Hitler was a socialist

  • Registration is closed without referral. This is a website about Internet drama.

    We need a 3PL

AnimeGirlConnoisseur

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Hitler paid lip-service to socialism and even had socialists in his party to help him craft and co-opt socialist language. But he vehemently disagreed with the actual socialists in his party about the ideology.

See his debates with Otto Strasser:


View attachment 1092398
His idea of "Socialism" was infected by his tendency to sperg about the master race. His actual economic policies were Fascist.

View attachment 1092402

View attachment 1092412

In a 1923 interview he clarified his views even before this debate: https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatinterviews1

View attachment 1092403

In short, Hitler co-opted socialist language to appeal to the working class, but never had any intentions of actually following through with its tenets, at least the ones he deemed "marxist". His racial ideology overrode his economic one, and in fact directly informed it. This caused a schism within the party that culminated in the Night of the Long Knives, were several prominent leftists in the party were purged.

So Hitler and the Nazis were essentially Socialist in Name Only. This distinction continues to befuddle boomers and MAGAs who treat the term "Socialist" like a hot-potato they pass around to any ideology they want to insult. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with history knows the truth. Of course actually reading up on shit is too complicated for most people and calling Hitler a socialist helps to discredit ideological opponents on the left, so it gets parroted it around even though its factually incorrect. Next time just do some research yourself instead of asking fucking kiwifarms of all places.
Oh. I guess I was wrong and this shit is much more complicated than I originally believed.
 

Ningen

The new n-word
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 8, 2020
Centralist Socialists believe property should be controlled by a central government, but that view is more common among Stalinists or Maoists than the average Socialist/Communist. Also, with the exception of some people in academia or on the internet, most people calling themselves a Socialist in the political sphere are actually advocating for a mixed economy or welfare state rather than actual Socialism. In either case, neither description fits National Socialism, since it is a free-market system allowing capital accumulation that is opposed to a social welfare system. The "government does stuff" only in a Keynesian sense, like creating and funding large-scale projects to stimulate the economy (e.g. the Autobahn).
I cannot believe you are taking this seriously my fucking meme :story:
 

Iwasamwillbe

Burning Blaze of Yahuwah
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 14, 2018
Someone should compile a list of all of Nazi Germany's economic policies, then compare them to the economic policies of any other 20th century socialist or communist nation.
 

Syaoran Li

Born To Raise Hell
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 19, 2017
Who gives a fuck whether or not Hitler was a socialist?

Hitler was a murderous tyrant and an asshole and so are the majority of state socialist leaders throughout history.

Either way, Nazism is a crock of shit and so are the bulk of all socialist ideologies (and no, social democracy is not the same as socialism)

Even if Hitler was not a socialist, Nazis and socialists can both kiss my ass.
 

Dustlord

Homoerotic fascist
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 20, 2019
People forget that the definition of socialism was in flux around the time of the national socialists, at least in germany. It often referred to any ideology critical of modern capitalism. Even marx was aware of this, using terms like "bourgeoisie socialism". Many groups with very disparate ideologies would use the term until the period after WW2. I suggest anyone curious read into "yellow socialism", "state socialism", etc.

Were they socialist by any modern definition? Obviously not but it needs to be examined in the historical context of the time and location if you want to understand why they used the term.
 
Last edited:

Trimmed Archer

ᛚᛟᚷᚾ ᚺᚢᚷᚱ
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 8, 2020
This is like guessing the brand of a poisoned wine. At its core, the Nazi ideal was just a re-fasc-ioned Pax Romana whose homogeneous, nationalist, totalitarian culture (or race in this instance) would obliterate the identities of groups that it would conquer. Everything else?! A means to that end. If achieving that end-goal would mean having to eat shit, you better believe that the Nazis would do it!
 

Sunday School Dropout

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 18, 2019
How can you call the person who coined the word “privatization” a socialist? The reason why the Nazis are considered right-wing is because the right is all about order, authority, hierarchy. The Nazis took these principles to the extreme which resulted in one of the worst genocides of the 20th century. But, what about their economic polices? It might come to surprise to you but, Hitler was very pro-capitalist. In fact, fascism was so pro-capitalist, that many intellectuals from the West at the time saw fascism as an alternative to capitalism and was seen as much preferable than communism. But didn’t the Nazis distribute wealth? Yes, however that doesn’t make them socialist. There are many examples of countries that have wealth redistribution that are also capitalist even today. I think the biggest confusing comes from terminology. Socialism doesn’t mean that government does stuff, it means in its basic definition, worker control of the means of production. As yourself this, if Hitler was such a leftist, why didn’t he form a coalition with the Communist party to work together instead of murdering them? That being said, I’m actually a very free market oriented guy, I just hated when terms get misused.
 

