History Podcasts

If the nazi is a far-right party, why is it socialist?

If the nazi is a far-right party, why is it socialist?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

The Nazi Party stands for the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), which sounds like a name for a communist party, why is it considered a far-right party? Isn't it a far-left party, or was socialism considered to be far-right at the time?


The Nazi Party destroyed the political apparatus of the working class, broke the trade union movement, and handed the economy over to German capitalist monopolies. "Socialism" in the mind of the NSDAP involved either the SA's street fighting fantasy of a German nation recast in the image of the right wing worker; or, the NSDAP's central apparatus' conception of a pliant breeding nation. "Socialism" was for the NSDAP the forced mobilisation of the ethnic nation.

Many Germans at the time, particularly right wing Germans, associated these values with a Bismarkian right wing policy that had been called "Socialism," in the sense of state provided goods and services. To take political advantage of this feeling, the NSDAP named itself "National Socialist." The NSDAP did not hope for the abolition of capitalism, nor for workers' control.

In addition to this economic position, the NSDAP wished to reunify their imaginary German nation by force; impose a German order on Europe through war; and to eliminate their imaginary racial "other."

These combination of policies are considered "right wing."

Ordinary socialism, in the sense of workers' control of production, was considered left wing at the time.


The same reason the "Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea" is a democratic republic… It wasn't. There was a time when socialism really seemed like the way forward, tempering free enterprise with thoughtful regulation and investing workers in the means of production. So non-socialists like the Nazis and Communists called themselves socialist to appeal to the political moderates of the interwar period.

In the modern day, anyone who equates socialism with either Nazi-brand Fascism or Soviet-brand Communism is a political propagandist, usually affiliated with right-wing US interests.


It wasn't socialist, and in fact was vehenmently opposed to actual socialists/communists. The Reichstag Fire was one of the causes for Nazi party to grab power and was sold as the beginnings of a communist uprising.

Socialism was not considered right wing in 1930s Europe. (Remember in the USA "Socialist" is used as a dirty word. In Europe this is not the case ('Socialist Party' is 2nd largest in European Parliament, etc.). That can colour a debate about the word).

Pleanty of countries call themselves things, it doesn't mean they are those things. Like "Democratic Republic of Korea", etc.


It sounded good for marketing purposes, for engaging the average industrial worker without the revolutionary baggage of Communism.

It is important to understand that when it comes to statism, right and left don't matter that much. While they will give different reasons why they're chaining you down, enslaving you or murdering you and there may be different people wielding the bludgeon or the gun, the end result is the same. In other words, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.


The "Nazi" Party STARTED OUT as the National Socialist German Workers Party, with a left-leaning, socialist bent.

That is, until it enrolled "Member Number 7", aka Adolf Hitler, who had other ideas.

A World War I veteran, Hitler figured out the "Dolchstoss" legend, the idea that Germany had been winning World War I until it was "stabbed in the back" by Hitler's enemies, plus re-armament/revanche, was more appealing to most German people than the idea of a "worker's paradise". This was particularly true of the right wing, where Hitler drew most of his financial support.

In fact, the Nazi party at one time had two wings, a nationalist wing under Hitler and a socialist wing under Gregor Strasser, who considered himself a personal friend of Hitler's.

That is, until Hitler took over the party, and later murdered his "friend" Strasser during the "Night of the Long Knives".


I think that Nazi regime was unique in world history in that it unlike any other regime before and after had two faces: it externally pretended to be a left-center force, a left-centrist socialist pro-workers, progressive, industrialist, anti-monarchist, anti-religious, pro-women rights, pro-animal rights, anti-capitalist, anti-monarchist, anti-colonialist party. But in reality it turned out that Nazism was actually far more right than any monarchists, Russian "black-hundreds" and conservatives were before. It was hiding its ultra-right face for a while to achieve popular support.

This duality led to many mistakes by individuals and politicians who made deals with Nazi party and Nazi Germany. German Cristians thought they are dealing with a centrist patriotic party when voting for enabling act. Vatican thought Hitler is quite like Mussolini: a moderately conservative centrist. Stalin thought he was dealing with a left-center party of small bourgeoisie. Ethnic minorities also thought Nazis are pro-national self-determination and cultural autonomy.

Many Jews saw that Nazis for a first time in 2000 years allowed Jews to have their own police, ambulance service, postal service, orphanages, and even telephone stations. They did not knew the orphanages and hospitals were designed to quickly separate those unable to work. Nobody could imagine Nazis will kill people in new shining uniforms they just designed for Jewish police (no other regime gives a forage cap with a badge to a condemned enemy).

Many Russians and Ukrainians believed Germans will build a moderate form of Socialism without collectivization and other excesses of Soviet Union.

Many Germans believed that Nazis really protect animal rights for ethical reasons, not just to make a ban on Jewish meat.

In reality it turned out that even conservative clergymen looked like Bolshevicks compared to Nazis.

This masquerade became possible because Hitler departed from earlier tradition typical for ultra-right, volkishe movements. Initially he was even criticized from the far-right positions for even use of the word "party" instead of traditional for the right-wing "league" "movement" or "union". But Hitler was smarter. He abandoned monarchism in favor of unrestricted ultimate dictatorship. He pursued clergy because they were too left for him and Christian principles were too egalitarian and not enough anti-Semitic, although historically religious Christians were the most anti-Semitic group. He denounced aristocracy and social estates in favor of eugenics. He denounced right-wing to promote ultra-right instead.


Adolf Hitler on the Nazi form of ‘socialism’ (1932)

The relationship between Nazism and socialism has provoked considerable debate. The majority of historians contend that Nazism sits alongside Italian fascism on the right-wing of the political spectrum. The Nazis, they argue, were hyper-nationalists obsessed with military and state power and social control. Unlike those of Marxists, Nazi policies did not seek economic levelling, the eradication of class or private property or the redistribution of wealth.

Despite this, some conservative historians argue that Nazism is a factional offshoot or bastardised form of socialism. They point to nomenclature (“National Socialism”), Nazi control and regulation of the German economy and their vast public spending programs. This line of argument has, in recent times, been repeated by many conservative and far-right political pundits.

Adolf Hitler, photographed with German children during his 1932 presidential campaign

The following document contains Adolf Hitler‘s explanation of the Nazi form of socialism. It comes from an interview with Hitler conducted by German-American writer and Nazi sympathiser George Sylvester Viereck. The interview appeared in Liberty magazine on July 9th 1932:

“‘When I take charge of Germany, I shall end tribute abroad and Bolshevism at home.’

