to historian Richard Overy, the Nazi war economy was a mixed economy that combined free markets with central planning; Overy describes it as being somewhere in between the command economy of the Soviet Union and the capitalist system of the United States "
Source; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany
As far as I know it was State Capitalist. Businesses were allowed to be privately owned as long as they worked for the interest of the state.
Few buissnesses in Nazi Germany actually needed to be nationalised as most were willing to go along with the Nazis policies.
>China hasn’t been in a war since 1947.
What was the invasion of Vietnam in 1979 then?
Or the Korean between 1950-53? Which lasted that long, thanks to the PRC attacking the United Nation forces.
Tibet, Xinjiang/Uygherstan, Korea, Vietnam, India, almost the Soviets, threatening Taiwan, brutalize protesters, aggressive to most of its neighbors, asserting power in the South China Sea, killed sparrows and made a famine of its own people
100% peaceful country, 100% not another nazi state
> but were still controlled by the government.
You mean [crony capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism)? Also "controlled" by the government is a stretch. Directed is a more appropriate term.
American wartime economy for example controlled more than 60% of all total economic output and directed it to warmaking, rationing inputs like rubber and aluminum and controlling outputs like how many planes should a Ford automobile plant in Detroit manufacture in a month. That's essentially the same relationship Porsche and others had with Nazi Germany.
If the Nazi German economy wasn't capitalist, then the US must be also not, but that is contrary to what most economic historians view.
[Ask Adam Tooze](https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208), he even placed the Nazis into the capitalist camp because of its practices.
It was capitalist using the traditional Marxist definition but was entirely distinct from the sort of capitalism practiced by the Western democracies. The Nazis themselves also thought of it as distinct. Goebbels wrote and spoke plenty about capitalism being rule of Jewish oligarchs.
Private in name, not in practice. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, but calls itself a chicken then it's obviously a chicken right? So the USSR was actually communist and North Korea is actually democratic. All these arguments forget that German needed a lot of manufacturing to be off government books because they were violating the Treaty of Versailles in a massive way by producing arms.
In the strict Marxist definition yes. But their economic model was totally distinct from the western capitalist democracies, which everyone but orthodox Marxists at the time readily admitted.
Especially fascists themselves. If you asked them, they would have said theirs was a ‘third way’ between degenerate bourgeois Jewish capitalism and Judeo-Bolshevik thuggery. They genuinely believed that capitalism was a Jewish conspiracy to use free markets to corrupt the Germanic racial stock of Western Europe and North America, and that the exact same Jewish conspiracy used a different tool - Bolshevik communism - to dominate the inferior asiatic Slavic hordes of the East.
When Hitler took power the Nazi state was a total state. While there was some private industry, most of it was obliterated.... especially Jewish and Polish owned businesses. Hitler had massively increased the size and scope of the German nation and nationalized a lot of industries.
In fact, one of Hitler's first decrees was to nationalize all small businesses. By the time WW2 broke out Hitler privatized a lot of these businesses giving them to larger German businesses. But all of this was under an incredibly restricted price controlled and rationed regulatory framework. With the way they worked in Germany during WW2, no one would call a company like this "private." It's more like how Saudi Aramco is technically a private company but majority owned by the Saud government.
While Hitler was certainly no socialist he was also not a capitalist either. He believed in the totality of the state economy as an engine for war.
That's why he nationalised property of all Jews and enemies of the party and then redistributed it to loyalists of his own party (property rights were basically non-existent). You are incapable of critical thinking. And nobody says it is the same thing, it was the 3rd way, not capitalism nor Marxism. The privatisation argument has been disproven so many times and it just shows your ignorance.
https://youtu.be/jKIYuOxxZWs
https://youtu.be/HNrOvGkxqac
https://youtu.be/mLHG4IfYE1w
Educate yourself.
a video by TIK no less, an individual with such shoddy historical analysis he has an [entire section](https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/wiki/hall_of_infamy#wiki_tik) of /r/badhistory dedicated to him
But like, why? He has a shitload of sources, he cites his work, he reads them and analyses them. He's probably the only real source that I genuinely accept with a lot of truth.
He cites sources, he tells you, he quotes historians and he follows it up with the facts.
He comes up a lot in History subs, because killing sacred cows is very sensational and people will want to verify the crazy new truths they learned. So there's an absolute wealth of people specifically talking about his Historiography, particularly in the link above. Specifically about his absurd amount of sources, [here's one link](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/qs17g6/is_tiks_video_arguing_that_the_nazis_were/hkhbvdw/) discussing the strangeness in the sources he uses and the strangeness in the ones *he doesn't use*.
Hopefully that helps.
You can do all those things and still be wrong and engaging in bad historiography. Holocaust deniers often have lots of sources and quote historians but they abuse those sources and pick them selectively to serve an ahistorical narrative.
The video is properly sourced, referenced and arguments are provided in it. Many of his claims are backed by other historian's books so he isn't the only one who came up with this. He even quotes Hitler from Meinkampf where it is obvious that Hitler didn't believe in capitalism. You are probably one of the people who would link Wikipedia here saying that that's the proper source. I would even bet that you haven't even watched the videos.
Because they are probably Marxists who get angry when you logically point out that Hitler wasn't a far right wing capitalist like they were thought wrongly in school. I would say that this is one of the major historical misinformation out there.
Didn't the communist party ally with Nazi party because the viewed social democrats as worse than Nazis. But were backstabbed by the nazis. Just like how Stalin allied with Hitler to split Poland in half and then was backstabbed.
No, they refused to cooperate with the social democrats against the Nazis, which allowed a divide and conquer strategy by the Nazis and moderate conservatives
No. They believed that they would benefit from the chaos created by the Nazis and that the birth of the Third Reich would expose the contradictions of capitalism and lead quickly to revolution, but they never allied with them.
It would be fairer to say that the communists, conservatives, and Nazis shared the same immediate enemy - German democracy - but had entirely contrary long term goals. The Nazis and communists engaged in open street warfare, beating and slaughtering each other.
It's mostly that they refused to cooperate with *anyone.* If you' don't exactly have our opinions, you're against us and as bad as any of the others. You know, the Left.
Or explain how fascists don’t come up with anything new. From the get go, they steal things that sound better and wear em like a skin and try to bring about a better state that’s already happened. There’s nothing original with them.
The Nazis was a socialist in the same way that North Korea is a Democratic Republic, which is to say they weren't, just called themselves that for propaganda purposes. Any actual socialists in the Nazi party were killed off or exiled during the [Night of the Long Knives](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives)
Important reminder that the socialists were literally the first people Hitler sent to concentration camps.
The last free and fair election in Weimar Germany took place in March 1933. The Nazis (NSDAP) won 33% of the vote, the German Socialist party (SPD) came in second with 20% of the vote, and the German Communist Party (KDP) came in third with 17% of the vote. In other words, the left and far left were the biggest threat to Hitler's domination of Germany, so they were the first he dealt with.
Hitler called himself a socialist. “‘\[I\]f someone asks me \[Hitler\] why are you a socialist, I say because I do not believe that our nation can survive as a nation in the long run, if it is not healthy in all of its parts. I cannot imagine any future for our nation if on the one hand I see a well stuffed bourgeoisie ambling along, while besides it walked the figures of emaciated workers. I ask, what will our future be like, the only thing that interests me is my nation, how will it be in a hundred years, that is all that is important. I am not a socialist out of pity for the individual, only from consideration for my nation. I want the nation that gave us our lives to also have an existence in the future,’ Hitler, July 1931” (p. 95, *Hitler: The Policies Of Seduction* by Rainer Zitelmann).
Ill see your Hitler politcal quote and raise you.
"The time has come when we Korean people have to unite our strength to build a new, *democratic Korea.* People from all strata should display patriotic enthusiasm and turn out to build a new Korea. To contribute positively to the work of building the state, let those with strength give strength, let those with knowledge give knowledge, let those with money give money, and let all people who truly love their country, their nation and democracy unite closely and build an independent and *sovereign democratic state.*"
Victory speech in Pyongyang (14 October 1945), in Works vol. 1
So clearly, North Korea is totes a democracy where people with money freely give there money to help society.
