It's a simple argument. Hitler wanted control of the state to pursue his ends. Capitalism, which allows and encourages private ownership, is incompatible with a state-directed mission. Hitler's war machine took over private enterprises and directed them towards Nazi ends. Socialism by definition is state ownership of the means of production. It is his own brand of socialism, the main difference with Marxism being it would be comprised of a unified race, rather than a unified class. In one instance he says "There are no such things as classes: they cannot be. Class means caste and caste means race."This seems to be one of his main bones of contention with Marx.


Quotes, from Wikiquote:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler


From 1922 speech:

From same speech:

In 1931:



Idealizing of Sparta, an ancient socialist state. Interestingly he really admires the racial value of the Spartans even though I believe most helots were also Greek, but I could be wrong.


As you can also see in some of the above quotes, Hitler borrows quite a bit from Marx, including seeing Jews as representative of Capitalism. This from Marx, On the Jewish Question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the...e%20real%20Jew.




A common objection is that private businesses contributed to the Nazi state. This is partly true. Hitler and the Weimar Republic before him did privatize companies to increase productivity during the massive depression they were in. But, Hitler took control of those companies with heavy regulation. From wiki:


This only shows the danger of state ownership of business (socialism).

This definition is too broad. FDR and Churchill were also socialists then because they took over private industries in a “state directed mission” to beat the Nazis.

Hitler did a famous interview in 1923 where he admitted (or stated pending on your interpretation) that the NS party took the socialist name in order to re-gain it from the actual socialists and he also explained the primary agenda of the NS party was to defeat Bolshevism (a particular type of Soviet / Russian Communism). It is regarded as one of the best interviews in journalistic history:

https://www.theguardian.com/theguard...eatinterviews1

Also, the German state didn't appropriate business in any kind of Communist sense, it used a form of fascist corporatism whereby it relied on the production means of gigantic business entities. Most of these exist today and are still well known industrial brands.

This was nothing new, the entire "German" (as in the German states, not the German country established in the late 1800s) industrial revolution throughout Prussian rule relied on a similar kind of "nationalist corporatism". Thus it pretty much pre-dates any Marxist-based ideas of socialism. You can trace the descendants of this policy all the way to today's German industrial behemoths.

So no, the NS party was not socialist in any meaningful interpretation of the term. They first use for concentration camps after gaining power was in fact to do away with political dissidents, which in this case were the actual socialists of Germany.

He says in that exact article:

""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."

You need to define what you mean by "meaningful interpretation of the term." All the signs point towards the exact interpretation of the term, which is understood as state control of the means of production.

Hitler's socialism was not equivalent to Marxism but it was about as opposite from capitalism as is possible.

I'm not interested in answering a cherry-picked quote. The interview as a whole speaks in complete clarity about where Hitler stands on socialism.

Other than that it's fairly simply isn't it. When your party policy and it most important imperative is to persecute imprison, execute, torture or shoot anyone who is a socialist, and your entire political history has been one of fighting the actual socialist parties (with votes and guns), then that party is probably not a socialist party.

Frankly I find the entire "The NS party were socialists!" to be an argument generally devoid of historic understanding. It's analogous to stating "Democrats also have senators, they are actually Republican!".

OP desperately wants all the evils of the world to be associated with socialism or communism, because he can't accept that the right wing can also be bad. In OP's world, left = bad, right = good, and we mould the facts to fit the theory.

I also have zero interest in cherry-picking one interview he gave in 1922 before he was in power as the evidence of his policies. Especially when his direct actual policies were consistent with socialist policies.

You say he wanted to shoot anyone who is a socialist yet called himself a socialist hundreds of times, why didn't he shoot himself? (Ok, Ok, he did kill himself )

I find the argument that Hitler was not a socialist to be devoid of historical understanding. It's a willful disregard of history.

Well, I'm not ascribing any such motive. I was perhaps harsh in my answer, but I have been in this debate too much I am afraid.

Can one found similarities between communists and the NS party? Of course. You can find similarities between communist ideology and Paul Rand's libertarianism if you want to look for it. It doesn't mean that some Communist party is libertarian and it doesn't mean that some libertarian party is Communist.

Later social democratic governments of West-Germany would use a modernized (and much watered down) version of this old cultural corporatism to manage the "German miracle". That doesn't mean they were Hitler-like fascists. They are in fact on such polar opposites of any kind of political scale that it would completely bogus to claim they were the same.

So that is why I have never liked this argument. Similarities between political movements can be interesting, but it is generally the differences that make them apart from each-other and make them a unique thing. Caesar didn't rule Rome completely differently from a modern democratic government, but it is pretty safe to say he wasn't a fan of democracy.

The reason I find it relevant to today is not that I find socialism to necessarily lead to a similar race-based genocide, but rather to a dangerous state where the top is in control of the fate of the entire nation.

