4 ms·

> The “zi” in Nazi is for socialism. This is so absurd, because it relies on the premise that if something has a name, that name must accurately represent the

> The “zi” in Nazi is for socialism. This is so absurd, because it relies on the premise that if something has a name, that name must accurately represent the thing. After all if it did not, why would they call it that? Why indeed. We know this is obviously false by counterexample. The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea isn't exactly a democracy no matter which 'bits you scratch out', is it? > States which (as of 2022) use the term "Democratic Republic" in their official names also include many that do not hold free elections and have been rated as "undemocratic" or "unfree" by organizations that gave such ratings. Algeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, North Korea, Laos, Nepal, and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic do not hold free elections and are rated as undemocratic "hybrid regimes" or "authoritarian regimes" by the Democracy Index (The Economist).[1] The lesson here is to watch what people do, not what they say or call themselves. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic

colechristensen 3y ago
[flagged]
- etchalon 3y ago
  A more enjoyable exercise is to read the full 25 point plan, leaving in the obvious antisemitism and fascistic rhetoric, because while the party gave voice to some socialist ideals early in its life, many if not most of those were abandoned as it rose to power. The final form of the Nazi Party was hardly socialist, to the point where communists, socialists and union supporters were specifically targeted for arrest, erasure and death after it assumed national power in 1933. There's a reason Niemoller's famous quote begins: "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist." The type of editing you've done here is deeply dishonest. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-party-platform https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-party...
  - colechristensen 3y ago
    >while the party gave voice to some socialist ideals early in its life, many if not most of those were abandoned as it rose to power Yes, this is indeed what happens and strengthens my point. Why should we be opposed to efforts to enforce "social good" through strong centralized authority? Because this is exactly what happens. The central authority doesn't follow through and now has control of everyone's lives. Also I was responding to a comment calling me absurd for suggesting Nazis were socialist asserting that they just called themselves that. You're moving the goal posts quite a lot by saying they "didn't follow through" with their early ideals. We could keep having this conversation with one side demonstrating socialist things Nazis actually did and continuing to move goalposts to keep the original opinion "socialism good, nazis bad, therefor nazis weren't socialist"
    - etchalon 3y ago
      That is not "what happens". It is what happened with the Nazis, because the Nazis were never socialists. Its central point was always fascist in nature. This isn't even a thing that can be honestly debated. It's just an ignorant, shallow point made by college freshmen and wanna-be podcasters who have studied the absolute smallest amount of history possible, and whom find the fact the Nazis are generally placed on the right side of the political spectrum to be inconvenient. The Nazis were fascists. Hitler knew what he was doing. He believed that socialist ideals were attractive to the disillusioned populace whose attention and approval the party sought. And he wanted to troll the Left. But he wasn't a socialist, and did not believe in socialism. Instead they, in his mind, would redefine the word Socialism to fit what he believed it should be, not what it was, or how anyone understands it now, or at the time. Viereck's interview with Hilter in 23 is fairly clear here, and conducted before the party had national power: > ‘Why’, I asked Hitler, ‘do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party program is the very anthesis of that commonly accredited to Socialism?’ > ‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialist. > "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. > "We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one." https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatinterviews1 https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatint... To the OP's point, Nazis called themselves socialists, but weren't. Mentioning the fact Socialist was in their party name is a cheap shot, and both ahistorical and ignorant.
- jltsiren 3y ago
  In 1920, socialism was still about the abolition of things like state, citizenship, and class. Nazis were in the complete opposition of that by advocating for a stronger state. The idea of socialism in one country and of the state as the protector of socialism (rather than a necessary evil or an outright enemy) only appeared once it had become clear that the revolution had failed in in most of Europe.

colechristensen 3y ago

[flagged]

etchalon 3y ago
A more enjoyable exercise is to read the full 25 point plan, leaving in the obvious antisemitism and fascistic rhetoric, because while the party gave voice to some socialist ideals early in its life, many if not most of those were abandoned as it rose to power. The final form of the Nazi Party was hardly socialist, to the point where communists, socialists and union supporters were specifically targeted for arrest, erasure and death after it assumed national power in 1933. There's a reason Niemoller's famous quote begins: "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist." The type of editing you've done here is deeply dishonest. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-party-platform https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-party...
- colechristensen 3y ago
  >while the party gave voice to some socialist ideals early in its life, many if not most of those were abandoned as it rose to power Yes, this is indeed what happens and strengthens my point. Why should we be opposed to efforts to enforce "social good" through strong centralized authority? Because this is exactly what happens. The central authority doesn't follow through and now has control of everyone's lives. Also I was responding to a comment calling me absurd for suggesting Nazis were socialist asserting that they just called themselves that. You're moving the goal posts quite a lot by saying they "didn't follow through" with their early ideals. We could keep having this conversation with one side demonstrating socialist things Nazis actually did and continuing to move goalposts to keep the original opinion "socialism good, nazis bad, therefor nazis weren't socialist"
  - etchalon 3y ago
    That is not "what happens". It is what happened with the Nazis, because the Nazis were never socialists. Its central point was always fascist in nature. This isn't even a thing that can be honestly debated. It's just an ignorant, shallow point made by college freshmen and wanna-be podcasters who have studied the absolute smallest amount of history possible, and whom find the fact the Nazis are generally placed on the right side of the political spectrum to be inconvenient. The Nazis were fascists. Hitler knew what he was doing. He believed that socialist ideals were attractive to the disillusioned populace whose attention and approval the party sought. And he wanted to troll the Left. But he wasn't a socialist, and did not believe in socialism. Instead they, in his mind, would redefine the word Socialism to fit what he believed it should be, not what it was, or how anyone understands it now, or at the time. Viereck's interview with Hilter in 23 is fairly clear here, and conducted before the party had national power: > ‘Why’, I asked Hitler, ‘do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party program is the very anthesis of that commonly accredited to Socialism?’ > ‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialist. > "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. > "We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one." https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatinterviews1 https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatint... To the OP's point, Nazis called themselves socialists, but weren't. Mentioning the fact Socialist was in their party name is a cheap shot, and both ahistorical and ignorant.
jltsiren 3y ago
In 1920, socialism was still about the abolition of things like state, citizenship, and class. Nazis were in the complete opposition of that by advocating for a stronger state. The idea of socialism in one country and of the state as the protector of socialism (rather than a necessary evil or an outright enemy) only appeared once it had become clear that the revolution had failed in in most of Europe.