By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Was Hitler a Socialist?

collint0101 said:
fleischr said:

When big corporations team up with the government to force acquisition of smaller corporations or competitors, or simply to swindle people, that's not capitalism. That's fascism.

A true capitalist society recognizes individual property rights and doesn't weaponize the government to abuse them.

I feel like you're getting socialism, capitalism and fascism mixed up. By your definition the USA in the late 1800s and early 1900s was fascist because of the role big business and monopolies played in shaping policy

Actually I got this pretty clear. US= capitalist. Nazi Germany. Fascist/Kind of socialist.

Corporations in the 1800s/1900s in the USA achieved great scale and monopolies not through government intervention, but through expanding and exploiting the market itself. It wasn't a fascist system - it was one in which the likes of Edison, Rockefeller, and JP Morgan knew how to build industries that genuinely benefited people and the world at large. When they bought up or outdid competitors - they didn't use (and didn't need) the government to do that. They had superior products and services that led them there.

It is true these titans of industry were several times more wealthy than the US government and were asked to bail out the US Government. By those times, they had built such insurmountably large enterprises they could be reasonably asked to do so.

Compare that IG Farben - the best company to exemplify Nazi economic fascism. The Nazis made specific economic policy to benefit IG Farben, but also made very specific demands of the company in return.

Capitalism runs on minimal government intervention. Fascism runs on more extensive government intervention by gov't distortion of markets. Socialism runs on extensive government intervention - sometimes to abolish markets but sometimes not - in order to best provide social welfare. In the case of the Nazis, it was a socialist system meant to benefit one racial group at expense of the other.

I predict NX launches in 2017 - not 2016

Around the Network

I am 100% sure he was a Nazi. You kinda of HAVE to have some social aspects of a government for it to work efficiently. Anyone can have social programs and still be a Nazi. Even in the USA, people want their Social Security and Medicare even if you want to call yourself conservative. Now of this is related to him committing genocide.

It really depends on what you mean.

There were definitely a lot of social programs implemented by Hitler's regime. So in that sense he was a socialist.

But was socialism the ideology that drove him? Very much not.

Nighthawk117 said:
He was a progressive.


irstupid said:

Who gives a shit. Somehow classifying someone in history as a socialists, progressive, communist, conservative, liberalist, ect doesn't all then equate anyone of that as the next Hitler.


irstupid said:

Any the above I listed and others, if you go extreme enough, you end up with a Hitler or Stalin or other person in history that did mass genocide. It's never where they fall on the spectrum of any sort of philosophy, party, ect. It's when someone becomes extreme do those things happen.

It is called the Horseshoe political theory.
The farther left or right you go, the more they are the same.

Nighthawk117 said:

Progressive: Favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters.

Fits him quite well.  I'm not saying he wasn't brutal in his methods.  But, he got things done.

Hitler was a fascist nationalist, he wanted to place the German/Aryan Race above all others as he believed in their superiority and wanted to conserve the German way of life.
It is no different from current far-right conservatives wanting to ban Muslim immigration all around the world.

Hitler did take some progressive socialist ideas and implemented them... But that doesn't mean he was a lefty/progressive, you can be both you know.
It's like when John Howard was in power here in Australia, he was a right-wing conservative... Was against Gay rights and all the other crap... Yet he implemented a variety of left-wing policies, especially in regards to healthcare.

Just because you are right wing/left wing doesn't mean you cannot implement schemes that are on the opposite of your political alignment.

Nighthawk117 said:
Trump is a Capitalistic Nationalist. Nothing wrong with that.

There isn't anything wrong with that.

JRPGfan said:

They both blame immigrants for lack of jobs for the common folk, in order to gain popularity and win votes.
Promised to do something about all these immigrants on the behalf of the nation.

That situation with immigrant children caged and separated from mother/father... and no way of finding them again ect.
A more radical Trump would be a new hitler.

The Anti-Jewish sentiment of Hitler does ring allot of similarities of the Anti-Muslim sentiment that Trump promotes... Sad part is... In conjunction with Christianity they are all middle-eastern Abrahamic religions that share the same Judaic God, apparently people don't like to learn from history and thus are prone to repeat it.

Just another example why all religion should be abolished until they can prove their assertions.

Nighthawk117 said:

Does Trump engage in genocide?  Has he built any concentration camps?

He does have concentration camps.