Handing over control of private business (or forced takeover) is the danger. It starts with pretty words, and ends in tragedy, every time. There is enough evedence of Hitler's anti-capitalistic sentiments in the above quotes to show that he was not a fan of private business, self-interest, or the threat of free markets to the state.

Why did he team up with Italy and Japan?? More socialists banding together?

You should read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

Let's go to the record for how concerned OP is about his own side using anti-democratic, authoritarian language that has potential to end in tragedy, shall we?

Although, I don't think it should matter, I think communism is on par with nazim with regards to how much destruction it causes/caused.

The NS party was a fascist party. Fascism isn't just a derogatory word people throw around in political debate. It is an actual and distinct political ideology with clearly stated goals for how a state should operate and function and how it should conduct foreign policy. The big goal is a militaristic non-democratic state.

Germany had socialist parties during Hitler's political career. They had social democrats who attempted to stop him politically and they had Marxists who carried out their own anti-democratic agenda (and whose own paramilitaries would often clash with their Nazis equivalent in the streets). As stated earlier, one of the big NS party goal was to eradicate these movements. A task they later set out to do with concentration camps, executions and torture.

Your attempt at conflating these political ideologies leads to an incomplete and messy understanding of history which will not lead anywhere healthy.

Actually the father of fascism was Giovanni Gentile, a disciple of Marx.

Fascism's major intent is to combine the individual and the state into a unified whole.

Some people like to say fascism is on the political "right" but it's about as far from classical liberalism and minimal government as is possible.

That's where the last quote on my OP was from.

Posting a link isn't some big 'gotcha.' You evidently didn't read it. The economy of Nazi Germany was regulated to the point where the corporations were in service to the state.

Trying to re-paint Hitler as a socialist is an attempt to deflect the -obvious- overlaps in rightwing nationalism/populism etc today. Because if the rank and file have to come to terms with the implications of where they're being led--well it's just not a good look--nazis are the baddies duh even though most don't seem to mind literal nazi wannabes hanging around the outskirts that naturally gravitate where they feel at home. So instead you just try to change the definitions and muddy the waters to provide some thin veneer of rationalization i.e. hitler was a socialist! lol

Everybody grab a nice red little hat/uniform

And if you had read more closely about the dawn of Italian fascism, you would have known that it was vehemently opposed to socialism, in large part because socialism generally rejects nationalism. Nationalism being one of the more important traits of fascism.

It is completely futile to go on a wild chase for similarities. Your type of analysis could be used to show that the Chinese Communist Party is anarcho-capitalist in nature.

This is a good analysis. Based on his recent performance in the China thread, I'd say that OP can fundamentally tell right from wrong, but starts to suffer from severe cognitive dissonance once it is pointed out to him that by his own standards, his own side is in the wrong much of the time.

It borrowed heavily from socialism while remaining different on key fronts. I said that in the OP: For Hitler, it was about race, not class. Nazism still has nearly all the key features of socialism.

What's interesting is that Hitler doesn't mention fascism (that I've seen) yet people call him one, whereas he mentions socialism hundreds of times, maybe thousands, and people are quick to say he wasn't a socialist.

If you think I'm going on a wild goose chase, why did it take me five minutes to find dozens of quotes by Hitler himself outlining his brand of socialism and hatred of capitalism?

The essense of socialism is subsuming the individual to the state, the communal ownership of property. It's ONE of the essential elements of Nazism as Hitler clearly lays out in words and practice.

It's clear that:

Socialism is a necessary but not sufficient condition for Nazism.

I should probably explain this point a bit better than I did.

Radical socialist movements in the late 1800s and early 1900s typically expected (and supported) the disbandment of the nation-state. To us today this is a hard point to follow because we see the "liberal nation-state" (aka constitutional democracy or republic) as a given. But these debates came about in a time when democracy was not even the European norm, and the few democracies that were around were basically coming out of a 100 years of war and a lot of recent civil unrest.

So we saw the birth of two major anti-democratic political movements. The radical socialists (most of whom would later fall in under the Soviet-umbrella of international communism) and the fascists. One idealizing the the "proletariat state" and fall of old power structures, and the other idealizing "the nation" and glorifying past history.

It should be fairly clear why conflating these two movements is a dangerous mistake.

That's inaccurate. Socialism isn't a personage.

Socialism is an economic model. It takes on the personality of the state in control.

This is correct as far as my understanding goes. Hitler himself expressed strong nationalistic tendencies. The place we part ways is in that I understand socialism (in the context of this discussion particularly, and generally) as an economic system first and foremost. Of course if you want to debate the historical usage of the fascism/socialism split as you describe it, Hitler would not be a socialist, in that sense of the word, as he was past-looking. I'm talking specifically as an economic model, which is still relevant today.

You know, with Hitler...the more I learn about that guy, the more I don’t care for him.

Normy baby