Adolf Hitler drained his cup as if it contained not tea but the lifeblood of Bolshevism.

‘Bolshevism’, the chief of the Brown Shirts, the Fascists of Germany continued, ‘is our greatest menace. Kill Bolshevism in Germany and you restore 70 million people to power. France owes her strength not to her armies but to the forces of Bolshevism and dissension in our midst’…

I met Hitler not in his headquarters, the Brown House in Munich, but in a private home, the dwelling of a former admiral of the German Navy. We discussed the fate of Germany over the teacups.

‘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 Socialists.

‘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…

‘What’, I continued my cross-examination, ‘are the fundamental planks of your platform?’

‘We believe in a healthy mind, in a healthy body. The body politic must be sound if the soul is to be healthy. Moral and physical health are synonymous.’

‘Mussolini’, I interjected, ‘said the same to me’. Hitler beamed.

‘The slums’, he added, ‘are responsible for nine-tenths, alcohol for one-tenth of all human depravity. No healthy man is a Marxian. Healthy men recognise the value of personality. We contend against the forces of disaster and degeneration. Bavaria is comparatively healthy because it is not completely industrialised… If we wish to save Germany, we must see to it that our farmers remain faithful to the land. To do so, they must have room to breathe and room to work.’

‘Where will you find the room to work?’

‘We must retain our colonies and expand eastward. There was a time when we could have shared world domination with England. Now we must stretch our cramped limbs only toward the east. The Baltic is necessarily a German lake.'”


The National Socialist German Worker’s Party

While it does look like a very socialist name, the problem is that ‘National Socialism’ is not socialism, but a different, fascist ideology. Hitler had originally joined when the party was called the German Worker’s Party, and he was there as a spy to keep an eye on it. It was not, as the name suggested, a devotedly left-wing group, but one Hitler thought had potential, and as Hitler’s oratory became popular the party grew and Hitler became a leading figure.

At this point ‘National Socialism’ was a confused mishmash of ideas with multiple proponents, arguing for nationalism, anti-Semitism, and yes, some socialism. The party records don’t record the name change, but it’s generally believed a decision was taken to rename the party to attract people, and partly to forge links with other ‘national socialist’ parties. The meetings began to be advertised on red banners and posters, hoping for socialists to come in and then be confronted, sometimes violently: the party was aiming to attract as much attention and notoriety as possible. But the name was not Socialism, but National Socialism and as the 20s and 30s progressed, this became an ideology Hitler would expound upon at length and which, as he took control, ceased to have anything to do with socialism.


Ignorance or Mendacity?

Senator Paul begins by ridiculing the Left for denying that the Nazis were socialists: “So, despite the Nazis literally having ‘socialist’ in their name — the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — the left has made a concerted effort to label Nazis as ‘far-right-wingers.’”

Paul’s argument here goes from the undeniable premise that the Nazis had “socialist” as part of their name to the conclusion that the Nazis were, in fact, socialists. For that inference to work, Paul needs an intermediate premise like the following: If an organization has an adjective in their name, then the organization is correctly described by that adjective.

But if Senator Paul really believed this, then he would be forced to conclude that communist East Germany and present-day North Korea count as democracies, for the German Democratic Republic and the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea both have the adjective “Democratic” as part of their name. I don’t think he believes this.

Senator Paul then points to three other pieces of evidence. First, Paul quotes the twenty-five-point plan the fledgling Nazi Party produced in 1920. He starts with this point: “We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts). (The essence of socialism — state ownership of the means of production.)”

The italicized words after that point are Paul’s own words that he added as commentary, suggesting that the Nazis were advocating expansive state ownership of the means of production. But a more direct translation of the original German would be, “We demand the nationalization of all previously socialized (trust) companies.”

So, rather than the nationalization of all companies, the document only talks about certain sorts of trusts, without being very explicit concerning the nature or extent of these entities. It is hard to say exactly what the Nazis had in mind here, but it was not a call for extensive state ownership of the means of production.

The last item quoted by Paul is number seventeen of the twenty-five points, and it seems to be the most explicitly socialist: “We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.”

However, in a document signed by Hitler himself, the Nazis explicitly added an explanatory point in 1930. Still well before they achieved power, this disclaimer states the core of the Nazi position (emphasis in original the translation is mine):

In the face of dishonest interpretations of Point 17 by opponents of the party, the following statement is necessary: Since the NSDAP stands on the basis of private property, it is self-evident that the phrase “free expropriation” only refers to the creation of legal possibility of expropriating, when necessary, land that has been acquired in unjust ways or is not being administered in accord with the interests of the common good. Accordingly, this is primarily directed against Jewish property speculation companies.

When the Nazis talked about expropriation, they meant taking property belonging to Jews they were quite in favor of private property for others.

Quite possibly, Senator Paul was simply ignorant of this crucial addendum to the text. Or perhaps he did know of it, knew it undermined his basic argument, but just chose not to mention it.

Senator Paul’s second piece of evidence appears to originate from a meme that was passed around conservative circles a few years ago featuring a picture of Hitler with an alleged quotation beginning with “We are socialists…” A snopes.com fact check on the meme quickly deemed it to be false, in part on the grounds that the quote was not from Hitler at all, but from Gregor Strasser.

Paul understands this much, but he still uses the same text from the meme and says: “Likewise, the Nazi Gregory Strasser spoke of his fellow Nazis thus: ‘We are socialists. We are enemies, mortal enemies, of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system!’”

But as the snopes.com post further notes, Gregor Strasser is a peculiar Nazi to quote on this or any point.

Strasser was indeed a Nazi, with thoroughly reprehensible nationalistic and anti-semitic views that he mixed with some traditionally left-leaning economic ideas. And he was a high-ranking one, running both the party’s propaganda department and its day-to-day operations for a time.

But whatever left-leaning ideas he had were, by the late 1920s, thoroughly rejected by Hitler. Strasser resigned from any position of authority within the party by the end of 1932, before the Nazis came to power in 1933, and he was literally murdered by the Nazis in the “Night of the Long Knives” in early 1934, when Hitler had hundreds of political opponents extrajudicially executed — including, crucially, Strasser’s entire wing of the party.

If the best Senator Paul can do to represent the Nazis as socialist is to quote a Nazi whose views got him and others like him kicked out of the party and murdered — and whose reactionary views are regarded as completely despicable by every single major current of socialists today — then he is not doing very well.

Again we have the same two possibilities with respect to the Senator: either he did not take five minutes to find out who Strasser was, or he decided to sweep that information under the rug — perhaps thinking that socialists would be too lazy to check.

