Allusion, because the ‘socialist’ in NSDAP was purely there to attract votes from the working class, as long as Hitler/NSDAP needed it.
Maybe everything would make more sense if we avoided political language which is “charged” in Western discourse. I suggest this:
German fascism was a collectivist authoritarian philosophy of governance which was justified to the populace by the use of xenophobia, bigotry, and nationalism, and then at the point of a gun. Russian communism was a collectivist authoritarian philosophy of governance which was justified to the populace at the point of a gun, and then by the use of economic class hatred and anti-royalism.
Hence, I think it inarguable when Svetlana Voreskova points out that economically and socially, the two systems were more alike than different.
Your writing does put a bit of a new twist on an old US rightwing trope
(extensively commented at https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hitler_and_socialism linked previously)
Sighs. This pretty much guarantees that your objection to the comparison of the two systems has something to do with US politics, probably some sort of desire to advance the very, very sick system of socialism.
You are arguing that Hitler was in some way a socialist or had socialist principles.You wrote:
Again, let’s put aside the politically charged terminology. Nazism was about authoritarian control. Of not just society, but of the economy. Economic authoritarianism starts with people railing against the capitalists in public. It then migrates slowly into a command economy, using an ever-increasing regulatory state. If it moves ahead further from that point, the government adds tight control over the corporate decisioning process (you find this in China, where it is not unusual to have a government representative sitting on the Board), and then ultimately, assumes control over the means of production through nationalization.
Hitler’s Germany moved through all those phases, more or less. Now, had he been a peaceful Marxist at the beginning, he would have gotten elected, then nationalized everything, then gotten rid of the democratic process, instead of moving through all those phases.
Two different roads, same destination.
Even in that short blip of Nazi history, you already see that a rather wealthy capitalist funded & helped found DAP
Not overly surprising. The rich capitalists benefit from a regulated, command-style economy because it shuts out their smaller, more innovative competitors. The wealthy can manage through the regulatory jungle and buy favors; the smaller competitors cannot afford to do so.
Yes, Hitler hated Jews and he hated Bolschewists & Marxists, in fact everyone left of center.
Nobody ever argued that Hitler was anything but a mass of conflicting principles.
If the Nazis were following ‘socialist principles’ you would expect that practically none of those would wind up in prison, or concentration camps, wouldn’t you?
I believe Svetlana Voreskova addressed this by saying that they did indeed end up in prison, but it’s important to point out that the question is a logical fallacy. One cannot assume A from the absence of B.
Remember who founded DAP? A wealthy business man, Paul Tafel.
But it does not stop there:
Yep. See above. Industrialists were enamoured with the way Hitler re-invigorated the German economy, which was in absolute tatters after WW1 and the US/British/French demands for recompense. And the best way to reboot an economy is by authoritarian means. EVENTUALLY, that leads to capital misallocation that blows up the economy, but capitalists have never been accused of thinking further than an opportunity for immediate profit.
Now, obviously, had they known what was going to happen ultimately, they would have run from the investment. But, nobody knew.
Hitler & the Nazis are as much a ‘Socialist’ as the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is ‘democratic’.
Whether or not he was a “socialist” or not depends on the extent to which he nationalized German industry. You nationalize, it, you’re a socialist. Period, end of conversation.
Now, I don’t know the answer to that question, but I will point out the obvious: that a socialist economy, compared to one which uses bully and regulatory tactics (and threats) to get privately owned companies to do what they want…….is a distinction without a difference. Both socialism and the coersive command economy are inimicable to free markets because they remove the ability of the business to respond to supply and demand signals, just creating misallocations and ultimately, a big freaking mess.
Dollfuß, Horthy, Franco, Mussolini, Ustasha, Hitler, … none of those had any truck with socialism, all of them were staunchly rightwing, all of them were fought by leftists
History teachers know all this
What history teachers know is that right/left is an immature way of looking at political ideologies. Both fascism and socialism are authoritarian collectivist philosophies of governance which act to inhibit wealth creation up and down the economic classes in society. To wit:
As a person who tends to think in economic terms first (Svetlana Voreskova doesn’t operate in the same way) I view socialism and fascism as two sides of the same coin. Both are economically destructive, and you’re never going to have the society you want if everyone’s poor.
SO, it matters not a whit to me, and shouldn’t to you, that Stalin and Lenin might be at 20 to the left, while Hitler was perhaps at 20 to the right. All the Socialists and Fascists and Nazis and Communists are in that blue zone, and nobody should have anything to do with any one of them.