Hitler was a socialist

  • Registration closed, comedy forum, Internet drama, Sneed, etc.

AnimeGirlConnoisseur

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
A while ago I was talking with two family members about politics and one of the them made a comment about something (it doesn't really matter what it was). The other said that his comment was stupid and compared it to saying that Hitler was a socialist. I wanted to say that Hitler was indeed a socialist (socialism is all about redistributing wealth from one population to another and the Nazis did that), but I didn't speak up.

This got me thinking: Why is it that people (leftists) can't accept the fact that Hitler was a socialist and why is it that the people who do accept the fact that Hitler was a socialist (boomers) treat that fact as some sort of silver bullet that they can use against Hitler or socialism? Why can't people just accept that Hitler believed in this one economic policy and move on?
 

Arctic Fox

You won't get past my wall.
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 7, 2019
Because Socialism is a varied ideology with a shitload of variations and is debated heavily between them. Hitler wasn't socialist. He took control of the National Socialist German Workers Party but did not believe in Socialism, which by it's very definition is a temporary state before Communism. The end goal of Socialism.
 

Pixy

Yo, buddy. Still alive
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 13, 2016
Because there's no 'bad' socialist leaders, apparently. It's odd that people can't just accept that aspects of Hitler's ideology was influenced by Marx. The Nazi party started out with some of the points on their 25-point program being "socialist", after all.

Why people are using Hitler as an example of socialism being 'evil', as opposed to Pol Pot, eludes me. His regime got bad enough that Communist Vietnam had their own Vietnam War with Cambodia.
 

mr.moon1488

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Imo a lot of it comes down to how you define socialism. If you see it as any forceful transfer of wealth across the populace, then yes it was socialism. If you see it as a long term system in which the state picks winners, and losers within the market, then no it was not socialism.
 

Shoggoth

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
The International Socialists (read communists) really want ownership of the socialism brand, and make efforts to label everyone who disagrees with them on anything as fascist, which is funny, because they fascists were socialists themselves who thought the other socialists were weak and would never affect change, so the only way to control the means of production was to take control of the state and through it take control of them.
But back on track, combine they bad PR the nazis got from everyone, the good PR the socialists have been giving themselves, both state sponsored and hollywood supported, and their obfuscation and misdirection, that most people don't even think about how the nazis were actually kinda socialists and nazism and fascism are left wing movements, which isn't a far fetched idea in academia (see Anatomy Of Fascism, Paxton)
For the people who lean towards a more nativist side, Hitler's socialism is the bad part of his policy, not wanting to improve germany.
 

inexplicable ethos

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 20, 2019
Although Hitler was the leader of a party with some socialist ideals, many of those were either never implemented or fell by the wayside during the war due to the amount of pressure on Germany's finances and people. Also, the NSDAP was barely more "socialist" than the average modern Western society; they were at best "socialism-lite" and honestly more like nationally-regulated protectionist capitalists with a solid welfare system. When you say "socialism" in the modern day, people usually think of the version of Socialism that Marx outlined as a stepping stone to Communism, which isn't the same way that the NSDAP were socialist. One way to think of it is that the NSDAP weren't a "nationalist and also socialist" political party, but instead a "nationalistically socialist" party. Socialism is the less important portion of their ideology overall, at least following Hitler's full takeover.

Also Hitler debatably never really believed in most of the NSDAP's socialist ideas before he took over the party, hence the later purges of the party's more socialist elements. But it's not like we can ask him.
 

Marco Fucko

I fantasized about this back in Chicago
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 10, 2018
OP's mom was a socialist with her pussy lmao

Why can't Rightists accept Hitler was a Rightist, and people who do accept that treat it as a silver bullet against Rightists?

Nobody wants to be associated with him, he has a bad reputation.

Never trust a man with one functioning testicle.
 

Jewthulhu

A rare deepwater Jew
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Socialism is an economic system where capital goods (means of production) are shared and controlled communally. The philosophy is built around the idea of preventing inequality of economic power by giving everyone an equal share and equal voice in the use of capital. Essentially, it's the economic equivalent of a direct democracy.

National Socialism (or German Fascism), despite it's name, shares more in common with Keynesian economic policy than it does with Socialism (or Marxism). Fascist economics tends to be against "loan-capitalism," where profit is based on speculation, but that's more or less where the hard similarities with Socialism end. Fascism promotes class solidarity, while Socialism, with the exception of some moderates, proposes the complete elimination of class distinctions, often through violent means. Fascism supports the artificial stimulation of the economy by the government which, despite what some American Conservatives might tell you, is a Keynesian policy rather than a Socialist one. Along with all of this, Fascism is a free-market system that allows for private ownership of capital goods as well as capital accumulation, concepts that any "good socialist" would despise. National Socialists were also strongly opposed to the "welfare state," preferring instead to take a more "social Darwinism" approach to economics; that is to say, let those who cannot support themselves die and allow the strong to thrive.