Mrs Paul

Yinzer Kiwi
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Sometimes I do wonder if the Communists and the Nazis were just two sides of the same coin and their collective sperging out has basically fucked over the human race.

The fact that we're STILL fighting these battles, that people still fly swastika and hammer and sickle flags 20 years into the 21st century is just insane.

Leave that shit in the 20th century where it belongs, focus on the problems we face now and address them without the baggage of branding them with old 20th century movements.

Oh, that it is. When it came to human rights violations, what did it matter whether you were living in Stalin's Russia, or Hitler's Germany? And they often had mutual desires. Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, anyone?

hitlstal.jpg



I'm sorry for being autistic and linking the Mises Institute

Ludwig Mises is a bunch of conspiracy theorists like Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. I wouldn't believe them if they told me the sky was blue.

Just using the word "socialiism" in their title means jackshit. North Korea calls itself a democracy -- doesn't mean it is one.
 

Emperor Julian

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
A while ago I was talking with two family members about politics and one of the them made a comment about something (theodosius was a good leader). The other said that his comment was stupid and compared it to saying that The Holy Roman Empire was Roman, I wanted to say that the Medieval Germany was indeed Roman (The Holy Roman Empire was an Empire like the Roman Empire ), but I didn't speak up.

This got me thinking: Why is it that people (Byzantines) can't accept the fact that German/Frank Holy Roman Empire was the latin Roman Empire and why is it that the people who do accept the fact that Medieval Germans where Roman (The pope and the kaisar) treat that fact as some sort of silver bullet For claiming loads of land and power? Why can't people just accept that Germans where Roman and move on?
 

Ligoskj

Fuck off :)
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
What did Hitler do that made him a Socialist other than taking over a party with "socialist" in the name?
Because some of the conservatives (not all of them genuinely think he was a socialist, but with each year I see more and more cons talking such shit, despite of this being completely false) love to talk about his welfare and state policy reforms, which had indeed a lot of common with a socialist system, but they will never tell you about the Nazis' purges of pretty much all then existent left-wing parties, regardless of how they have been moderate or radical (meanwhile, all other right-wing and centrist parties "somehow" managed to get away from the political repressions by merging with the Nazi party), they will never tell you about the existence of private property in Nazi Germany and how the Nazis considered the German race exceptional (no matter how people are trying to deny it, but socialism never in all of history welcomed anyone who put his nationality above everything). Oh, and is it not a coincidence that all of Hitler's allies were either monarchist or right-wing republican countries? If Hitler was so socialist, why did he support Francisco Franco in a Spanish Civil war against Spanish Socialists? If Hitler was so socialist, why did he send weapons and food to Finland (which wasn't a socialist country back then by any means) and supported them in a Winter War (1939-1940) against the USSR? If Hitler was so socialist, why did he include official support of family values in his policy program and sent homosexual people to concetration camps?
Regardless of your political position, all of you need finally stop this whole "Hitler was a socialist" circus. Why people just simply cannot start calling him an insane authoritarian maniac, who wasn't either solely a socialist or nationalist? He wasn't right-wing, he wasn't left-wing, he was a complete monster whose crimes and political ideology went beyond the political compass.
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, anyone?
Some more historical facts anyone? Eh, I'm pretty sure you will describe those agreements as justified ;- ))
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 14, 2019
When you get down to it, Nazi Germany:

- Privatized a good number of public industries
- Exerted greater government control over private industries
- Expanded the welfare state
- Adopted a policy of class cooperation

The first point and second point make it to where they had a free market on the surface, but it was a command economy in practicality, because the government gave private businessmen their orders. They passed PLENTY of laws to curtail business (like modern Western economies do) and they didn't always have to do that when they could use a private phone call and the threat of the SS to enforce their will.

Instead of a retarded war on the rich, they also focused instead on the idea that all the classes were making a sacrifice in exchange for business. The poor are given protections from the rich, but the rich are also given protections from the poor. The classes are basically fixed in place with bayonets. Who this ultimately favored more depends. I don't know about in Germany, but in Spain it ended up mostly being a way latifundias and bankers plundered the urban and rural poor.

I'm more familiar with how Franco managed his economy than how Hitler managed his, but the two were very similar, and they were similar to Mussolini, because it's all the same damn thing, a corporatist economy under an authoritarian system of government.
 

