• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
The Nazis were "national socialists" and there haven't been many more fascist systems than the Soviet Union.

So...
As far as it goes, Nazis were socialists about as much as Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic.

My point with Ronson is that it seems there a lot more build up in the fringe over these thinks than what they deserve.
 
It's much more complicated and nuanced than that...

This is a suprisingly good, well-rounded article considering it's on Snopes! -

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

I don't agree with everything...but it's worth a read if you're thinking about this stuff :)
The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality.

As said. The best you can claim if you want to make the claim that Nazis were leftists is the Nazi party used it, along with strong racial claims, to seize power.
Abandoning them as soon as they had it.
Bit hard to make the claim the Nazis were socialists when they banned socialists upon seizing power.
Communist Russia is a murkier area, being that while ostensibly "left" doesn't really hold any bearing with the goal of the left in the US or other Western countries. And when you get to the left of American politics, you're much closer to standard conservatives in other countries than actual leftists.
Unless of course you want to generalize to the point where you can make such generalized statements, but then at that point we're off in the weeds.
This is of course taking for granted that you aren't lumping socialism and communism into the same package and seeing anyone to the left of the current GOP as dirty pinko commies.
Personally, given the state of the US as is we're ripe for a semi competent dictator to come in, which is my real concern at this stage.
And when it comes to which party, not fringe adherents, but actual party, has made such a situation most conductive, it isn't the left that raises my hackles.
 
It's a tricky one full of nuance. And of course- Hitler used anything he could to seize power. And of course, linguistics...words and meaning are fluid. And essentially meaningless.

I just don't like "left" or "right"...it's never that simple.
 
As said. The best you can claim if you want to make the claim that Nazis were leftists is the Nazi party used it, along with strong racial claims, to seize power.
Abandoning them as soon as they had it.
Bit hard to make the claim the Nazis were socialists when they banned socialists upon seizing power.
Agree with Coastaljames, it's never that simple. Nazis banned socialists who didn't stand with them, because they banned anybody who didn't stand strictly with the party's line ; and they hated social-democracy, first because they hated democracy, but their economic policy was more radical than theirs, and their social policy not very different. They were certainely rigourous state interventionists at every level. Although big companies were not nationalized and had their management maintained, they were completely under the command of the Nazi government and had to follow strictly its orders and directives, they were left with no freedom, no room for manoeuvre, no policy, strategy or initiative of their own, their executives being de facto reduced to a status of civil servants. This policy was not motivated solely by the need to develop a war machine, but it was at the core of the totalitarian Nazi ideology of complete state control over society. If workers had no freedom of union, it was because no body of citizens was allowed to contest the government's policy, a situation similar to the one met in Communist countries, that everybody agrees enforced an extremist form of socialism. But Nazi Germany was a welfare state, and the workers' social rights were protected.
One could ask why Hitler did not enforce strictly his ideology by proceeding directly to nationalisations, I believe that the answer is easy : he was not strong enough, even at the eve of the war ; had he done that between 1933 and 1939, he would've been deposed. He's been often ascribed the intent to nationalize big business after the war, and is said to have regretted not to have taken the plunge before. In any case, plenty of state-owned companies had already been created during the war, notably under the control of the SS. Nazis were definitely far on the state control and welfare wings of the economical spectrum, and this is what is often considered as meaning socialism.
 
Agree with Coastaljames, it's never that simple. Nazis banned socialists who didn't stand with them, because they banned anybody who didn't stand strictly with the party's line ; and they hated social-democracy, first because they hated democracy, but their economic policy was more radical than theirs, and their social policy not very different. They were certainely rigourous state interventionists at every level. Although big companies were not nationalized and had their management maintained, they were completely under the command of the Nazi government and had to follow strictly its orders and directives, they were left with no freedom, no room for manoeuvre, no policy, strategy or initiative of their own, their executives being de facto reduced to a status of civil servants. This policy was not motivated solely by the need to develop a war machine, but it was at the core of the totalitarian Nazi ideology of complete state control over society. If workers had no freedom of union, it was because no body of citizens was allowed to contest the government's policy, a situation similar to the one met in Communist countries, that everybody agrees enforced an extremist form of socialism. But Nazi Germany was a welfare state, and the workers' social rights were protected.
One could ask why Hitler did not enforce strictly his ideology by proceeding directly to nationalisations, I believe that the answer is easy : he was not strong enough, even at the eve of the war ; had he done that between 1933 and 1939, he would've been deposed. He's been often ascribed the intent to nationalize big business after the war, and is said to have regretted not to have taken the plunge before. In any case, plenty of state-owned companies had already been created during the war, notably under the control of the SS. Nazis were definitely far on the state control and welfare wings of the economical spectrum, and this is what is often considered as meaning socialism.
Yes, if you focus on two points of the definition and exclude the totality it is. The totality encompassed much more, and there it fails.
Which is sort of the issue.
Coaljames went into hyper generality to claim his point, see his final post on how meaningless words are.
Hyoerspecificity focusing on two points doesn't do well either.
It is true that the Nazis used and enforced social programs, but it was to support the war effort. We did similar here in the states. And Hitler took no small part of inspiration from it and our treatment of natives and other considered unworthies.
Now if you want to argue that the US and it's war effort was similarly socialistic, then we have a point.
 
Alex Jones says Trump should have the military storm Google

And then gets loads of publicitiy because its utterly outrageous and ridiculous.


Which is why Jones is worth around $10 million dollars...he makes cash from spouting nonsense.
 
And then gets loads of publicitiy because its utterly outrageous and ridiculous.

Which is why Jones is worth around $10 million dollars...he makes cash from spouting nonsense.
I'm in the wrong business.
 
We all are mate...


I'll give him that - guy's made a lot of dollar.

Calling him stupid...with my bank balance...is somewhat of a joke on me.
 
It's called 'Vocal Fry', isn't it?
 
You are Alex Jones and I claim my £5!
Quite angry work day. I discover that 'some people' had a thermal analysis of a board I'm in the layout stages on, without even bothering to run it by me or check the assumptions they made. Just rude really, possibly even condescending, (and also, wrong in several areas...). Tesco's currently looking like a very good career choice.
 
Quite angry work day. I discover that 'some people' had a thermal analysis of a board I'm in the layout stages on, without even bothering to run it by me or check the assumptions they made. Just rude really, possibly even condescending, (and also, wrong in several areas...). Tesco's currently looking like a very good career choice.
Sorry to hear that.
Welcome to my world! Tech authors get treated like that all the time.
 
Quite angry work day. I discover that 'some people' had a thermal analysis of a board I'm in the layout stages on, without even bothering to run it by me or check the assumptions they made. Just rude really, possibly even condescending, (and also, wrong in several areas...). Tesco's currently looking like a very good career choice.

'Thermal analysis of a board'

I'm lost--can you explain?
 
Back
Top