Paul’s third source for his claim that Hitler is a socialist is an article in the Independent by George Watson. Watson bases his claims almost entirely on some things that Hitler allegedly said to his one-time advisor Otto Wagener.

Wagener’s recollections were posthumously published in German in 1978 in a book with a title that translates as Hitler up Close: Notes from a Confidant 1929–1932. Why only to 1932? Because Wagener was soon thereafter removed from his position of authority and was even detained in the Night of the Long Knives. Wagener wrote the text while a prisoner of war in 1946.

Wagener reports that Hitler said he saw the whole of National Socialism as based on Marx. That’s an odd claim on the part of Wagener, given the document I noted above signed by Hitler, according to which the Nazi Party “stands on the basis of private property” — not a characteristically Marxist idea.

More generally, if the best evidence we have for the Nazi government being socialist are a few scattered comments that Hitler allegedly made in private, before taking power, and to someone who was drummed out of the party, then this is rather weak evidence indeed.

By comparison, suppose that there was a book published in the 1990s by someone claiming that Ronald Reagan had said privately in 1977 that his core ideas were based on the writings of Trotsky, but that the author of this book was driven out of the Republican Party in early 1981 and played no further role in Reagan’s administration. Would we take that as decisive evidence — or as any evidence at all — that Reagan’s presidency in the eighties was Trotskyist?


If the nazi is a far-right party, why is it socialist? - History

87 10 87 10 110 4 21 4 14 2 VoxDawg
Georgia Fan
Glory, Glory
Member since Sep 2012
36416 posts
Online

re: Why are Nazi’s labeled far right Posted by VoxDawg on 6/24/20 at 3:23 pm to Tigahhs97

Do you even narrative, baw?

Most lefty windowlickers don't understand that Nazi was "National Socialist Party," anyway.

And yet they fawn over Bernie Sanders' Magical Socialist Wonderland Sweepstakes.

33 4 17 1 12 2

Yes. Since I mentioned Zoroaster. Goodness is Mazda (a nice small car). Evil is Angra (angry spirit). Angras leave filth, death, darkness and rot everywhere. Sounds like liberals.

0 2 29 6

NAZI is an acronym for the Nationalist Socialists Workers Party. The key word being "Nationalist"

3 37 5 0

The National Socialist totalitarians were the rivals of the International Socialist totalitarians. They were both mass murderers who ran massive slave labor camps.

14 0

"frick you, you fricking Nazi. We need a national socialist party to burn these capitalists pigs."

That is literally the left today.

17 1 3 0 8 1

They’re not liberals. They’re leftists. And there’s no also.

11 0 1 0

The Russian Socialists referred to them as far right.

The Nazis were the right side of socialism.

Conservatives are the right side of liberalism.

Its two different and separate systems even though the left love them some socialism.

1 1

They called themselves socialist due to the general appeal of social democracy and communism at the time, but it doesn't mean that they were socialist, just as countries such as North Korea and East Germany have "Democratic" in their names yet utterly lack democracy.

Go take a look at Nazi hatred of communism, trade unionism, and liberalism, and their strong belief in blood and soil nationalism, the appeals to the mythic past, and belief in one people/one leader/one nation appeals resemble the right-wing parties like the AfD in Germany, Fidesz in Hungary, etc.


Why was socialism part of the Nazi Party platform if it was a far right party?

Why did the Nazi Party have so many social programs if it was a far right movement? Why did it hate communism so much if socialism was part of its platform?

It's sometimes easy to overlook the exclusivity of the word Nationalist Socialist because we hear it so often. But when it comes down to it, it was socialism for Germans and ONLY Germans. The German Worker's Party's philosophy (DAP - the predecessor to the NSDAP) is a pretty clear example of its socialist, yet also fascist/racist, origins. When Hitler took power, he expanded the ideology of the DAP so that it appealed to more people.

A few of the DAP's points outlined in Munich in 1920:

"None but members of the nation may be citizens of the State. None but those of German blood, whatever their creed, may be mebers of the nation. No Jew, therefore, may be considered a member of the nation.

We demand that the State shall make it one of its chief duties to provide work and the means of livelihood for the citizens of the State. If it is not possible to provide for the entire population living within the confines of the State, foreign nationals (non-citizens of the State) must be excluded (expatriated)

All further non-German immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany subsequently to 2 August 1914 shall be required forwith to depart from the Reich.

We demand the nationalization of all business combines.

We demand a ruthless campaign against all whose activites are injurious to the common interest. Oppressors of the nation, unsurers, profiteers, etc. must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.

The State must concern itself with raising the standard of health in the nation by exercising its guardianship over mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labour, and by increasing bodily efficiency by leglally obligatory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of the young.

As you can see, they concerned themselves with the betterment and the welfare of the people by utilizing state resources (socialist) but at the same time they were only concerned with the welfare of "true-blooded" Germans (nationalist) and ultimately saw foreigners (and "non-Germans", i.e. Jews, Gypsies, etc. etc.) within Germany to be working and conspiring against the unity and welfare of Germany as whole.

It's important to remember too that Hitler's ideas weren't all that radical and that a lot of people shared his views, both in Germany and outside of Germany. Anti-semitism persisted through the war and for many decades afterwards too.


Adolf Hitler only joined Nazi Party after another far-right group rejected him, discovers historian

Adolf Hitler only decided to join the Nazi party after being snubbed by another far-right party, a prominent historian has discovered.

Thomas Weber, a historian based at Aberdeen University, said if Hitler had not been rejected from the newly established German Socialist party, it is unlikely there would have been a world war or Nazi Germany’s mass murder of six million Jews.

Dr Weber, who has been researching the Nazi leader for more than ten years, unearthed an unpublished document which reveals that the German Socialist party told Hitler in 1919 that they did not want him in their party or to write for their paper.

The academic, who is a Professor of History and International Affairs, argued it is not likely Hitler would have risen to power if he had been allowed to join the German Socialist party. He said it would have been harder to climb party ranks in what was a larger and more successful organisation than the Nazi party where Hitler became leader in 1921.

Recommended

“I can only speculate why they did not let him join but one would imagine it had something to do with the fact Hitler was opinionated and they did not want to have someone there who was telling them what to do,” he told The Independent.

He added: “If he had been accepted into the German Socialist party he would have almost certainly remained on the sidelines. Hitler managed to push over the established leadership of Nazi party but that would have been very unlikely to have happened if he had joined the German Socialist party.”