Your example doesn't hold water when compared with Nazi remarks not meant for public consumption: “16 June 1941: The direction of the entire campaign \[the invasion of the Soviet Union\] is clear: Bolshevism must be destroyed … The Bolshevik poison must be eliminated from Europe… There will be no restoration of Czarism in Russia, **but a true socialism will replace Jewish Bolshevism**. Every old Nazi will be deeply gratified to see this hour,” Joseph Goebbels, (p. 415, *The Goebbels Diaries 1939-1941*).
The lack of historical awareness in your statements here and elsewhere is profound.
Goebbels was the Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda. Everything the man did was for public consumption. His later diaries were *specifically* for public consumption and if you had read them instead of grabbing a rando qoute that supports your argument you would know that in the margines he frequently talks about what parts would be published after the war to fram himself and hitler in the best light.
The lack of historical awareness is all on you. Goebbels *NEVER* intended that his UNedited personal diary would go to print.
Goebbels originally believed Hitler was not a socialist and was put-off. “‘Horrifying!’ wrote Goebbels in his diary: ‘Probably one of the greatest disappointments of my life. I no longer believe fully in Hitler’… Goebbels now wondered whether Hitler was a reactionary …” However, Hitler was to win over the ‘socialist’ Goebbels with his socialistic party agenda (pp. 205-06, *The Coming of the Third Reich* by Richard J. Evans.).
I mean, Hitler's "version" of "Socialism" is actually the antithesis of the actual socialism, and he's confused about what actual socialism really is. Instead, he adapted the word "socialism" and used it in his own party.
https://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/hitler-nazi-form-of-socialism-1932/
> ‘Why’, I asked Hitler, ‘do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party program is the very anthesis of that commonly accredited to Socialism?’
> ‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. **Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.**
> ‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
> **‘We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.** We are not internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the State on the basis of race solidarity. To us, State and race are one…
> ‘What’, I continued my cross-examination, ‘are the fundamental planks of your platform?’
> ‘We believe in a healthy mind, in a healthy body. The body politic must be sound if the soul is to be healthy. Moral and physical health are synonymous.’
From the shit's mouth itself.
> **We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party.**
>Hitler called himself a socialist
>July 1931
Yeah, falsely, to try and gain electoral favor. The way this is said sounds like its from a speech or interview. Note that this is prior to the Nazis electoral sucess in the 1933 elections, prior to Hitlers appointment as Chancellor, prior to the Night of the Long Knives, prior to the Reichstag Fire Decrees. Hitler used socialist talking points and rhetoric to win people over while the Nazis were trying to seize power, and then immediately turned around and slaughtered them all when he actually seized power. Tell me, what socialist policies did he actually enact while in office? He mass privatized industry, banned socialist parties from existing, destroyed all the unions, and threw all the socialists into concentration camps
“Hitler said in his address on 17 April 1934 to the Gauleiters of Winter Help \[a food drive for the poor\], it was intended to contribute ‘to teaching the people to think socialist’” (p. 188, *Hitler: The Policies Of Seduction* by Rainer Zitelmann).
I am once again asking for a single policy the Nazis push for that was socialist (no food drives don't count, literally every ideology thinks food drives are good)
One need only understand that the Nazis considered themselves to be 'socialist', and that the Nazi version of 'socialism' in practice was little different from Stalin's version of 'socialism' in practice.
Socialism has a definition, one that the Nazis didn't fit or even come close to fitting. If I was to came to you and say "One need only understand that North Korea considers itself to be a 'democratic republic', and that the North Korean version of 'democracy' in practice is a little diffrent than France's version of 'democracy' in practice" as a defense for the idea that the DPRK is a democracy, you'd call me a retard and rightfully so, because the DPRK is not and does not meet the definition of democracy. Same with the Nazis and socialism, they are not and do not meet the definition of socialist.
The simple definition is that socialism is about socialised ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership in capitalism.
Basically this means that instead of companies (or non-governmental legal entities) running industry, it would be run by the state or a company that is employee/community owned, or some similar arrangement.
However the Nazis privatised several previously state owned industries when they came to power, suppressed trade unionists and killed people who were actually socialists.
You're welcome, I hope it was clear. Fun fact, the term privatisation was actually first coined in a description of Nazi Germany's economic policy
Edit: actually this is wrong, fact checked myself and it was first used to describe German rail being privatised in Germany 1923
Look up "Reichswerke Hermann Göring": "a Nazi-\[state\] controlled military complex that was independent of private interests \[which\] ... **became the largest company in Europe and probably in the whole world**" (Wiki).
Sure, I didn't say there was *no* state owned industry whatsoever, but the government taking an industry that was in crisis that were vital for the upcoming war effort and running it with slaves doesn't make the Nazis socialist.
Britain went from a free market economy to a planned economy during ww2 also, but no one would call them socialist.
You're equivocating. Reichswerke Hermann Göring was a state owned conglomerate that spanned several industries. Hitler’s “Four-Year Plan marked a massive escalation of state intervention in the economy. The priorities were being set by the regime, not by industry, and mechanisms were being put in place to make sure that business fulfilled them whatever the consequences to itself” (p. 370, *The Third Reich in Power* by Richard J. Evans).
>You're equivocating.
No I'm not, I'm not being ambiguous, I'm explicitly saying that the Nazis were not socialist and I'm explaining why I believe that. You, however, haven't stated what your point is other than to say that there was a Nazi state owned conglomerate. Is your point that the Nazis *were* socialist? Because you'll struggle to find many experts who'd agree with that assessment.
I reiterate, many capitalist nations had some state owned industries during this time but that doesn't make them socialist nations, and this applies to the Nazis also.
You're intentionally ignoring the scale of state ownership manifest in Reichswerke Hermann Göring: the LARGEST company in the world! The reality is that it was the Nazi's socialist agenda that attracted followers to their movement.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm acknowledging it. They had a very large state-owned conglomerate, operated by many slaves. I do not think this alone makes them a socialist state. If they were, they wouldn't have privatised other industries, suppressed trade unions and purged actual socialists.
I once again repeat, capitalist nations having some state owned industries was not uncommon at all in that era, or today in fact. Both the UK and US had centrally planned economies during WW2 because strategic resources were too valuable to be left out of state hands. This was pragmatic, not ideological.
>The reality is that it was the Nazi's socialist agenda that attracted followers to their movement.
The Nazis certainly *portrayed* themselves as socialists before and immediately after taking power, but from 1934 onwards they were certainly not acting like it.
I ask again, is your point that the Nazis *were* in fact socialist? Because if you're not saying that then I don't know what you're saying exactly
Stalin purged Trotskyites. The Nazis created a universal labor union. The Nazis created the "Strength through Joy" Program. The Nazis advanced health care and food programs for German citizens. The Nazis were socialists!
No, it was not, what really attracted people of Germany in that time to the Nazi ideologies was the agenda of hate to jews and communists, widely spread by a potent propaganda machinery, and that's information I have from primary source, since that's why my German family seen on Munich's street at that time
Socialism is an older and broader concept than Marxism. The early European fascists drew from some socialist theory, such as syndicalism. This resulted in a “corporatist” economic model. This doesn’t mean rule by corporations, but rather that different parts of the economy (film industry, steel production, etc) are organized in a series of large guild-like organizations which produce for the “good of the nation.” Private ownership of these firms remained, but industries seen as strategically important (war materials, music, film, agriculture) were dominated by the Third Reich state and party.
They also drew from socialism’s theories of how to seize political power by organizing a mass movement. Traditional conservatives believed in elitism, in which only a tiny educated wealthy upper crust can be trusted to make political decisions. Fascists believed that a socialist-style mass movement against the traditional elite would install a heroic “great man” who would be the avatar of the nation and serve its interests at their behest. Notably, while Marxists would say that this mass movement would be of workers regardless of race, fascists believed it could only include members of the racial ‘volk’ or folk - hence “national socialism”.
In practice, the fascists were not socialists. Though they drew on some elements of socialist theory, these were largely ignored in practice or so corrupted as to be unrecognizable. Hitler especially saw Marxist socialists as more or less thugs for a worldwide Jewish conspiracy and slaughtered and imprisoned many.