Mrs Paul

Yinzer Kiwi
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Because some of the conservatives (not all of them genuinely think he was a socialist, but with each year I see more and more cons talking such shit, despite of this being completely false) love to talk about his welfare and state policy reforms, which had indeed a lot of common with a socialist system, but they will never tell you about the Nazis' purges of pretty much all then existent left-wing parties, regardless of how they have been moderate or radical (meanwhile, all other right-wing and centrist parties "somehow" managed to get away from the political repressions by merging with the Nazi party), they will never tell you about the existence of private property in Nazi Germany and how the Nazis considered the German race exceptional (no matter how people are trying to deny it, but socialism never in all of history welcomed anyone who put his nationality above everything). Oh, and is it not a coincidence that all of Hitler's allies were either monarchist or right-wing republican countries? If Hitler was so socialist, why did he support Francisco Franco in a Spanish Civil war against Spanish Socialists? If Hitler was so socialist, why did he send weapons and food to Finland (which wasn't a socialist country back then by any means) and supported them in a Winter War (1939-1940) against the USSR? If Hitler was so socialist, why did he include official support of family values in his policy program and sent homosexual people to concetration camps?
Regardless of your political position, all of you need finally stop this whole "Hitler was a socialist" circus. Why people just simply cannot start calling him an insane authoritarian maniac, who wasn't either solely a socialist or nationalist? He wasn't right-wing, he wasn't left-wing, he was a complete monster whose crimes and political ideology went beyond the political compass.

Some more historical facts anyone? Eh, I'm pretty sure you will describe those agreements as justified ;- ))

That wasn't my point. And if we want to start arguing all those treaties, (particularly the Munice one), it'd be another topic alltogether. But I get what you're saying.
 

Ligoskj

Fuck off :)
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
That wasn't my point. And if we want to start arguing all those treaties, (particularly the Munice one), it'd be another topic alltogether
Mate, I'm very sorry for being too picky, but here's the problem, you've mentioned the Molotov-Ribentrop Pact, an agreement with Germany that the USSR had signed the last among all European countries, and which the USSR was forced to sign in order to delay the war between the Soviets and Germans for (at least) 2 years. This is why I, in response, have mentioned the Munich agreement, by which the UK and France had ignominiously betrayed Czechoslovakia, allowing Germany, Hungary and Poland (yes, they also participated in this criminal act https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechosłowacko-polski_konflikt_o_Śląsk_Cieszyński https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie) to occupy their lands and steal Czechoslovakian military equipment (which was considered among the best in the world), despite the fact that both Britain and France could easily threat Germany with a military action back then.
And yeah, I already see how some users are gonna start telling me about a non-existent secret protocol between the USSR and Germany on the division of Europe. This is a fraud, which has been exposed long time ago. If you are personally interested in the details, I will tell you what exactly is wrong with this so-called "secret" protocol.
 
Last edited:

Mrs Paul

Yinzer Kiwi
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
It wasn't that they couldn't threaten Germany, (although I think history has shown us thta it certainly wasn't "easy"). The problem was that people were desparate to avoid a second world war. World War I was still within recent memory -- this had been "The War to End All Wars".
 
Joined
May 14, 2019
A while ago I was talking with two family members about politics and one of the them made a comment about something (theodosius was a good leader). The other said that his comment was stupid and compared it to saying that The Holy Roman Empire was Roman, I wanted to say that the Medieval Germany was indeed Roman (The Holy Roman Empire was an Empire like the Roman Empire ), but I didn't speak up.

This got me thinking: Why is it that people (Byzantines) can't accept the fact that German/Frank Holy Roman Empire was the latin Roman Empire and why is it that the people who do accept the fact that Medieval Germans where Roman (The pope and the kaisar) treat that fact as some sort of silver bullet For claiming loads of land and power? Why can't people just accept that Germans where Roman and move on?

I'm jealous of you having family who would know who Theodosius is. I mean, I don't know who he is...

Anyways, Medieval Germany is not Roman. "Was an Empire like the Roman Empire." Cool, so was the Persian Empire Roman, and the Macedonian Empire Roman, and the Chinese Empire Roman?

Your argument (which is just the HRE's argument) is retarded. Having a fake deed from the Pope doesn't magically make you Roman, but the Byzantines were definitely "Roman" as they had direct continuity with ancient Rome, which the HRE lacked. Like, the Byzantines may have developed into something so distinct htat we have different word for them, but they DEVELOPED, they didn't just magic their bullshit title out of thin air.

In summary, KYS HRE scum.





Oh shit, this is satire, isn't it? And I fell for it in a drunken haze.
 

ICametoLurk

SCREW YOUR OPTICS, I'M GOING IN
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
What they did was take everything popular at the time and purposefully lost so that everyone hated their ideals cause #Neveragain.

Basically they purposefully destroyed everything.
 