1 /2 Nazi reconnaissance maps

Nazi reconnaissance maps

Nazi reconnaissance maps

It was proposed for the Nazi party and the German Socialist party to join forces three times between 1920 and 1921 but they never chose to do so.

“It was only because of Hitler’s steadfast refusal to join the German Socialist party that the Nazi party did not,” he said. “Hitler would always hold a grudge against anyone who had crossed him and he was probably worried that again he would be pushed to the sidelines. Not only would the Nazi party be the smaller party out of the two but the guys who rejected him would be in the driving seat.”

Dr Weber argued the course of twentieth-century history was likely to have been very different had Hitler been accepted into the German Socialist party.

“It is difficult to say with certainty what had happened if he had not been shunned but it is not likely he would have been in the driving seat of the Nazi party,” he said. “There would have still been an opening for a radical right-wing party in Germany but the opening might have been exploited by a different party and therefore you would not have have triggered a world war or genocide”.

He said he was not sure why the important document which is from the testimony of Hans Georg Grassinger, the founding chairman of the German Socialist party, had never been uncovered given it has been available since 1961, adding that it had been “hidden in plain sight”.

Dr Weber told The Guardian the document records: “In the autumn of 1919, around September, Hitler appeared in the office of the publishing house to see Grassinger and offered [to] write for the paper, and to join and work for the German Socialist party. He didn’t have any money at the time and he also asked to borrow money from Grassinger. But they [told] him that they had no use for him in the paper and that they also did not want to have him in the party.”

Dr Weber’s research on Hitler will be outlined in his book Becoming Hitler: The Making of a Nazi which is due to be published by Oxford University next month.

His book will cover a great deal of unchartered territory and argues Hitler’s racism towards people other than jews was opportunistic and was ultimately just provided a pragmatic justification for his territorial expansion.


8 thoughts on &ldquo Hitler and the “Right Wing” &rdquo

I don’t think it is that hard to understand that the extreme “left” and extreme “right of politics”, as we rationalise it, is totalitarianism. Both come from a simple human governing concept of “we know what’s best for you”.
Think of it as isolating a spot on an imaginary circle (rather than a straight line) as the “centre” of politics. You can move to the left of that or to the right but once you are at the opposite side of the circle of politics you are in totalitarianism-ville. A good example of how this works is China. First socialist communist now capital communist. Did they swing back to the centre to move down the capitalism route? Ask a professor to explain it and listen to how they manoeuvre the conversation. Then remind the professor of Tiananmen Square. Crickets. If they can explain that away then ask them if they think “Tank Man” was capitalist of socialist. Try it.

Western left wingers are so desperate to distance their own views from the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterparte that they offer “Hitler killed socialists” as an argument, knowing full well that Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot all killed rival left wingers. Emphasizing the power of the state over the people is a big clue. References to Mother Russia and the Fatherland are clues too.

Socialism loved eugenics and extermination of “useless eaters”.
George Bernard Shaw was a FOUNDER of gradual socialist FABIANS.
George Bernard Shaw Defends Hitler and genocide
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQvsf2MUKRQ

Many internet socialists are disability or welfare cases who think socialism would hand them more money, but are generally unaware of the official socialist party support of the extermination of “useless eaters” like disability or welfare cases.

Internet socialists commonly pretend it hasn’t been tried, apparently unaware that several previous attempts at socialism resulted in mass death and communism.

The Nazi’s were not left wing, in fact Hitler personally hated socialists. The ‘night of the long knives’ had any socialist thinking member of the party killed.

Before joining the party that would later be named the NAZI’s he was huge admirer of Benito Mussolini’s far-right fascist party even writing to him asking for a signed picture which Mussolini didn’t send.

Though Hitler did apply some socialist policy in the early years that many people at the time congratulated him on before taking the Nazi’s more and more to the far-right and murdering as many socialists as he could.

The Nazi party was purposely vague about it’s policies to attract people from both sides, a lot like the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), that is desperately attempting to draw in support from left-wing working classes when it is a right-wing movement.

Nazi Germany =
govt health care
Govt day care
gun control
baby bonus checks
mandated vacation time
closed all private & religious schools
closed boy scouts & all had to be Hitler youth
controlled wages and had 100% control of all business

Nazi propaganda release ” we owe it to the Fuhrer

Jews were first Boycott Germany – few people know the facts about the singular fact, the international Jewish declaration of war on Germany shortly after Adolf Hitler came to power and well before any official German government sanctions or reprisals against Jews were carried out. The March 24, 1933 issue of The Daily Express of London (shown “Judea declare war on Germany – Jews of All the World Unite – Boycott of German Goods – Mass Demonstrations.”) Just look Google …” March 24, 1933″ ( image search)

Privatization was simply the result of undoing the centralization of government that was required to fight World War One. Once war time is over nationalized entities should be returned to the private sector. Privatization is not a Nazi principle. It is an error to paint it as such.

For instance, Japan’s post office after privatization became one of the most valuable companies in the world, and no longer is a burden to the Japan’s taxpayers. That is not a “Nazi” principle, just good business.

“Hitler’s tax policies favoured middle-class property owners. In September 1933, finance minister Schwerin von Krosigk sent to the Reich Chancellery a proposal to reduce taxes by a total of RM 532 billion per year. The land tax on urban and agricultural landowners and the agricultural turnover tax were reduced. Newly constructed homes were exempted from income tax, property taxes, the rural land tax and half of the urban land tax. Businessmen supported the government’s tax reduction measures, and demanded more, particularly the elimination of employers’ contributions to the national insurance programme which added social costs to the price of their products. Hitler and his government agreed in principle.”

Source: “Interwar unemployment in international perspective”, edited by Barry J. Eichengreen and T. J. Hatton.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Scientific Affairs Division, Centre for Economic Policy Research

Hmm,anti communist, privatization and tax cuts for the middle class: Sounds Rightwing to me.

This article fails and it fails bad: In the Doctrine of Facism, Mussolini writes:

“It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the “Right,” a Fascist century.”

You know where privatization originated?

“Although modern economic literature usually ignores the fact, the Nazi government in 1930s
Germany undertook a wide scale privatization policy. The government sold public ownership in
several State-owned firms in different sectors. In addition, delivery of some public services
previously produced by the public sector was transferred to the private sector, mainly to
organizations within the Nazi Party.”

Source: Bel, Germà,Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany(March 2006)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Like my website? Read my book!

A Self-Made Nation tells the story of 18th and 19th century entrepreneurs who started out with nothing and created success for themselves while building a great nation.


Why Do People Call Hitler a Socialist?

