6 ms·

No. This is incorrect. Hitler and Mussolini were fascists. Hitler even downplayed the leftwing aspects of fascism and promoted private enterprise as long it wor

by jwdunne 11y ago

No. This is incorrect. Hitler and Mussolini were fascists. Hitler even downplayed the leftwing aspects of fascism and promoted private enterprise as long it worked towards national interests - such as killing Jews (or "creating the master race") and waging war (or "creating living space for said master race"). Communists and socialists were heavily persecuted during the holocaust. In fact, they were the first to be pursued by the state. Another thing: those in the Nazi ranks who actually wanted socialism were purged. It's called Night of the Long Knives and it's a pivot moment in the history of Nazi Germany. It may be confusing because of the whole National Socialism thing. It could be argued that actually that was purely to strike a chord with the type of dissatisified folks who would die for the movement, such as the lower classes that made up the SA.

reitanqild 11y ago
I think we should differ between using capatalists when it suited him and being a capitalist. I'd say number of things links links him to the socialist side, -only he was a national socialist.
- jwdunne 11y ago
  That's fine because that's what he did. If, however, you want to argue in that direction, links to socialism and the party's name containing the word socialism is different from actually being a socialist and implementing socialism. Its generally accepted that Nazism is a form of fascism. It's ludicrous to say that fascism is socialism and that Hitler was a socialist. There might be arguments that stem from the the genealogy of fascism through national syndicalism. I guess that's like saying my grandfather was x, therefore I am definitely x.
  - reitanqild 11y ago
    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 :-]
    - fucking_tragedy 11y ago
      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.
      - reitanqild 11y ago
        Tell that to certain socialist parties in Europe. Methinks they definitely want to decide what is "best for everyone" on many levels, not only production and labour. If we were to argue by textbook definitions, and only by the definitions created by those in question, then we could have some weird discussions. I mean, capitalists often don't decribe themself as evil either.
        jwdunne 11y ago
        The problem is just that: they use the terms for their own ends. For example, North Korea is officially named "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". I dunno what sort of harsh totalitarian regime is democratic and the people's! Another example: the UK Labour party states it is a democratic socialist party. I don't think the premiership of Blair/Brown can be described as anything like that. I'm sure this is the case for many Labour parties across Europe (except for the UK, as of recent, that is...)

by jwdunne 11y ago

reitanqild 11y ago

I think we should differ between using capatalists when it suited him and being a capitalist. I'd say number of things links links him to the socialist side, -only he was a national socialist.

jwdunne 11y ago
That's fine because that's what he did. If, however, you want to argue in that direction, links to socialism and the party's name containing the word socialism is different from actually being a socialist and implementing socialism. Its generally accepted that Nazism is a form of fascism. It's ludicrous to say that fascism is socialism and that Hitler was a socialist. There might be arguments that stem from the the genealogy of fascism through national syndicalism. I guess that's like saying my grandfather was x, therefore I am definitely x.
- reitanqild 11y ago
  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 :-]
  - fucking_tragedy 11y ago
    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.
    - reitanqild 11y ago
      Tell that to certain socialist parties in Europe. Methinks they definitely want to decide what is "best for everyone" on many levels, not only production and labour. If we were to argue by textbook definitions, and only by the definitions created by those in question, then we could have some weird discussions. I mean, capitalists often don't decribe themself as evil either.
      - jwdunne 11y ago
        The problem is just that: they use the terms for their own ends. For example, North Korea is officially named "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". I dunno what sort of harsh totalitarian regime is democratic and the people's! Another example: the UK Labour party states it is a democratic socialist party. I don't think the premiership of Blair/Brown can be described as anything like that. I'm sure this is the case for many Labour parties across Europe (except for the UK, as of recent, that is...)