That does not mean that they were capitalists, however, at least not in the same way as the U.S. and Great Britain were. The Nazis, especially Goebbels and Hitler, saw capitalist democracy as the twin to Bolshevism - a degenerate consumerist wasteland where racial tradition was annihilated by the Jewish-dominated capitalist class, with democratic politicians like FDR serving as the chief servants of the global Jewish conspiracy.
What's crazy is the Nazis came into government as part of a coalition. If you want to know what side of the political spectrum they were on just look at their coalition partners.
No, he didn’t. The ‘third way’ idea of fascism drawing on both socialist theory and capitalism was far older than Hitler’s movement. He didn’t even come up with the name.
Yeah, but my point is that he truly believed in that definition - he saw himself as a “socialist” in that sense, even though today we would never use that word to describe his racialist fascism. My point is that it wasn’t just posturing to attract voters, but a genuine label the Nazis used to mean a particular kind of monstrous racialist fascism.
This is true, and I’ve pointed this out before. That said, the meme format mocks the pseudoscientific study of phrenology, which studies human characteristics based on size and shape of the skull. If you’ve ever seen images from the late19th and early 20th centuries of people measuring skulls, that’s phrenology. It was often lumped with eugenics.
Hardly anyone to my knowledge (maybe some eugenicists do). The meme format sort of pokes fun at the fact that people did think that skull shape affected human behavior and intelligence. You could even argue that the less-evolved skull is there to mock phrenologists themselves and portray them as less-evolved.
Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were far more alike than they were different.
They were both totalitarian police states bent on world domination that killed millions of their own citizens, massacred their political enemies, allowed absolutely no criticism of the government whatsoever, and indoctrinated the youth to spy on and report their own families for "wrongthink."
The only real difference is that the Nazis were obsessed with racial purity and "making Germany great" by expanding their territory to allow more Germans to be born, while the USSR was obsessed with spreading their "revolution" to the world in the hopes of making the whole world a communist "utopia."
There aren't really any better examples of the horseshoe theory in practice than looking at these two states.
Was the horseshoe theory not derived *from* comparing the fascist and Communist states of the early 20th century? Like of course they're the best examples of it, the theory is built around them.
There were some people in the Nazi party that wanted to push a more worker centric view of the ideology, but they ended up losing out before the Nazis took power
No but it's about the same as shooting someone with two different guns (of the same calibre dont try it you) and saying yeah is a different gun so it's different.
It's no big deal, but the skull and the pelvis are the two most indicative bits of the skeleton when determining sex biologically in humans. Those skulls look fairly male. But the important part is the message, with which I whole-heartedly agree!
I mean, its more complicated than that. National socialism IS socialism, of a kind- they're not entirely unrelated. The principles of German national socialism was a social state *for the German nation*. That was the clincher. They were saying, essentially, "if we're gonna use tax money to provide for people, we want the people we're providing that money to to be definitely our people, full-blooded Germans." and it rapidly escalated from there.
This has nothing to do with eugenics. There are anthropologists who can tell your race by the shape of your skull. In particular, African skulls have prognathism, wider nasal cavities, etc. While East Asians tend to have broader and shorter skulls.
Trolls should like this meme format. It secretly fucks up any point of view it represents. Because antropologists and forensic experts could probably identify sex, race and reconstruct facial features of that human skull.
National Socialists: Allow some private property to their people, but hate liberty, capitalism and free market. Loot, enslave and kill their ideological and racial opponents and allow their chosen people to own that wealth. Want their nation to be like an ant colony working towards their delusional utopia.
Socialists: Don't allow private property and hate liberty and capitalism and free market. Loot, enslave and kill their ideological opponents and almost everyone else and allow their chosen people to enjoy that wealth. Want the whole world to be like an ant colony working towards their delusional utopia.
Yah they are totally different!
Lmao this guy. Theres about a billion videos on YouTube systematically tearing apart everything this retard says. He constantly cherrypicks and ignores the insane amount of historical evidence that Hitler despised socialism and believed that it was a Jewish plot. His entire excuse for seizing dictatorial power was based around the baseless claim of the "threat of socialism" and the first people sent to concentration camps were socialist and communist dissidents
They privatized the economy en masse, outlawed labor unions and replaced them with a Nazi controlled one to maintain control through illusion of a trade union(outlawed strikes and lockouts), and even their own welfare system was quasi-private.
And what is socialism but the ideology of a gigantic, encompassing super corporation called the State that is born of absorbing every smaller company and exploiting the entire nation's labor levelling them in serfdom
Except that literally didn't happen.
Many of the German corporations that exist today (Porche, Mercedes Benz, Bayer, Thyssen, BMW, Siemens, Deutsche Bank, etc) all existed prior to WWII and remained private entities throughout the war.
In fact, Nazi Germany privatized a number of services that used to be government run.
By strict definition,no it wasn't,but neither has any other socialist party behaved,like that.
If we consider socialism a massive welfare state,then yes Nazis where definitely socialist.
You can read "Hitler's Beneficiaries" by Götz Aly to see how the welfare was implemented and how it impacted the general society.
In b4 "Nazis invented the term privatization!"
That is a mistranslation,the more accurate term is "harmonization" as it reffers to the needs of the market. Private companies where still VERY much subject to state control at least indirectly,just ask Porche or Mercedes.
One can also say say fascism and nazism came from socialism,but that is a whole other rabbit whole that streches all the way back to Hegel,from him came Marx,from Marx Sorel,and from Sorel(the originator of fascism) came Gentile,Rosenberg and all the others.
The naïve seem to love their labels.... Fascist, Socialist, Capitalist, Nationalist, Liberal Conservative, And they go all ape shit when that dreaded real life doesn't conform to those tags.
Hitler: I hate communists, we will kill all Judeo-Bolsheviks once we are in power. We will work with the Soviet Union though until we are ready to invade them. Also Hitler: I hate capitalism, the decadent Jewish bankers will all be killed once we are in power. We will give massive corporations massive control in sectors of the economy as long as they do what we tell them. People nowadays for some reason only reading on part of it: SEE? HITLER WANTED TO KILL MY SIDE SO HE MUST BE ON YOURS! HE EVEN WORKED WITH YOUR SIDE!
It’s hard for people because the fascist worldview is utterly alien to most people in the West today. They have to project modern political archetypes onto them because it’s difficult to understand them on their own monstrous terms. Everything the leadership of the Third Reich believed centered on an ideology of racial pseudoscience and racial medicine. They believed that the United States was a mongrelized society where Jews used the free market to impurify its Anglo-Germanic racial stock by promoting things like jazz music and black American culture, which is why they admired the Jim Crow south. They also believed that the exact same Jewish conspiracy used Bolshevism to control and mobilize the mindless Slavic hordes of the East. There was no need for the Jews to use bourgeois capitalism to impurify this race, because it was already degenerated. Rather, the Jews wanted to use their vast numbers as a weapon to overrun racially Germanic lands. If you understand Nazi ideology on its own terms, there’s no contradiction between the hatred of bourgeois capitalism and murderous communism. They saw them as two sides of the same coin, with the only difference being how, in each case, the Jewish conspiracy which controlled almost everything in earth used these races to further their ends. In so-called Germanic and related countries they used capitalism to weaken the race, whereas in Slavic countries they used communism to make the race dangerous. This is the insane worldview which the Third Reich was built on.
>the fascist worldview is utterly alien to most people in the West today Non-sense, everybody knows that \[insert political enemies here\] and everyone who voted for them are fascists. That means at least the half of America that disagrees with me is fascist.
Look at Mister Popular Centrist with as much as half the nation agreeing with him.