Part of the confusion likely comes from Hitler rising up through the ranks of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NAZI party) and having some socialist policy on paper (the party platform and his Mein Kampf both contain some socially liberal and socialist ideas, but both are notably written before his Rise to Power).

However, as noted above, Hitler modeled his party on Mussolini’s National Fascist Party [23] , which had a more honest and appropriate title. Like the German National Socialist party, Mussolini had begun as a socialist and devolved into a Nationalist Fascist movement. Although fascism has some commonalities with socialism, it is not the same.

The other part of the confusion likely comes from a misunderstanding of the post-WWI era ideologies (which include many different exclusive nationalist and inclusive socialist ideologies.)

Communism can generally be considered the extreme inclusive left-wing ideology of the post-WWI era, fascism can generally be considered the extreme exclusive right-wing ideology, and then other socialist and nationalist ideologies of the time fall somewhere in between.

Fascism is a right-wing ideology that essentially grows out of socialism (left) and nationalism (right), so it only makes sense that it would be confused with left-wing socialism.

MYTH BUSTED HITLER WAS A LEFT-WINGER: There is a half-truth out there that Hitler was a left-winger and that his form of socialism is comparable to modern social liberalism or Bernie Sanders’ Democratic Socialism. All these claims are “mostly false.” The essay below explains this position from a historical standpoint. Simply put, like Mussolini, Hitler was a far-right fascist despite his socialist policies. Socialism can certainly devolve into fascism (Mussolini is proof, as is Hitler to some extent), and that is a real concern (just like the concern of it devolving into authoritative communism), and all totalitarian states are similarly despotic and tyrannical, but this speaks little to the WWII fascists being left-wingers. Providing healthcare to a small group of German nationals is only very loosely “a socialist” idea, it isn’t like the NAZI embraced a fully planned economy like the Communist or anything. Providing socialism for a small group of nationals is a common advent of militarism and is much more (speaking in WWII terms) “fascist” than socialist. As noted above, the tale of fascism is more a tale of caution for right-wingers, not left-wingers.

TIP: Mussolini and Hitler were very similar. Mussolini called himself a fascist and was in the National Fascist Party party in Italy. Hitler rose up through the ranks of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, leading its Nationalist wing. Both parties had very similar ideologies, and both had originally been at least partly socialist ideologically before becoming more nationalist and fascist. Mussolini’s party had a more honest name frankly, but we can, naming aside point out some left-wing qualities of the fascists (despite their many right-wing qualities). Fascism and the other post-WWI extreme ideology Communism are both totalitarian ideologies, but they are opposition philosophies with key differences. In terms of the post-WWI ideologies, one is left-wing (Communism), and one is right-wing (fascism). Hitler and Mussolini were Nationalist Fascist Right-Wingers.


If the nazi is a far-right party, why is it socialist? - History

we can split hairs all day. however..left wing is left wing and socialist are socialists. international, national, intergalctic, whatever.

1 0

The problem is most posters are looking at this with only the last 100 years in mind.

all of these movements started in the 1860's and 70's.

The communist party in Russia was formed in 1883 as the Emancipation of Labour and later in 1898 Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) and split into two parties in 1912. With Lenin leading the Bolsheviks arm of the party in 1903 and Mensheviks lead by Julius Martov.

This is long before German fell apart and by 1919 Russia has it's hand in most of eastern Europe.

Even before WWI Russian operations covered the whole of eastern Europe, but mainly in the area of Serbia. The killing of the Arch Duke was the spark that started WWI and that was a Russian operation using puppets.

That the NAZI were enemies of the Russian red communist puppets in Germany is not an issue, but a nature defense of nation. The Nazi's are a very small party in 1919-1923 and played a small role in this struggle of nation gapping.

What put them on the map was the Beer Hall Putsch and General Erich Ludendorff being a member of the Putsch.
The press from this event made the early NAZI party and made them a political force. Erich would go on to be elect to the Reichstag as a representative of the NSFB in 1924, NSFB is the NAZI party and German Völkisch Freedom Party coalition. Erich would go on to run for President of the Republic in 1925.

There is far more to all of this as the British are fighting a real and shadow war with Russia dating to the 1830's trying to keep the Russians from taking Istanbul from the Turks.

0 0 0 0

It’s time to debunk the “Nazi” epithet, and to show you where it came from, who invented it, and why. The fact is, that the term “Nazi” was created by the enemies of the National Socialists (the NSDAP). It was a pejorative term an insult or a slur. The Germans, not even Hitler nor any other top party officials ever called themselves “Nazis”! They called themselves “National Socialists” and nothing else. Those who can read German and have studied any of the original documents and speeches know this already, but most don’t.

Progenitor of the term “The term “Nazi” (along with “Nazism”) is a political epithet invented by Konrad Heiden (7 August 1901 – 18 June 1966) during the 1920s as a means of denigrating the NSDAP and National Socialism. Heiden was a journalist and member of the Social Democratic Party. The term is a variant of the nickname that was used in reference to members of the SDP at the time “Sozi” (short for Sozialisten). “Nazi” was a political pun, based upon the Austro-Bavarian slang word for “simpleton” or “country bumpkin”, and derived from the fairly common name Ignatz. It would be like saying “nutsy”. So, if for no other reason, one should easily understand why the term was regarded as derogatory by the National Socialists and why they would never use it to describe themselves. One should also see why it would be used and popularized by Marxist-Bolshevik agitators and understand how it was seized upon by various other political opponents and subversive types, both within Germany and abroad, including the international media and political leaders of the western powers.”

This is a fact. National Socialism is akin to the current national populism that was being advocated by several politicians on the right in the 2015 runs across the world. Further, the NSDAP was not fascist, and they make a point that they were national socialists while Italy was fascist. The German national socialists were not like Marx socialists. Otherwise they wouldn't have complained about the attempted communist revolution that destroyed their WWI chances. It is a shame that so many tards on the right do not understand what the NSDAP was to this day even though they advocate for a lot of their policies. NSDAP fought against communism, globalism, and Marxism. United States allied and fought for the "evil" so many complain of now.


Where is the difference?

Clearly, fascism and socialism differ on many fundamental aspects.

The socialist paradigm is based on the assumption that private property and free market inevitably lead to social and economic inequality. As such, the state has the moral and social duty to intervene to protect workers’ rights and to ensure that wealth is equally and harmoniously distributed. Socialist societies prevent economic competition within the country and with other countries.

Despite the large degree of variance existing within the socialist world, all policies implemented by all variants of socialism are based on the pivotal economic and social goals mentioned earlier. The idea of nation, race, and superiority are absent from the socialist thinking.

