3 ms·
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 i
by 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.
- colechristensen 3y ago>That is not "what happens". It is indeed what did happen every time a state was formed or reformed on the basis of promoting social good through strong central authority. Nazis had their own brand of socialism, sure, but there was a whole lot of overlap with the stated socialist ideals of the communist states (USSR, China in particular) and equal subsequent failure to fully live up to those ideals. (plenty of what the Nazi state did indeed fulfill those socialist ideals as well). As before, people like you will never stop shifting goalposts to continue to justify how right you are, discussion is pretty pointless. >It's just an ignorant, shallow point made by college freshmen Yawn. Don't bother responding. I certainly won't.
- etchalon 3y agoNo goal posts were shifted. You claimed the Nazis were socialists, in name and deed. I pointed out they were neither, by quoting their actual words and describing their actual deeds. But do let me know when how your sophomore history class goes.