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.
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.
I don't think Nazism is considered a form of Socialism by pretty much any reputable source; only some in the anti-Left fringe do. A planned economy alone is not enough to classify a system as socialist, and anyway Nazism had enough elements of private property and corporatism. The Nazis, like in many other aspects, were equivocating by calling themselves socialists -- not that they particularly liked the term themselves very much.
I wouldn't pay much attention to the name of the Nazi Party, either. After all, North Korea is a "democratic" republic, it says so right in their name!
The Nazi Party, even though it has "socialism" and "workers" in its title, is not considered to be a form of Socialism (nor, for that matter, to be pro workers). Not that it matters much, but the only mention of Nazism in the Wikipedia article you linked doesn't refer to it as a form of socialism.
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?
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 :-]
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.
Hitler called his party socialist too. I'm not sure if anyone fell for it in the US then and it's really a more 1940s type corruption.
I'm probably saying the obvious but fun fact: These communist and fascist countries called themselves socialist and advertised themselves as such because it was socialists that fought against them the most. Socialists were the opposite to their authoritarian ways, so they lied to the people saying they were the same as their competitor.
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
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.
Ah yes, the classic "Actshually the nazis called themselves socialist so they must be socialist"
Even though they were an extremely corporatist and oligarchical system. The nazis were so hilariously un-socialist, that one reason hitler pushed for invading the soviet union, an action that pretty much sealed their fate to lose, was to deal with those "bolshevik jews" who hitler was terrified were going to cause a socialist revolution in germany. Nowadays people scream about "Cultural marxism" instead because most people are smart enough to see "bolshevik jews" as the anti-semetic dog whistle it is.
Unless you think north korea is the morally superior country, they have "Democratic" in the name!
The Nazi Party, even though it has "socialism" and "workers" in its title, is not considered to be a form of Socialism (nor, for that matter, to be pro workers)
I hate getting down in the weeds on this, but its "not considered socialism" by those on the left who are embarrassed that the Nazis were pretty much a command economy and have socialism in its name.
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.
Socialist means something. If a group forms today for an Armenian national ethnostate wanting to commit genocide against Serbs, with nothing even vaguely socialist in their actions, and calls themselves the National Armenian Socialist League, are they socialist? Is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea a democratic republic? No, and no.
National Socialism took the "socialism" to attribute themselves popular pro-left sentiments, same as Mussolini who originally started on the left but pivoted hard to the right.
The whole Nazi ideology is based on racial superiority. Their economic policies favoured big business and crushed labour (no unions, limiting employee protections, etc.). There is nothing they did that could be described as socialist, regardless of their name.
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.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists...
reply