Fascism, instead, does not call for social equality nor cares about the equal redistribution of wealth and income. A fascist economy aims at the strengthening of the nation, at the propagation of nationalistic principles, and at the enhancement of national superiority.

Even if fascist economic policies often lead to economic growth – from which all segments of society can benefit – social equality is not among the goals of the fascist paradigm.

Socialism and fascism are based on opposite principles and values, however…

Despite their apparent opposition and the historical paths that have led to the striking contrasts between the two ideologies, socialism and fascism have important features in common.

  • They are both strong ideology
  • They both imply strong governmental involvement in economic and social life
  • They both have the power to create strong social movements
  • They both oppose free market
  • They both need a strong governmental apparatus and a strong leader

Socialism and fascism are two strong ideologies, which have been able to create cohesive and powerful social movements. Rarely, during history, have we witnessed such influential and fast-growing social involvement and participation in political life.

  1. In the case of socialism, masses mobilize and support the idea of equal development, equal share of wealth, social equality, enhancement of the community, and collective values. Socialism unites masses under the umbrella of equality, not supremacy.
  2. In the case of fascism, masses mobilize for the achievement of national and racial supremacy over all other countries, over all other minorities, and over all other nations. The idea of equality is alien to the fascism paradigm, while the concept of superiority is pivotal.

In sum

Throughout history, socialism and fascism have been portrayed as opposing and contrasting all-encompassing-theories. Indeed, our recent past provides us with several examples of fascist thinking opposing social thinking, and vice versa.

As we have seen, the two theories originate from opposing values: socialism strives for an equal society, and is based on the idea of democratic ownership, and redistribution of wealth. Conversely, fascism strives for the imposition of national and racial superiority, and advocates for economic growth fostered by national companies and corporations.

In brief, fascism and socialism differ in crucial and central principles.

However, we can also witness important similarities between the two, in particular as far as the role of the state is concerned. Both fascism and socialism require a strong state involvement in economic and social policies. The reason why the government intervenes in public affairs is different, but the means used to achieve different goals are interestingly similar.

Moreover, and more importantly, both have proved to be incredibly powerful and effective ideologies, able to bring together huge masses, and to foster large and cohesive social movements. In addition, the strengthening of socialist and fascist thinking is often enhanced by the growth of middle-class/working-class discontent. Interestingly enough: same origins and social feelings generate opposite political and economic movements that operate in similar ways.

Search DifferenceBetween.net :

Email This Post : If you like this article or our site. Please spread the word. Share it with your friends/family.

Cite
APA 7
Squadrin, G. (2017, July 18). Difference between socialism and fascism. Difference Between Similar Terms and Objects. http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/ideology-politics/difference-between-socialism-and-fascism/.
MLA 8
Squadrin, Giulia. "Difference between socialism and fascism." Difference Between Similar Terms and Objects, 18 July, 2017, http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/ideology-politics/difference-between-socialism-and-fascism/.

48 Comments

Do they have private property in Sweden and Germany? Of course! Does the government own the means of production? Hell no!

You need to explain that people who live under democratic socialism or a social democracy are the happiest on Earth.

Unless, of course, your intent is to distort instead of honestly inform.

Many of the so-called “democratic socialist” countries are not socialist in the least, they have prominent social democratic parties, however as you mentioned they have both private property and private ownership of the means of production for the use of profit. In short these countries are not socialist but rather fluffy capitalism.

The same can be said for Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and most other European states. Of course, there are also Australia, New Zealand, and many other countries.

Why does the United States, or at least its political leaders, use the terms socialism and communism as if they mean the same thing. I was born in Denmark, and I can assure you that the Nordic Model is far from communism.

The United States is probably the definitive example of Capitalism run amok. “If it cannot be monetized, and of course for a profit, it’s not worth doing.”

For a state to flourish, it must have a healthy and well-educated populace. Therefore, universal health care and free education are not a luxury, they are a necessity. These services are not paid for by the state, they are paid for by the taxpayers. These services are not an expense they are an investment in the future.

History clearly demonstrates what happens in a society where the ‘rich get richer, and the poor get poorer’. When the middle class finally realize that they have little left to lose, revolution will soon be on the horizon.

‘Those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it’, and it will not be the first time that the top 1% have ceased to exist.

Hi, can you please provide a list of ideas, services, products that have greatly improved our lives (medical, technical, food supply, etc) which have originated in socialist utopias. Also provide one of same from the “evil capitalist” country. An honest list please. One more favor, if I may? There is no such thing as free medical or education, or anything for that matter. If it were free why do you need to be taxed? Why are most folks from your part of the world “educated from birth” not to be ambitious, over-achiever, a great performer, or more successful than others? You are thought to be humble, modest, unassuming, etc. Example. If you are able to purchase an expensive vehicle, which you may desire, you do not. This shows that you are not boastful. Please explain. Thank you.

A lot of maths comes from communist countries. Most of space tech comes from there. Without it you would not have any satellite etc. Most of the scientists in US come from other more socialist countries.

Nazi Germany had one of the greatest scientific minds, mathematicians, and rocket scientist of all times. That doesn’t justify their failed social philosophy no more than it does the failed philosophies of the socialist. If one does not agree with capitalism, they should seek a new social and economic system never tried before as opposed to one that has over a century of proven failure. As Milton Freedman said, “…history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system.”

Yes, a lot of scientists come from socialist and communist nations that’s why they are living here in the United States. They fled. In their home nations, they were often forced to do so. It was make a scientific breakthrough or loose your family.

Canada is a striking example of a well-balanced system which is quite socialist in many aspects (universal healthcare, high taxes, and elusively for most other “multicultural” societies–successful assimilation of most immigrants). Our bellicose and recently quite pushy southern neighbors think they insult us by portraying Canada as nothing but a north american Scandinavian country where we are basically ‘red’ under our majority white skins. Jokes on them whenever u look at any measure of standard of living, social cohesion, upward mobility, public education, and the real scary one for our unnamed ultra-capitalist frienemy–canada does this despite our far smaller GDP/per capita….YEAH, waaay less stuff-rich!!

I think it’s quite clear there are no hard boundaries between political theories and only something new or a more adept recombination of the same old crappy theories until we find a way to accelerate forward

Jan, you are correct in everything that you said.

So there’s people here that think anything short of our level of capitalism’s Venezuela/North Korea, practically? Is that what you mean? We have a mixed economy here, with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and some welfare, like food stamps and unemployment. I’m an independent, but I know Scandinavia and the rest of Europe’s not much like Cuba these days.