Last edited:

Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Nov 12, 2018
Long and short of it is, yes he was.

But this is where the muddling begins. The modern left/socialists don't like to own him as a socialist because it goes against their own ideology of socialism.

So from a historical perspective Hitler took on board elements of socialism which he liked and agreed with. He read heavily from the works of Marx and other communist authors of the day, as well as being active in the post war German political community. People forget he worked for the Military as political spy/agent in the interim before joining the NASDAP.

He was well aware of marxist theory and the different Marxist political groups active in Munich at the time, and used it in to his own political advantage while consolidating the power of the NASDAP as a political party.

Now where he majorly differed from other socialist parties of the day is that he wasn't committed to the idea of a single world proletariat as Marx had outlined. Instead he took a lot of political interest in the pan-Germanic movements that had evolved in Germany and the Austrian part of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and his personal experiences informed his own views of German culture and German cultural supremacy.

Hitler had seen the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire as a usurpation of what he considered a superior culture by an inferior one. (Hungarians, Magyars, Balkan peoples.) This is partly where his consideration of the Slavs as a subgroup evolved from. This combined with what he considered the failure of the German military to win the war, partly down to having to prop up the Austro-Hungarian Empire during the war, what he viewed as an internal betrayal from the anti-war politicians, and also other views of Jews also playing their part in forcing Germany to sue for peace, is what caused the interim years of unemployment and political instability from inside Germany are what caused in part his aversion to international socialism.

The NASDAP was a workers party that was concerned mainly with a military revolution that wanted to restore order, destroy the impositions of the Versailles Treaty, and ensure social welfare for the German people. What the party eventually turned into was a political evolution of these ideas, as well as Anti-Semitism to which the party was dedicated to as well as part of the perceived Jewish betrayal and what the NASDAP saw as a push for globalization and the denigration of German culture.

The break from the Socialist movement of the day, was the fact that Hitler and the inner party were more concerned with seizing power and using to it establish German National Socialism as they saw it, rather than follow the main parts of the international socialist ideology. As such it was only really concerned with the German volk and establishing a pan-Germanic state. This is expressly outlined in Mein Kampf as part of the road building towards Lebensraum. German settlers had been moving east in larger numbers and establishing their own German speaking communities, as far as parts of the Crimea and the Ukraine so it wasn't a remarkable idea that this should be the ultimate goal of re-unification, to eventually make use of the under developed lands to east. (This fulfilled the idea of Germany becoming self sufficient, with the west being the industrial heartland, and the east being more agrarian.)

There are several instances in terms of Hitlers own writings where he was asked or asked others within the party to curtail the more socialist elements within the NASDAP as a means of courting political favor with the military complex and the industrialists within Germany. Part of this is evidenced in the toning down of the more radical socialist ideas within the party itself and also the moves to de-fang the SA.

This is the main reason why Rohm was eliminated and Otto and Gregor Strasser were removed and essentially exiled from the party. For Rohm's part he controlled to much power within the SA to fall completely under the control of the domination of the SS or Hitler himself. (Also the SA had been intended originally to replace the Germany military, as a revolutionary peoples army, an idea Rohm still clinged to.)

In the case of the Strasser's they were forced into exile because they had attempted to undermine Hitler's rise to power from what they had perceived as a betrayal by the inner party of their more left wing radical roots.

Now as for the movement being called a right wing political movement, I think that is partly down to political maneuvering in the post war period rather than fact. Both the USSR and Nazi Germany had been viewed by the Free Democracies as two greatest threats to international peace. (Italy and Japan seemed contented to keep their wars of aggression within their own wheel house, as well as the USSR up to that period.) Germany because it posed major threats as a central organized European power to it's other neighbors and therefore able to set off a European war. The USSR because of it's committal to establishing the global communist state.

When the western powers allied themselves with the USSR it was done as an enemy of my enemy scenario, and so the anti-bolshevik rhetoric of the period was toned down immensely. You also had democrat government in the US, and also a rising Labour movement in Great Britain, so it's likely that these politically left movements would want to distance themselves as far away from "That form of Socialism" as possible. As a result it was given a right wing label. Despite the fact that Stalin and his politburo were no less authoritarian. As the post war period loomed on, the USSR again took on the mantel of the global menace, and the cold war went into full swing.

There was no reason at that point in trying to disassociate the political movements, as the USSR was tacitly still seen as an ally to the more socialist left because of it's committal to expanding global Communism.

TLDR; Hitler was a committed socialist, he just had his own ideas of what type of socialism he wanted for the German people to the exclusion of the rest of the worlds population. He toned down his ideas and rhetoric in order to court power with politicians, the middle class and industrialist and succeeded.