huh? The nazis were entirely socialist and ran a socialist agenda. That was their platform. Centralized education, centralized health care, strict gun control laws, the list goes on and on.
More practically speaking though nazis had a strong focus on what was better for society (in their own misguided and awful way) rather than on individul liberty or free markets.
This is why I feel it isn't too far off to say they were socialists.
Of course, in historic political theory you seem to run circles around me though :-]
As I said above, the "socialism" promised by Hitler was that they should no longer pay for WW1 and since they're a superior race, they're entitled to the labour of Jews, Romas etc. for "free" - that's the "socialism" behind Naziism, just because the words are the same, doesn't mean they're the same thing.
Hitler essentially wanted the superior Germans to do nothing and be provided for by lesser races and I presume that's why you think he was a "socialist", but in reality he was much closer to early U.S. history than to socialist ideology.
> Centralized education, centralized health care, strict gun control laws
More like common sense laws than "socialist" ones if you ask me...
This is what upsets me about the right, they're so easily scammed by random screams of "Big government", "centralised health care", "strict gun control", "centralised education" etc. and the counter is simply "FREEDOM, LOW TAXES, PRIVATE HEALTHCARE, "THE BEST PROVIDER WINS" etc. and I get the appeal, these things sound awesome, but the problem is in the details; the "low taxes" are not for you, they're for Apple, Google, Shell etc. "private healthcare" is not excluded under socialism if you want it and can afford it, it's just that it's not the only option and every citizen has some form of healthcare provided, regardless of their socioeconomic status, just by the virtue of the fact that they're...you know...human.
The people who say it's too expensive ignore how much is spent on the military, (i.e. US military has 800+ overseas military bases, do you really think you need (all) of them?), the fact that US already spends more on healthcare than virtually any other modern nation and despite this it still has the worst quality healthcare of all of them.
"Centralised education" means that creationists in Iowa can't not teach evolution, which I would argue it's a good thing, but again, it's a base, so that everybody gets at least "some" consistent quality of education, it doesn't mean it can't be expanded upon...
> strict gun control laws
Again, more like common sense, than ideology driven, look up gun deaths in the US vs Europe.
If you have a gun in the US you don't actually have an advantage, because everybody else is armed as well, i.e. it's basically as if you didn't have one, but with greater risks of getting shot.
What socialist bits, exactly, do you believe Hitler's Nazis got rid of? Did they get rid of nationalized healthcare? Nope. Did they get rid of the idea that the government, not the free market, had the responsibility of providing you with a job? Nope. Did they get rid of political redistribution of wealth? Definitely not, they just focused more on race while the communists focused on class. Did they have the same beliefs in eugenics that has modern Socialist leaning Iceland ridding itself of 100% of its down syndrome babies via abortion? Yep. Now the Nazis did do some union busting but that's only because they thought unions would steal loyalty from the state. Did they get rid of any socialist bits?
I didn't watch the video because i don't want this type of nonsense in my viewing history and because the premise is inherently flawed.
Socialism means something, and Nazi Germany and the NSDAP don't fit any of the criteria. Did the workers own the means of production ? Did the NSDAP even remotely move in that direction? No and hell no. The NSDAP worked closely with industrialists ( which helped finance their rise to power), destroyed unions, etc. Having a few national programs ( Volkswahen, the Autobahn, etc.) doesn't mean socialism.
They were as socialistic as horses are fish. Yeah, they have two eyes, but that's about it.
I'm sorry but that just isn't correct. I'm absolutely not saying all socialists are Nazis but the Nazi party was an extreme example of the socialist philosophy. That philosophy being that the Government should use its power to socially engineer a better world (the opposite of which being the libertarian philosophy that the Government should exist to protect people against social engineering by allowing them to do what they want even if those actions are detrimental).
Obviously it's all a sliding scale but to say OstiaAntica is flat out wrong is not accurate.
Sorry, but tell this to someone who did not grow up as the grandson of an actual nazi, gew up in Austria and lives in Germany. We know our own history well.
There was no socialism during the nazi era. The people who really profited during that era were (as is a typical trait of facism) certain industrial capitalists that were aligned with the party. Look up a definition of socialism and tick the boxes, then do the same with fascism. Good luck.
Not really if you read Kershaw's two vol bio early on the NAZI party did have some "socialist policies" but Hitler changed the policy and threw those out in the late 20's.
Its also one of the reasons that the SA was purged.
Emm, actually Hitler adopted the "Socialism" part of "National Socialism" in order to win leftist votes, in a giant bait-and-switch scheme.
The Nazi party had nothing to do with socialism, as the term was and is known and defined in the relevant political literature.
Or, more correctly, the horrors of Nazi germany had nothing to do with economic regulation and the social health care et al, and all to do with racist ideology, dictatorship and imperialism.
Actually, Sweden is socialist, in the sense most americans define the word, as well as New Zealand, and it's all the better for them --and they have tens times more refined than either US Republican or Democrat policies.
This simply is not true. Plenty of connections with socialism if you read the 25 principles of the NSDAP as translated at the Nuremberg Trials.
For instance: "All citizens must have equal rights and obligations", "Abolition of unearned (work & labor)income. Breaking of rent slavery", "Nationalization of all associated industries","Profit sharing of heavy industries","Expansion on a large scale of old age welfare","Provision of a law for free expropriation of land for the purpose of public utility". "Enabling of every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education", "State to support all outstanding intellectually gifted children".
well socialism is a broader term. national socialism is a specific kind of socialism.
simply because the nazis happened to be particularly aggressive socialists doesn't make them non-socialists somehow.
Abolishing capital income, confiscation of war profits, nationalization of all trusts, a generous increase in old age pensions, communalization of large stores, nationalization and redistribution of farmland and nationalization of schools.
Whether this meets your definition of "socialism" is mainly a function of how narrowly you define the word. But they were certainly a very economically left wing party.
That can very well be socialism for a subgroup of your existing population.
I think the divergence in views is in the definition of socialism we have; I see it as an economical doctrine of state centralisation, you probably have other egalitarian ideals attached to it.
Economically, on a scale from free-market to socialism, where do you think nazis rank? I think they were closer to socialism that nowadays mainstream left wing parties
Oh, I don't think socialism is only in the name of nazis, I think their nationalization of many practices and aspects of culture is key. Do you think "nazis had socialist tendencies" is a position that no reasonable people can take?
I didn't mean to suggest taking the name itself as the only evidence of socialism.
That isn't socialism nor what socialism purports to be.
Socialism at it's core can be distilled down to how labor relates to its means of production. That's it. If workers themselves own and manage the facilities and materials necessary for employment, that is socialism.
Individual liberty and free markets are not contradicted by the tenets of socialism. It can and has been argued that individual liberties can be strengthened through such a system. Market economies are what much of socialist thought revolves around. Again, socialism is defined by how labor relates to the means of production and that is it.
Neither of the two are required for a functioning capitalist economy. Freedom of speech, religion, movement and association aren't guarantees and is down right outlawed in much of the world that's implemented a capitalist system. You'd be hard pressed to find a single truly "free market" in practice at any point in time.
Yours seems like a judgment stemming from an ideology rather than one coming from a historic perspective. You aren't doing yourself any favors intellectually if you want to continue claiming Nazism is a socialist ideology. It is hard to have a historic discussion with someone whose arguments are based on a feeling rather than documented history and accepted definitions.
reply