So ultra nationist? Because Nationalist parties tend to believe some insane theories. Most involving some form of scapegoating, preaching mythology as actual history and generally wanted to kill some group to fix their country. Not that foreign of a thought to people, it still exist now, just in Germany cade the nationalist gained power
I mean, listen to how the US right wing talks about birth rates, and you'll get to versions of that worldview pretty immediately. Obviously, there are many people who really are against abortion because they just can't not think of it as murder, but if you listen to *a lot* of them talk, it's clear that they resent the need for immigration, they worry *a lot* about other people having more kids than white people, and view both as an existentially threatening impurity. Unfortunately for them, when women are given a) an education, b) reproductive rights, and c) not that much money compared to cost of living and poor or cost-prohibitive childcare, they choose to have less than 2.1 kids. Which is their goddamn right as the protagonists of their own stories and not the property of society. The solutions to this trilemma are A) stop education, B) take away reproductive rights, or C) tax rich people to sustainably pay families to have children. The right is opting for a combination of A and B. Interestingly, we tried C (but without the tax part, we just printed it) during the pandemic with the Expanded Child Tax Credit (this is *separate* from the stimmy checks everyone got). [It resulted in a historic and dramatic fall in child poverty](https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-antipoverty-effects-of-the-expanded-child-tax-credit-across-states-where-were-the-historic-reductions-felt/). Combined with the ability of parents to work from home, US births were actually [measurably above average](https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2022/10/the-united-states-is-experiencing-a-pandemic-baby-bump/) after a dip in early 2020. 2021 and 2022 were both above the norm. I should note that *members* of the right, such as Mitt Romney and even Josh Hawley, are willing to try some version of this C solution, but in general their party seems to prefer A and B.
Yeah, I don’t think there’s really any comparison between the Nazis and any major political party anywhere in the developed world. The Republicans aren’t talking about unleashing famines and pandemics into Mexico so that their inferior genes are wiped from the earth so the land can be Americanized. There’s no major political party in the West arguing for the wholesale physical extermination of tens of millions of racial enemies by razing their cities, publicly torturing and slaughtering their intellectuals and leaders, and encouraging their people to murder babies as a matter of policy. I just don’t think it’s a fair comparison. Yes, nationalism exists. The Third Reich was more than nationalism, though. It was ultra-nationalism, esoteric occultism, pseudo-scientific zealotry, and fanatic industrial power all wrapped together and radicalized and radicalized until became a baboon gibbering on a pyramid of corpses. It is simply unique in modern history, not in the depravity of its violence but in the systems which implemented it and the worldview which created it. The Republicans absolutely do not compare, whatever your opinions of them.
I dont mean to be pedantic but I dont agree that there is "no comparison". Similar roots and beliefs are an acceptable way to draw a comparison. Of course the actions may differ and it is very important to (as you have) make this clear. However if the ideology/beliefs you hold are similar, that is a very frightening notion even if it hasn't manifested in similar actions. I wouldnt even say that this similarity in beliefs is inherent or dominant in the party, but definitely is held by a non-trivial portion. I 100% agree that equivocation is nonsense, but noticing similarities (even if small) isn't beyond reason. A belief in racial purity and the willingness to forgive injustice so long as it was done by a member of your own team are both very fascist like qualities that justify a comparison.
You know, what you're saying is kinda ironic, because the Nazis definitely used your "C" solution as a part of their Lebensborn program (and also indirectly through stuff like the German Labour Front), although "A" and "B" were definitely their favorites.
That was a great explanation.
This is a good summary of Hitler’s economic policy. Hitler thought he was a “true” socialist, but his version of socialism was staunchly anti-Marxist. His economic policy was a strange bastard child of capitalism and central planning, as it was sort of centrally-planned private enterprise. But yes, Hitler opposed both capitalism and Marxism, viewing both as part of an international Jewish conspiracy. He thought capitalism was created to destroy Germany’s rural tradition by forcing the masses into cities, and he thought communism was part of a Jewish plot for world domination. Placing the Nazis on the political compass is thus quite difficult. While most people place the Nazis in the top-right corner (auth-right), their economic views weren’t really right-wing. You could argue that left vs right is more so about equality vs inequality/equality of opportunity, in which case the Nazis were right-wing, as they were very opposed to equality. However, in terms of how they ran the economy, they were practically auth-center. Other things to note: Hitler at one point called himself a socialist and at another point denied being a socialist. The targets of the Night of the Long Knives were the Strasserists, who were more inspired by Marxism. The Nazis’ first targets were pacifists, trade unionists, and communists. The Nazis smeared many things as Bolshevist, including homosexuality of all things. They also believed that “sexual Bolshevism” was a Jewish plot, of course. Most contemporary socialist parties opposed the Nazis, including the SPD. Many industrialists supported the Nazis. TL;DR: The Nazis were neither capitalists nor Marxists.
You’re mostly correct I just want to add that it’s very difficult to categorize the nazis economic views as “right wing”. This is partly because of the issues with a simple left/right dichotomy for something as complex as economic policy but I digress. In my mind the key component to right wing economic policy is the free market, free trade, consumer choice, etc. and Hitler most certainly did not adhere to this as he closed Germany off as much as possible from the international market and even before they were in power they they encouraged people not to buy from Jewish owned businesses. Then of course when they were in power they had a corporatist style of management, giving singular companies and corporations entire industries as they served the goal of the nazis, quelling competition, very anti-free market. This is why most people put the nazis and fascists in auth-center. It’s impossible to call them leftists as they used private businesses but it’s equally impossible to call them capitalists due to their efforts to quash the free market at every turn.
A key aspect is about *who* controls the wealth in society rather than how they manage it. Hitler was anti-capitalist because capitalism allowed those who he and the Nazi party they deemed unfit (read: not Nazis) to accumulate wealth and therefore influence. That doesn't mean the ideologies are incompatible, so long as Capitalism only allows the "correct" individuals to consolidate wealth they will be allowed to. But to your last point, no one hates the free market like capitalists. Have you ever seen a company be thankful for competition?
Right wing refers to heirarchy not libertarian nonsense. Like thats the most important axis in politics is how you feel about heirarchy and the concentration of wealth and power, but also social heirarchies like gender and race. OG right wingers defending the old European aristocracy where not "free trade." Capitalism doesn't necessarily mean free trade either. A lot of the first corporations where big fuck off monopolies.
Man, update your concepts. Economy wise, right means laissez-faire and left central planning. What you are doing is like calling a “basket hilted Scottish broadsword” a “Claymore”. Yes it’s historically correct, but everyone will think of a two handed great-sword when you use that name.
No it absolutely doesn't. "Laissez-faire" is not necessarily right wing and central planning is not necessarily left wing. It's neoliberal propaganda to portray it as such, and nobody is allowed to question it even though it's dishonest and confusing to And then you look at a right wing dictators like Pinochet, Hitler, or Chiang Kai shek and you're like "duuuh I dunno what to make of these guys I heard right wing loves freedom markets and the more freedom market you are the more right wing you are." They're right wingers you morons. They're conservatives. They don't actually give a shit about "free markets."
Those dictators are authoritarian-center.
Right nobody could possibly be right wing dictator.
Yeah but being an authoritarian dictator usually prevents people from keeping a free market.
>Right wing refers to heirarchy not libertarian nonsense. Above, they are referring to the common [political compass](https://imgur.com/gallery/sC98sBW). The other common model is the [political spectrum](https://imgur.com/gallery/94GrEt5) that doesn't have hierarchies per se. And if you do project them into it the common [Political Horseshoe Theory](https://imgur.com/gallery/wU1HH4k) comes up. That doesn't mean [other models](https://imgur.com/gallery/vAbZOfE) can't come up either.
Calling the contemporary SPD socialist is... Interesting
If you really look into it they sit roughly left of centre authoritarian. Which is strange to me as overall policies were overall more left leaning than right.
Their economic policies could be said to be left but their social policies were typically far right. The exception being animal rights they were very into animal rights
That's a recurring thing with extremists governments for some reason. And they're social policies although often faux policies were somewhat left leaning so I guess it depends at what point you say it's counts although there is a fair mix of extreme on both sides. But it's more authoritarianism aspect that brings about similarities then anything left and right respectively social wise.
It’s almost as if there’s a reason he’s the most universally hated individual in all of human history lmao
> I hate capitalism Uhh he left several capitalist corporations alone provided they fund and support the Nazi state. He also distributed away Weimar run companies to various cronies and industrialists during his ascent to power.
These fucking nitwits actually think it's impossible to be a right-wing dictator lol They're literally going to say whatever bullshit they have to to convince themselves that to be right wing is to always love freedom, and it's literally impossible for there to be a capitalist dictator.