Genocide probably wouldn't fly unless he had general bipartisan support.

RolStoppable said:

But if they did that, they couldn't make the point they were trying to make: That the political right is superior.

The left or the right aren't superior. They are just two opposing views, two sides of a coin if you will.
And in a properly functioning democratic society... You need those two opposing views to make opposing arguments... Those arguments are then presented in a democratic fashion and the best argument should win for the benefit of the majority who typically reside in the center.

This whinging about the left or the right at the end of the day isn't constructive, it isn't moving the debate forward, it is toxic.

epicurean said:
It's comical to see liberals say Trump is the exact same and Hitler, and conservatives say he is socialist.

Neither is correct, nor does it even matter. He was a fascist who got complete control. Learn that lesson. You can hate on socialists or conservatives for other reasons.

There are some parallels that can be drawn between Trump and Hitler. Many that can't be however.
Trump most certainly does engage in fascist politics, whether he is an actual fascist I am still on the fence about.

I think the scary part about it is... Many far-right ultra-nationalist conservatives would rather place loyalty to Trump rather than the actual rule of law.

--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

You could say it was a kind of socialism, the Nazi idea of "Volksgemeinschaft" (people's community) and the idea of a classless society of Marx have some similarities. But the big difference is that it's based on racism and nationalism (so only for certain people), not on internationalism.

The anti-capitalist parts of the Nazi agenda were mostly antisemitic propaganda.

Last edited by episteme - on 08 October 2018

Around the Network

mr wayne i've recently seen you claiming that equality of opportunity must lead to equality of outcomes over time...

so with that being said i'm thinking that i probably am not going to be able to have a rational conversation with you on this topic
but regardless hitler's policies by the majority were socialist policies:

free healhcare, state funded education, state funded child care, jobs for all(initially), government control over businesses etc etc etc


capitalism, the antithesis to socialism is about private ownership over the means of production which was not allowed since as i have mentioned the nazis controlled businesses in their regime

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 08 October 2018

WolfpackN64 said:
Of course not. He was a fascist and never claimed otherwise.

can you explain how fascism and socialism are mutually exclusive?

i'd argue that socialism is in line at least partially with fascism because socialism is about stopping private ownership or in other words opposition to state owned business

"Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy"

RolStoppable said:
The only people I have ever seen call Hitler or his party socialist, are people who were clearly right-leaning (as in, the range of very right to far right) and tried to make a point that the left is what brought the worst things to this world.

i'm not right leaning, all i advocate for is the importance of individuality and freedom and i am frankly disgusted by the increasing number of people advocating for giving up more and more of their rights for security from the government

collint0101 said:
fleischr said:

"National Socialist" translates to Nationalsozialistischen So "Nazi" for short.

The Nazis weren't capitalist. They seized private property, mandated extensive state control in the economy, and loathed trade with nations that didn't share goals of the Nazi ethnostate.

Socialists seize private property, mandate extensive control in the economy, and loathe the existence of capitalist market societies.

I don't think all socialists are Nazis - but there's an undeniable similarities between the two that make it clear that Nazis were/are socialists.

The word privatization was literally invented to describe Nazi economic policies. Then people still try to say they weren't capitalist 

Yeap, the Nazi's actually privatized more things in Germany then any other country during the same time period so his statement is 100% false.

Chris Hu said:
collint0101 said:

The word privatization was literally invented to describe Nazi economic policies. Then people still try to say they weren't capitalist 

Yeap, the Nazi's actually privatized more things in Germany then any other country during the same time period so his statement is 100% false.

when will you stop with these lies?

" German business increasingly turned to Nazism as offering a way out of the situation, by promising a state-driven economy that would support, rather than attack, existing business interests.[35] By January 1933, the Nazi Party had secured the support of important sectors of German industry, mainly among the steel and coal producers, the insurance business and the chemical industry.[36]

Large segments of the Nazi Party, particularly among the members of the Sturmabteilung (SA), were committed to the party's official socialist, revolutionary and anti-capitalist positions and expected both a social and an economic revolution when the party gained power in 1933."


" Hitler actively sought to gain the support of business leaders by arguing that private enterprise is incompatible with democracy."


 "In addition, the Nazis privatised public properties and public services, but at the same time they increased economic state control through regulations."


for the hundredth time, a business is not private if its controlled by the state

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 08 October 2018