This might give you a better description of the difference between socialism and fascism. Contrary to what you might think both of these ideas are to the left of center. What makes them similar is that both require a strong central government which provides for the society.

Thank you for pointing this out. I was thinking the same thing when I read this article. The most famous socialist in history started the fascist party. Hard to think that one is that different then the other.
.

Another excellent point. Mussolini the founder of fascism was a Marxist. He did not hide this fact. Hitler was a socialist, again a fact he did not hide this. It’s also good to note a recent book by Thomas weber shows Hitler tried to join the German socialist party and it was only after refusing him entry after an argument about a loan, that he joined the national socialist worker party. Why is there a determination by academics to show fascism on the left, when economically its policies are planned economies run by the state or controlled by the state. Possibly because academics are left wing by nature (fed by the public purse) and refuse to accept this fact. It’s the national part of fascism that pains them so much. The fact they sit beside a racist theory so closely should not surprise anyone. They are often strong believers in their own superiority, it’s only a short step to the belief that they know whats best for all, and that plato had a valid point. Thereafter differentiating based on class or race is a short step, as this the choice to remove freedom and choice itself.

Its great to see people question the traditional boxes with which economic and political theories have been placed.

Well done the people! A statement a real socialist could not make.

The article explain this point too if you are patient enough to go to the point. Did you ever think that for capitalism (also defined by Marx) it was a great point to assimilate fascism and socialism as fascism is charged with all the blame of the WWII? Making up stories is a nice way to get rid of a competitors…
“In sum

Throughout history, socialism and fascism have been portrayed as opposing and contrasting all-encompassing-theories. Indeed, our recent past provides us with several examples of fascist thinking opposing social thinking, and vice versa.

As we have seen, the two theories originate from opposing values: socialism strives for an equal society, and is based on the idea of democratic ownership, and redistribution of wealth. Conversely, fascism strives for the imposition of national and racial superiority, and advocates for economic growth fostered by national companies and corporations.

In brief, fascism and socialism differ in crucial and central principles.

*However, we can also witness important similarities between the two, in particular as far as the role of the state is concerned. Both fascism and socialism require a strong state involvement in economic and social policies. The reason why the government intervenes in public affairs is different, but the means used to achieve different goals are interestingly similar.*

Moreover, and more importantly, both have proved to be incredibly powerful and effective ideologies, able to bring together huge masses, and to foster large and cohesive social movements. In addition, the strengthening of socialist and fascist thinking is often enhanced by the growth of middle-class/working-class discontent. Interestingly enough: same origins and social feelings generate opposite political and economic movements that operate in similar ways.”

It seems that socialism and fascism have more in common than not. If you look at the differences you could really call them similarities. Fascism is Socialism on steroids. Socialism is just a softer form of communism as well. They are all tied up in a very similar ideology of the state over the people. These are all left wing beliefs and fascism is not a right wing ideology. This is a falsehood that fascism is right wing. While socialism calls for the redistribution of wealth so that equality is created, this calls for the government to be in control of everything.”The reason why the government intervenes in public affairs is different, but the means used to achieve different goals are interestingly similar.” Claiming doing the same thing but for different reasons is really an argument that doesn’t hold water. You could just say that when socialism is not accepted by all members of the society, it then may turn to fascism in order to establish the governments’ control over the people. Socialism is very closely related to fascism and communism, all left wing.

Actually you are wrong, fascism is leftwing, not rightwing. Socialism is defined as a left wing political ideology, thus the Socialist German Workers’ Party was left, not right, and was also fascist, just like today’s progressive leftists that gave us Obamacare. That is a prime example of the fascist ideology applied to economic theory.

History has proven that socialism and fascism is roughly the same thing. The most efficient state and most powerful state in the world during the 20 century was Nazi Germany they went from a collapsing state to a state of super power in under 5 years. Yes they also fell real quick but that was more the fault of the leaders then the government ideals. What this article gets wrong is Germany was fascist socialist country during this time. German citizen life during the golden years was the best in the world compared to everyone else. Unless you were one of the states listed problems… anyways what I do not understand is why people still refuse to see this. Socialism works but you need smart leadership to propel it forward like any thing else. Every nation should see them self’s as the priority over any other issue its the right of every state that is independent. The only states that cant do this are vassals to other states. The United States is a prime example of a vessel country to other interest.

It was great and golden because they were stealing the wealth of 5% of their society, the Jews, and redistributing it to the rest of their society. Not exactly a good model. In fact, down right evil.

This site perpetrates an evil that continue among leftists and that is the idea that Fascism is on the right. By the definition given Fascism is a system of total government control. Nothing on the right meets that definition, but leftism does. Another failure of this article is to conflate Fascism with Nazism. Nazism was a sister ideology to Fascism but was called by its architects National Socialism, or NSDAP. Leaders of the NSDAP didn’t refer to themselves as Fascists, this fiction was created after WWII by Western Socialists to distance themselves from a political system they adored before the war. Socialists knew if they were tarnished with the truth they’d never be able to gain support in the United States or Europe, so they created a fiction that Fascism and Nazism were “Nationalistic” which made them right wing. This claim was also a lie as Nationalism appears on both the left and the right and is not a defining characteristic of each. The latest fiction of the left is that nobody has done socialism correctly. This fiction appeared after the publication of the Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, this work demonstrated that every instance of Socialism results in inhumanity and death on a mass scale. Prior to the death of Hugo Chavez lefists pointed to Venezuela as a successful Socialist regime. Today even Sean Penn won’t defend Venezuelan Socialism but apologists again claim they didn’t do it right. The only form of Socialism that never had a chance to fail on its own was Nazism as it was defeated by the Allies in 1945.

Mussolini was a Marxist, he always was, he simply believed socialism failed and that it should be replaced by a more nationalist marxisim, ergo fascism based on a misinterpretation of nietzsches superman and platos Republic with an emphasis on the nation state economy.

Capitalism was and is an invention of Marx and engels misrepresentation of the free market. In all economic systems you have corruption, monopolies etc, but Smith et al rallied against this and called for regulation. Marx stated that this corruption, when you ran across it, was the system, he was a turd really.

We do not have capitalism. America uses the term interchangeably and this is reason why fwit socialists still exist. If they used even a modicum of effort and read the road to serfdom they would wake up to were the evil of corruption sleeps easiest.

Hitler was a socialist till the money ran out, that was pretty quick, he then did the same moving towards a more nationalist form of his chosen isim.