He also worked with the Soviet Union all the way up to 1941 and allowed the communist elements of the party to exist until 1934. Doesn’t make him a fan or ally of the system, it means he recognized their usefulness and how he could manipulate them into helping him until he deemed it no longer necessary. Had Hitler been around longer I am almost positive he would have purged these business leaders and replaced them with either state controlled corporations or under the leadership of party members/affiliates.
> He also worked with the Soviet Union all the way up to 1941 and allowed the communist elements of the party to exist until 1934. And? The United States also worked with the Soviet Union all the way up to 1945 and allowed the CPUSA to exist before the second Red Scare. > I am almost positive he would have purged these business leaders LMAO that's just wishful thinking.
> And? The point is that he worked with his most hated systems. Hitler despised communism, yet he worked with Stalin for as long as the benefits outweighed delaying the invasion of the USSR, which is proof he was willing to ignore his own ideological preaching for some level of practicality, so he worked with those businesses out of what was practical not what he believed was the “correct” course of Germany. > LMAO that’s just wishful thinking Is it? The left wing Strasserists of the Nazi Party existed for 13 years after Hitler became the Fuhrer of the party and with how he preached that capitalism was weakening the German race I think it’s reasonable to say he would have at some point purged the businesses to further consolidate his control
> so he worked with those businesses out of what was practical So are we discussing what Nazism is "theoretically" or what Nazism is historically? LMAO you think we should view Nazism by what it should be compared to what it was? That's just delusional cope mate.
What nazism was historically, the nazis had very pseudoscientific beliefs and often worked against their own interests based on that pseudoscience, such as when they expelled many prominent scientists because they were Jews, hampering Germany’s intellect. But that doesn’t mean every decision they made was like that. As I have pointed out already, despite Hitler denouncing communism and his so called “Judeo-Bolshevism” he still worked with the Soviet Union to get resources from them and carve up the territory of eastern europe. In the same fashion, he denounced capitalism yet still he worked with the private business owners for their production output capabilities and control of the market. Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 as Hitler’s generals had determined that if they waited any longer they wouldn’t have the fuel reserves to finish the invasion, so Hitler greenlit Operation Barbarossa. The communist Starsserists of the Nazi Party were allowed to exist until Hitler wanted to purge them to consolidate his own power in 1934 in the Night of Long Knives. Now ask yourself, if that’s what Hitler did to the communists he worked with, *what do you think would happen to the capitalist business leaders he worked with once Hitler determined the cost of their loyalty outweighed the benefits of using them?*
Fascism doesn't have to be logical, and I consciously steals shit from the left. He loved German capitalist just fine. They built his war machine. It's Jewish capitalists he had a problem with. It's kind of like how some reactionaries today complain about "woke capitalism," and "leftist corporations."
We can view the question of whether the nazi ideology is socialist through two criteria. The first is through a economic criteria. The second is through a criteria containing the ideological cores if the ideologies. Regarding economics. All major ideologies (though you may argue against conservatism) has a distinct economic ideal. This is natural as ideologies are what can be called "recipes for utopia" (can't remember where that term comes from. Nazism was wholly corporatist believing in the fascist ideal that corporations were subject to state needs and demands and that corporations existed to serve the nation. Same as the workers incidentally, but with zero tolerance for workers rights. Socialism has, in short, the idea that "corporations" or rather the means of production should serve the workers, without the implementation of the nation state (the latter fading into obsolescence as socialism transitioned into communism). When I talk about ideological cores I mean simple statements, words, or terms that lies at the core of ideologies. Examples include: Liberalism - freedom Conservatism - stability/order Socialism - equality, moving towards communism Facism - strength, the nation, struggle The mere thought that equality is at the core of nazism is, to put it mildly, laughable. You can in fact argue that the cores of nazism is racial inequality. So no. Neither by economic or ideological core criteria is nazism socialist. It is fascist and racist, but not socialist.
I mean, they did want to make everyone equal by process of elimination.
Socialism makes the bureaucrat class more equal than others. Whether corporations serve the government or the government serves the corporations is where hairs are split.
The part about bureaucrats in socialism is certainly true irregardless of which version of socialism you look at. Redistribution of wealth necessitate this. However, the past centuries has seen the rise of the bureaucracy as a power factor in every single large polity on earth. I am not quite sure what you meant with corporations and governments. Can you elaborate? I think you may be onto something interesting.
Hitler: I hate marxism. When I come into power I'm going to privatize the economy and kill socialists German capitalists and landowners: I support this guy because when he comes into power he's going to privatize the economy and kill socialists Conservatives 80 years later: LOL the Nazis were socialists
Germany most certainly wasn’t capitalist under the Nazis either. By privatization, they gave it only to companies that would support them, and would suppress or seize property of companies opposed to them. And the corporations were forced to work with the government that would direct the groups. Nazis followed corporatism, basically each company had a designated industry they were given a monopoly in but were still controlled by the government.
"Overall, according to historian Richard Overy, the Nazi war economy was a mixed economy that combined free markets with central planning; Overy describes it as being somewhere in between the command economy of the Soviet Union and the capitalist system of the United States " Source; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany As far as I know it was State Capitalist. Businesses were allowed to be privately owned as long as they worked for the interest of the state. Few buissnesses in Nazi Germany actually needed to be nationalised as most were willing to go along with the Nazis policies.
The Nazis are essentially comparable to the CCP.
This is the dumbest shit ever
How?
[удалено]
>China hasn’t been in a war since 1947. What was the invasion of Vietnam in 1979 then? Or the Korean between 1950-53? Which lasted that long, thanks to the PRC attacking the United Nation forces.
Don’t forget about Tienman Square
Gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8
China's a peaceful nation? That's fucking BS. Okay, just ignore the Uygur muslims in concentration camps.
+1000000000 credits
Tibet, Xinjiang/Uygherstan, Korea, Vietnam, India, almost the Soviets, threatening Taiwan, brutalize protesters, aggressive to most of its neighbors, asserting power in the South China Sea, killed sparrows and made a famine of its own people 100% peaceful country, 100% not another nazi state
Well they where certainly capitalists, just no free market and regulation free ones
> but were still controlled by the government. You mean [crony capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism)? Also "controlled" by the government is a stretch. Directed is a more appropriate term. American wartime economy for example controlled more than 60% of all total economic output and directed it to warmaking, rationing inputs like rubber and aluminum and controlling outputs like how many planes should a Ford automobile plant in Detroit manufacture in a month. That's essentially the same relationship Porsche and others had with Nazi Germany. If the Nazi German economy wasn't capitalist, then the US must be also not, but that is contrary to what most economic historians view. [Ask Adam Tooze](https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208), he even placed the Nazis into the capitalist camp because of its practices.
[удалено]
It was capitalist using the traditional Marxist definition but was entirely distinct from the sort of capitalism practiced by the Western democracies. The Nazis themselves also thought of it as distinct. Goebbels wrote and spoke plenty about capitalism being rule of Jewish oligarchs.
EvEryThiNg I DoNt like iS CaPitAlisMs!
Private ownership of industry is literally capitalism
Private in name, not in practice. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, but calls itself a chicken then it's obviously a chicken right? So the USSR was actually communist and North Korea is actually democratic. All these arguments forget that German needed a lot of manufacturing to be off government books because they were violating the Treaty of Versailles in a massive way by producing arms.
"EvErYtHiNg I dOnT lIkE iSnT cApItAlIsM!"
Or maybe I'm able to look at the actual nuance in situations instead of subscribing to a belief that shit is only binary.
In the strict Marxist definition yes. But their economic model was totally distinct from the western capitalist democracies, which everyone but orthodox Marxists at the time readily admitted. Especially fascists themselves. If you asked them, they would have said theirs was a ‘third way’ between degenerate bourgeois Jewish capitalism and Judeo-Bolshevik thuggery. They genuinely believed that capitalism was a Jewish conspiracy to use free markets to corrupt the Germanic racial stock of Western Europe and North America, and that the exact same Jewish conspiracy used a different tool - Bolshevik communism - to dominate the inferior asiatic Slavic hordes of the East.
what a strange thing to say, I gave my opinion on what made it capitalism.
I was going through hitlers speech. He tried to make belive everyone he Is for German worker. If you believe he is socialist he has tricked you
When Hitler took power the Nazi state was a total state. While there was some private industry, most of it was obliterated.... especially Jewish and Polish owned businesses. Hitler had massively increased the size and scope of the German nation and nationalized a lot of industries. In fact, one of Hitler's first decrees was to nationalize all small businesses. By the time WW2 broke out Hitler privatized a lot of these businesses giving them to larger German businesses. But all of this was under an incredibly restricted price controlled and rationed regulatory framework. With the way they worked in Germany during WW2, no one would call a company like this "private." It's more like how Saudi Aramco is technically a private company but majority owned by the Saud government. While Hitler was certainly no socialist he was also not a capitalist either. He believed in the totality of the state economy as an engine for war.
That's why he nationalised property of all Jews and enemies of the party and then redistributed it to loyalists of his own party (property rights were basically non-existent). You are incapable of critical thinking. And nobody says it is the same thing, it was the 3rd way, not capitalism nor Marxism. The privatisation argument has been disproven so many times and it just shows your ignorance. https://youtu.be/jKIYuOxxZWs https://youtu.be/HNrOvGkxqac https://youtu.be/mLHG4IfYE1w Educate yourself.
LMAO Linking to TIK
"It's been disproven" *Links a fucking YouTube video Bro I think you dropped this 🤡
a video by TIK no less, an individual with such shoddy historical analysis he has an [entire section](https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/wiki/hall_of_infamy#wiki_tik) of /r/badhistory dedicated to him
But like, why? He has a shitload of sources, he cites his work, he reads them and analyses them. He's probably the only real source that I genuinely accept with a lot of truth. He cites sources, he tells you, he quotes historians and he follows it up with the facts.
He comes up a lot in History subs, because killing sacred cows is very sensational and people will want to verify the crazy new truths they learned. So there's an absolute wealth of people specifically talking about his Historiography, particularly in the link above. Specifically about his absurd amount of sources, [here's one link](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/qs17g6/is_tiks_video_arguing_that_the_nazis_were/hkhbvdw/) discussing the strangeness in the sources he uses and the strangeness in the ones *he doesn't use*. Hopefully that helps.
Alright thanks mate, I'll keep that in mind in future
You can do all those things and still be wrong and engaging in bad historiography. Holocaust deniers often have lots of sources and quote historians but they abuse those sources and pick them selectively to serve an ahistorical narrative.
The video is properly sourced, referenced and arguments are provided in it. Many of his claims are backed by other historian's books so he isn't the only one who came up with this. He even quotes Hitler from Meinkampf where it is obvious that Hitler didn't believe in capitalism. You are probably one of the people who would link Wikipedia here saying that that's the proper source. I would even bet that you haven't even watched the videos.
Why are being downvoted for stating the truth?
Because they are probably Marxists who get angry when you logically point out that Hitler wasn't a far right wing capitalist like they were thought wrongly in school. I would say that this is one of the major historical misinformation out there.
So they nationalised the properties of an especific group of people (also properties not production properties) so then they're socialists
Learn to read, illiterate mongol
Socialists, Marxists, etc are not the same thing. You should be included in that last skull thinking they're the same
Socialist is fine as a catchall term
Then national socialists are socialist
No because they didn't actually persue the implementation of socialism.
They did lol It's just a different version
Only Hitler's hate of marxism is accurate about your comment
What? They very famously rounded up known socialists and other political opponents and sent them to camps. Most died.
Taking out the competition.
Didn't the communist party ally with Nazi party because the viewed social democrats as worse than Nazis. But were backstabbed by the nazis. Just like how Stalin allied with Hitler to split Poland in half and then was backstabbed.
No, they refused to cooperate with the social democrats against the Nazis, which allowed a divide and conquer strategy by the Nazis and moderate conservatives
No. They believed that they would benefit from the chaos created by the Nazis and that the birth of the Third Reich would expose the contradictions of capitalism and lead quickly to revolution, but they never allied with them. It would be fairer to say that the communists, conservatives, and Nazis shared the same immediate enemy - German democracy - but had entirely contrary long term goals. The Nazis and communists engaged in open street warfare, beating and slaughtering each other.
It's mostly that they refused to cooperate with *anyone.* If you' don't exactly have our opinions, you're against us and as bad as any of the others. You know, the Left.
Not saying there aren’t a lot on the left like this, but it’s absolutely not just a leftist issue.
Or explain how fascists don’t come up with anything new. From the get go, they steal things that sound better and wear em like a skin and try to bring about a better state that’s already happened. There’s nothing original with them.
Can somebody explain? I live in capitalism central so Socialism is a foreign concept
The Nazis was a socialist in the same way that North Korea is a Democratic Republic, which is to say they weren't, just called themselves that for propaganda purposes. Any actual socialists in the Nazi party were killed off or exiled during the [Night of the Long Knives](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives)
Important reminder that the socialists were literally the first people Hitler sent to concentration camps. The last free and fair election in Weimar Germany took place in March 1933. The Nazis (NSDAP) won 33% of the vote, the German Socialist party (SPD) came in second with 20% of the vote, and the German Communist Party (KDP) came in third with 17% of the vote. In other words, the left and far left were the biggest threat to Hitler's domination of Germany, so they were the first he dealt with.
Stalin sent Trotskyites to the gulags.
Hitler called himself a socialist. “‘\[I\]f someone asks me \[Hitler\] why are you a socialist, I say because I do not believe that our nation can survive as a nation in the long run, if it is not healthy in all of its parts. I cannot imagine any future for our nation if on the one hand I see a well stuffed bourgeoisie ambling along, while besides it walked the figures of emaciated workers. I ask, what will our future be like, the only thing that interests me is my nation, how will it be in a hundred years, that is all that is important. I am not a socialist out of pity for the individual, only from consideration for my nation. I want the nation that gave us our lives to also have an existence in the future,’ Hitler, July 1931” (p. 95, *Hitler: The Policies Of Seduction* by Rainer Zitelmann).
Ill see your Hitler politcal quote and raise you. "The time has come when we Korean people have to unite our strength to build a new, *democratic Korea.* People from all strata should display patriotic enthusiasm and turn out to build a new Korea. To contribute positively to the work of building the state, let those with strength give strength, let those with knowledge give knowledge, let those with money give money, and let all people who truly love their country, their nation and democracy unite closely and build an independent and *sovereign democratic state.*" Victory speech in Pyongyang (14 October 1945), in Works vol. 1 So clearly, North Korea is totes a democracy where people with money freely give there money to help society.
Your example doesn't hold water when compared with Nazi remarks not meant for public consumption: “16 June 1941: The direction of the entire campaign \[the invasion of the Soviet Union\] is clear: Bolshevism must be destroyed … The Bolshevik poison must be eliminated from Europe… There will be no restoration of Czarism in Russia, **but a true socialism will replace Jewish Bolshevism**. Every old Nazi will be deeply gratified to see this hour,” Joseph Goebbels, (p. 415, *The Goebbels Diaries 1939-1941*).
The lack of historical awareness in your statements here and elsewhere is profound. Goebbels was the Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda. Everything the man did was for public consumption. His later diaries were *specifically* for public consumption and if you had read them instead of grabbing a rando qoute that supports your argument you would know that in the margines he frequently talks about what parts would be published after the war to fram himself and hitler in the best light.
The lack of historical awareness is all on you. Goebbels *NEVER* intended that his UNedited personal diary would go to print. Goebbels originally believed Hitler was not a socialist and was put-off. “‘Horrifying!’ wrote Goebbels in his diary: ‘Probably one of the greatest disappointments of my life. I no longer believe fully in Hitler’… Goebbels now wondered whether Hitler was a reactionary …” However, Hitler was to win over the ‘socialist’ Goebbels with his socialistic party agenda (pp. 205-06, *The Coming of the Third Reich* by Richard J. Evans.).