Just to make my point clear, otherwise the left will go after you, Hitler’s socialism failed very very early. He began privatising companies which had been nationalised during the depression to raise funds in 35 to pay for the incredible well fare and socialist experiments of his government.

He used govt ious to pay companies (owned by nazi members) to pay for his armaments to avoid these appearing in the budget as well, while avoiding further accounting evidence of his masterplan.

Incidentally its always interesting to note the companies seemed to land in the hands of banks who did not want them, or in the hands of nazi party supporters who did, or most commonly in a mixture.

Seriously F Hayek nailed this desire for planned economies marching hand in hand with corruption so perfectly.

Also some great comments on this site and especially this page.

1. Many nations have claimed to be “socialist”. (I’ve never counted how many.)
2. Most (if not all) of these nations have failed.
3. Socialists will claim socialism was never done right.
4. Let’s take it as granted that socialism was never done “right”. How are we supposed to know that the next group that claims they are implementing socialism is doing it right? Given history, isn’t it more likely to be another instance of socialism being done “wrong”?

Communism, socialism, fascism, they’re not left or right wing. They’re just flavors of statism, all bad.

It’s not left vs. right. It’s the state vs. YOU.

Arguing over left statism vs. right statism is just a sideshow to distract the masses from the real agenda.

That’s only the case when the state is acting contrary to my own wants. Otherwise it’s not a case of versus at all. Public healthcare, social welfare, etc. Those things aren’t against me. But when the state wants to start telling me that I can’t express certain beliefs according to my conscience as they’re “hate speech” or so on, then yeah I’ll call it statism.

DoubleFelix is wrong. I lived in socialist country, I grew up in the socialist system. Public healthcare and social welfare are not that great: it provided by government using government (not independent) employees , provides only minimum for you to survive and continue being the slave/serf of the government.

Socialism is plural fascism. Individual rights are ignored in both philosophies and inefficiencies lead to lower GDP and lower standards of living for it’s citizens in both cases. The socialist experiment in the US colonies in the 1600s removed all incentives for hard work and efficiency which was the main cause for starvation. As soon as Smith introduced the philosophy of private property and individual compensation based on merit, our nation thrived. We have over a hundred years and millions of bodies to prove socialism doesn’t work. Let socialism die like disco.

Like so many others, this author falls into the “left-right” trap. This paradigm arose from the French Revolution where the anti royalist republicans were on the left and those supporting the monarchy were on the right in the parliament. Note that capitalism is not part of the definition. Also note under this definition, the US is an anti royal republic on the left, while Canada in 1776 was on the right, supporting English monarchy.

Todays politics is better analyzed in terms of the individual vs the state. Both fascism and socialism place the state above the individual, whose rights are derived from the state and not innate. The difference is that fascism uses state power to protect a nation or race, socialism uses state power to protect one class against another.

Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.

This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free. Bastiat The Law 1850 NOTHING NEW..

This is very good. I wish you would put this article in video form (or even) in a series of videos because it’s hard to read on my phone. I think I’ll print it out for me but I thought I’d give you my 2 cents.

The far right would not want full government control but a smaller limited government. The far right are closer to libatarians then a lot of things. This article seems to attempt to separate the fact that Hitler called the communists his brothers and saw very similar fundamental ideals within each.

Why don’t you list under Socialist “Venezuela” a country in shambles, riots, run by a ruthless leader. A decade ago it was a leading country in south America and now look at it.

“Clearly, fascism and socialism differ on many fundamental aspects.”
“Primacy of the nation vs protection of everyone’s rights”

Protection of everyone’s rights? Socialism puts the collective ahead of the individual, no individual rights can be superior to the group’s rights under Socialism. Fascism holds the state as supreme, they don’t value individual rights either.

“Private property vs public/social ownership”

In both systems the state controls the economy and is responsible for their citizens. Both value strong social safety nets like universal healthcare and old age pensions. Private property might theoretically exist, but the state can appropriate it at any time. In Germany and Italy factory owners still ‘owned’ their factories, they just didn’t run them.

“In the case of fascism, masses mobilize for the achievement of national and racial supremacy over all…”

Fascism is National Socialism, the state is king, as you noted Mussolini said, “All within the state….” Marxism is International Socialism, the working class is supposed to own everything, but in practice an authoritarian government does. The obsession with race was the Nazi’s version of Fascism, it’s not a prerequisite for a Fascist society.

Socialism has over a century of proven failure. If one doesn’t like free Markets, They should create a new system not yet known to man. While capitalism isn’t perfect, It’s the closet thing yet discovered. As Milton Friedman said, “…history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system.” https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/5001.Milton_Friedman

The only thing “Right” is Less Government. You got it wrong, socialism and fascism are both “Left” leaning, more government forms of control. The Extream right is no government, not fascism.

To say that fascism is far right is factuality incorrect. The father of fascism is a man named Giovanni Gentile. Born in 1875, Gentile was one of the world’s most influential philosophers in the first half of the 20th century. Inspired by his mentor Karl Marx, Gentile believed that the state should resemble a family. This remains a common leftist theme. During the 1984 convention of the Democratic Party, the governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, likened America to “an extended family where, through the government, people all take care of each other.” Thirty years later, the slogan of the 2012 Democratic Party convention was, “The government is the only thing we all belong to.” Gentile considered fascism to be the most workable form of socialism. Fascism mobilizes people by appealing to their national identity as well as their class. Fascists are socialists with a national identity. Gentile also believed all private action should be oriented to serve society, with no distinction between private interest and public interest. He considered the state to be the administrative arm of society, so society and all its members were to submit to the state in everything. Italian fascist dictator, Benito Mussolini, simply paraphrased Gentile when he wrote in his Dottrina del Fascismo, one of the doctrinal statements of early fascism, “All is in the state and nothing human exists or has value outside the state.” Just like Gentile, Democratic progressives champion a centralized state, which explains the recent expansion of state control in the private sectors of healthcare, banking, education and energy. Leftists can’t acknowledge their man, Gentile, because that would undermine their attempt to bind conservatism to fascism. Conservatives support small government in order to empower individual liberties, but the left wants the resources of individuals and industries to service the state. To acknowledge Gentile is to acknowledge that fascism bears a deep kinship to the ideology of today’s left. So, they will keep Gentile where they’ve got him: dead, buried, and forgotten.



Comments:

  1. Vudomi

    I protest against this.

  2. Adalson

    the incomparable message, I like :)

  3. Yozshujas

    You have quickly responded ...

  4. Yeshurun

    I can suggest coming to the site, on which there are a lot of articles on this issue.



Write a message