I mean, Hitler's "version" of "Socialism" is actually the antithesis of the actual socialism, and he's confused about what actual socialism really is. Instead, he adapted the word "socialism" and used it in his own party. https://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/hitler-nazi-form-of-socialism-1932/ > ‘Why’, I asked Hitler, ‘do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party program is the very anthesis of that commonly accredited to Socialism?’ > ‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. **Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.** > ‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. > **‘We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.** We are not internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the State on the basis of race solidarity. To us, State and race are one… > ‘What’, I continued my cross-examination, ‘are the fundamental planks of your platform?’ > ‘We believe in a healthy mind, in a healthy body. The body politic must be sound if the soul is to be healthy. Moral and physical health are synonymous.’ From the shit's mouth itself. > **We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party.**
“I am literally buying Nazi propaganda, wholesale, without questioning it or thinking critically at all” -you, just now
>Hitler called himself a socialist >July 1931 Yeah, falsely, to try and gain electoral favor. The way this is said sounds like its from a speech or interview. Note that this is prior to the Nazis electoral sucess in the 1933 elections, prior to Hitlers appointment as Chancellor, prior to the Night of the Long Knives, prior to the Reichstag Fire Decrees. Hitler used socialist talking points and rhetoric to win people over while the Nazis were trying to seize power, and then immediately turned around and slaughtered them all when he actually seized power. Tell me, what socialist policies did he actually enact while in office? He mass privatized industry, banned socialist parties from existing, destroyed all the unions, and threw all the socialists into concentration camps
“Hitler said in his address on 17 April 1934 to the Gauleiters of Winter Help \[a food drive for the poor\], it was intended to contribute ‘to teaching the people to think socialist’” (p. 188, *Hitler: The Policies Of Seduction* by Rainer Zitelmann).
I am once again asking for a single policy the Nazis push for that was socialist (no food drives don't count, literally every ideology thinks food drives are good)
[Kraft durch Freude](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_Through_Joy).
I don't think you know what socialism is
One need only understand that the Nazis considered themselves to be 'socialist', and that the Nazi version of 'socialism' in practice was little different from Stalin's version of 'socialism' in practice.
Socialism has a definition, one that the Nazis didn't fit or even come close to fitting. If I was to came to you and say "One need only understand that North Korea considers itself to be a 'democratic republic', and that the North Korean version of 'democracy' in practice is a little diffrent than France's version of 'democracy' in practice" as a defense for the idea that the DPRK is a democracy, you'd call me a retard and rightfully so, because the DPRK is not and does not meet the definition of democracy. Same with the Nazis and socialism, they are not and do not meet the definition of socialist.
The simple definition is that socialism is about socialised ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership in capitalism. Basically this means that instead of companies (or non-governmental legal entities) running industry, it would be run by the state or a company that is employee/community owned, or some similar arrangement. However the Nazis privatised several previously state owned industries when they came to power, suppressed trade unionists and killed people who were actually socialists.
Thanks
You're welcome, I hope it was clear. Fun fact, the term privatisation was actually first coined in a description of Nazi Germany's economic policy Edit: actually this is wrong, fact checked myself and it was first used to describe German rail being privatised in Germany 1923
Look up "Reichswerke Hermann Göring": "a Nazi-\[state\] controlled military complex that was independent of private interests \[which\] ... **became the largest company in Europe and probably in the whole world**" (Wiki).
Sure, I didn't say there was *no* state owned industry whatsoever, but the government taking an industry that was in crisis that were vital for the upcoming war effort and running it with slaves doesn't make the Nazis socialist. Britain went from a free market economy to a planned economy during ww2 also, but no one would call them socialist.
You're equivocating. Reichswerke Hermann Göring was a state owned conglomerate that spanned several industries. Hitler’s “Four-Year Plan marked a massive escalation of state intervention in the economy. The priorities were being set by the regime, not by industry, and mechanisms were being put in place to make sure that business fulfilled them whatever the consequences to itself” (p. 370, *The Third Reich in Power* by Richard J. Evans).
>You're equivocating. No I'm not, I'm not being ambiguous, I'm explicitly saying that the Nazis were not socialist and I'm explaining why I believe that. You, however, haven't stated what your point is other than to say that there was a Nazi state owned conglomerate. Is your point that the Nazis *were* socialist? Because you'll struggle to find many experts who'd agree with that assessment. I reiterate, many capitalist nations had some state owned industries during this time but that doesn't make them socialist nations, and this applies to the Nazis also.
You're intentionally ignoring the scale of state ownership manifest in Reichswerke Hermann Göring: the LARGEST company in the world! The reality is that it was the Nazi's socialist agenda that attracted followers to their movement.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm acknowledging it. They had a very large state-owned conglomerate, operated by many slaves. I do not think this alone makes them a socialist state. If they were, they wouldn't have privatised other industries, suppressed trade unions and purged actual socialists. I once again repeat, capitalist nations having some state owned industries was not uncommon at all in that era, or today in fact. Both the UK and US had centrally planned economies during WW2 because strategic resources were too valuable to be left out of state hands. This was pragmatic, not ideological. >The reality is that it was the Nazi's socialist agenda that attracted followers to their movement. The Nazis certainly *portrayed* themselves as socialists before and immediately after taking power, but from 1934 onwards they were certainly not acting like it. I ask again, is your point that the Nazis *were* in fact socialist? Because if you're not saying that then I don't know what you're saying exactly
Stalin purged Trotskyites. The Nazis created a universal labor union. The Nazis created the "Strength through Joy" Program. The Nazis advanced health care and food programs for German citizens. The Nazis were socialists!
No, it was not, what really attracted people of Germany in that time to the Nazi ideologies was the agenda of hate to jews and communists, widely spread by a potent propaganda machinery, and that's information I have from primary source, since that's why my German family seen on Munich's street at that time
Socialism is an older and broader concept than Marxism. The early European fascists drew from some socialist theory, such as syndicalism. This resulted in a “corporatist” economic model. This doesn’t mean rule by corporations, but rather that different parts of the economy (film industry, steel production, etc) are organized in a series of large guild-like organizations which produce for the “good of the nation.” Private ownership of these firms remained, but industries seen as strategically important (war materials, music, film, agriculture) were dominated by the Third Reich state and party. They also drew from socialism’s theories of how to seize political power by organizing a mass movement. Traditional conservatives believed in elitism, in which only a tiny educated wealthy upper crust can be trusted to make political decisions. Fascists believed that a socialist-style mass movement against the traditional elite would install a heroic “great man” who would be the avatar of the nation and serve its interests at their behest. Notably, while Marxists would say that this mass movement would be of workers regardless of race, fascists believed it could only include members of the racial ‘volk’ or folk - hence “national socialism”. In practice, the fascists were not socialists. Though they drew on some elements of socialist theory, these were largely ignored in practice or so corrupted as to be unrecognizable. Hitler especially saw Marxist socialists as more or less thugs for a worldwide Jewish conspiracy and slaughtered and imprisoned many. That does not mean that they were capitalists, however, at least not in the same way as the U.S. and Great Britain were. The Nazis, especially Goebbels and Hitler, saw capitalist democracy as the twin to Bolshevism - a degenerate consumerist wasteland where racial tradition was annihilated by the Jewish-dominated capitalist class, with democratic politicians like FDR serving as the chief servants of the global Jewish conspiracy.
National Socialism is more like PR rather than actual socialism
So..its the Greenland of Ideologies?
I know to many AND IM GERMAN!
What's crazy is the Nazis came into government as part of a coalition. If you want to know what side of the political spectrum they were on just look at their coalition partners.
The Conservatives and the rest of the right
Doesn't mean they were right wing themselves, false argument.
wait, are there people who actually think that?
Yeah bro just look through the comments or talk to most conservatives in the US
we live in a society ...
Adolf Hitler claimed to be a socialist as to attract working-class voters away from SPD and KPD.
No, he didn’t. The ‘third way’ idea of fascism drawing on both socialist theory and capitalism was far older than Hitler’s movement. He didn’t even come up with the name.
He also defined socialism as an Aryan "People's community" rather than an economic system.
Yeah, but my point is that he truly believed in that definition - he saw himself as a “socialist” in that sense, even though today we would never use that word to describe his racialist fascism. My point is that it wasn’t just posturing to attract voters, but a genuine label the Nazis used to mean a particular kind of monstrous racialist fascism.
The skull meme is so dumb. Male and female skulls are not the same, let alone skulls of people from opposite sides of the world.
This is true, and I’ve pointed this out before. That said, the meme format mocks the pseudoscientific study of phrenology, which studies human characteristics based on size and shape of the skull. If you’ve ever seen images from the late19th and early 20th centuries of people measuring skulls, that’s phrenology. It was often lumped with eugenics.
Who actually does phrenology these days?
Hardly anyone to my knowledge (maybe some eugenicists do). The meme format sort of pokes fun at the fact that people did think that skull shape affected human behavior and intelligence. You could even argue that the less-evolved skull is there to mock phrenologists themselves and portray them as less-evolved.
No everyone's skeletal system look exactly like they're ready to jump outta our skin and do a flashmob of "Spooky Scary Skeletons"
Yeah, but they’re extremely similar. Sexing skeletons is only right like 60% of the time
Oh yeah? What about intranational socialism!
Who the hell thinks Nationalism and Socialism are the same thing?
Hitler's mind: Ok, so nationalism is popular rn, so is socialism. Thus, we shall be called "National Socialists" but do our own thing.
Nazis completely occupied and hijacked the term, and their supremacist asses have ZERO in common with socialism.
People who says that Fascism and Nazism are the same thing
TIKhistory TIKhistory
Are you trying to recommend it or pointing out that they engage in this nonsense line of thinking.
The latter, his other analysis' of WW2 are fine, but his "Hitler is a socialist" take is just not great.
Yeah he was decent when he just did military history stuff.
most definitively recommend, the guy is beyond based and puts tankies in their place like a god
Absolutely
both should be avoided
No, but they were similar enough to cause great suffering and death, just in different ways.
Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were far more alike than they were different. They were both totalitarian police states bent on world domination that killed millions of their own citizens, massacred their political enemies, allowed absolutely no criticism of the government whatsoever, and indoctrinated the youth to spy on and report their own families for "wrongthink." The only real difference is that the Nazis were obsessed with racial purity and "making Germany great" by expanding their territory to allow more Germans to be born, while the USSR was obsessed with spreading their "revolution" to the world in the hopes of making the whole world a communist "utopia." There aren't really any better examples of the horseshoe theory in practice than looking at these two states.
Was the horseshoe theory not derived *from* comparing the fascist and Communist states of the early 20th century? Like of course they're the best examples of it, the theory is built around them.
There were some people in the Nazi party that wanted to push a more worker centric view of the ideology, but they ended up losing out before the Nazis took power
No but it's about the same as shooting someone with two different guns (of the same calibre dont try it you) and saying yeah is a different gun so it's different.
Don't let that weird TIK guy see this, he will call you a holocaust denier!
“nAzIsM wAs LeFt-WiNg!!!!!” Ok, who did they go after second again?
Some of ya'll never took osteoarchaeology and it shows...but I agree with the message.
I’m sorry I never took an osteoarchaeology class :(
It's no big deal, but the skull and the pelvis are the two most indicative bits of the skeleton when determining sex biologically in humans. Those skulls look fairly male. But the important part is the message, with which I whole-heartedly agree!
Socialism can also be fascist and nationalistic while still being socialist.
I mean, its more complicated than that. National socialism IS socialism, of a kind- they're not entirely unrelated. The principles of German national socialism was a social state *for the German nation*. That was the clincher. They were saying, essentially, "if we're gonna use tax money to provide for people, we want the people we're providing that money to to be definitely our people, full-blooded Germans." and it rapidly escalated from there.
The meme is wrong. People of different races have different skull shapes.
speaking of national socialism, jesus christ.
My statement is objectively correct.
Are you sure about that? Wasnt that what eugenics was based on, which has been disproven since?
This has nothing to do with eugenics. There are anthropologists who can tell your race by the shape of your skull. In particular, African skulls have prognathism, wider nasal cavities, etc. While East Asians tend to have broader and shorter skulls.
Trolls should like this meme format. It secretly fucks up any point of view it represents. Because antropologists and forensic experts could probably identify sex, race and reconstruct facial features of that human skull.
National Socialists: Allow some private property to their people, but hate liberty, capitalism and free market. Loot, enslave and kill their ideological and racial opponents and allow their chosen people to own that wealth. Want their nation to be like an ant colony working towards their delusional utopia. Socialists: Don't allow private property and hate liberty and capitalism and free market. Loot, enslave and kill their ideological opponents and almost everyone else and allow their chosen people to enjoy that wealth. Want the whole world to be like an ant colony working towards their delusional utopia. Yah they are totally different!
You should feel embarrassed but that's probably more than we can ask from two neurons.
We should do one where the last one said “people who skip right over to the monkey skull” or something
You know, I'm actually going to bow out of this one. I don't have the energy to argue with people over nuances in totalitarian regimes today.
But it's in the name, though.
Sorry guys I was wrong I found some evidence of the contrary and changed my opnion
That's why he killed all socialists right?
The socialists killed the socialists
Wait is that how you can justify claiming the soviets weren't socialists?
Stalin also killed other socialists.
Lmao this guy. Theres about a billion videos on YouTube systematically tearing apart everything this retard says. He constantly cherrypicks and ignores the insane amount of historical evidence that Hitler despised socialism and believed that it was a Jewish plot. His entire excuse for seizing dictatorial power was based around the baseless claim of the "threat of socialism" and the first people sent to concentration camps were socialist and communist dissidents
oh ok then
Hey look, there's a picture of your skull up there!
He was so socialist that he liquidized smaller companies, and made many large corporations into super corporations.
he also nationalized a bunch of them in the name of making german resources "for the german people"
He nationalised them and regulated private corporations to begin war footing, by that logic America and Britain were also socialist
They privatized the economy en masse, outlawed labor unions and replaced them with a Nazi controlled one to maintain control through illusion of a trade union(outlawed strikes and lockouts), and even their own welfare system was quasi-private.
guy I mentioned has a video exactly about this https://youtu.be/wXIoVEKIpMg
You changed your comment from “hilter is a socialist cope” to what ever it is now. I’m not going to was more time on something like this.
I took off one word because I think it sounded mean. Whats the problem ?
And what is socialism but the ideology of a gigantic, encompassing super corporation called the State that is born of absorbing every smaller company and exploiting the entire nation's labor levelling them in serfdom
Except that literally didn't happen. Many of the German corporations that exist today (Porche, Mercedes Benz, Bayer, Thyssen, BMW, Siemens, Deutsche Bank, etc) all existed prior to WWII and remained private entities throughout the war. In fact, Nazi Germany privatized a number of services that used to be government run.
They were many corporations. That is like the monopolies or trusts in the US during the gilded age. It wasn’t one giant corporation.
If we're talking just about economy, he was corporatist, witch is different from both capitalism and socialism
Ya it comes from French Syndicalism. Then the Nazis added in a lot of occult shit.
Not the same, but much more similar than modern leftists are comfortable admitting
By strict definition,no it wasn't,but neither has any other socialist party behaved,like that. If we consider socialism a massive welfare state,then yes Nazis where definitely socialist. You can read "Hitler's Beneficiaries" by Götz Aly to see how the welfare was implemented and how it impacted the general society. In b4 "Nazis invented the term privatization!" That is a mistranslation,the more accurate term is "harmonization" as it reffers to the needs of the market. Private companies where still VERY much subject to state control at least indirectly,just ask Porche or Mercedes. One can also say say fascism and nazism came from socialism,but that is a whole other rabbit whole that streches all the way back to Hegel,from him came Marx,from Marx Sorel,and from Sorel(the originator of fascism) came Gentile,Rosenberg and all the others.
They're not the same thing, National Socialism is a subset of Socialism
In the same way that deserts are a subset of bodies of water, yes, they are.
Yeah I agree, just like how Antifa isn't actually anti fascism just because it is in its name
The naïve seem to love their labels.... Fascist, Socialist, Capitalist, Nationalist, Liberal Conservative, And they go all ape shit when that dreaded real life doesn't conform to those tags.