Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

AProgressiveThinker

(248 posts)
Sun May 12, 2013, 09:41 PM May 2013

Why do conservatives claim that Hitler was a leftist?

Hitler privatized public parks, never nationalized a single key arsenal, never nationalized any economic industries, privatized many businesses that benefited the state, and outlawed labor unions and killed their organizers and leaders. The original National Syndicalists were fiscally Third Position, but Hitler was right wing. He also outlawed abortion and killed homosexuals. He also purged the entire left wing in what is known as "The Night of the Long Knives." Eugenics and ultranationalism are far-right on their own, so even if he was a Socialist, he was a right wing socialist.

98 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why do conservatives claim that Hitler was a leftist? (Original Post) AProgressiveThinker May 2013 OP
They desperately do not want to be associated with Fascism and Nazism because they know stevenleser May 2013 #1
Indeed AProgressiveThinker May 2013 #3
Wasn't it President Paul von Hindenberg? derby378 May 2013 #9
Hitler was made Chancellor by Hiddenburg Drale May 2013 #18
This. But to add they believe that their ideology is pure el_bryanto May 2013 #65
This ^ n/t Prophet 451 May 2013 #68
And let's not forget that conservative American businessmen gave rise to the Nazis. Initech May 2013 #97
For the same reason they propagate other lies. silverweb May 2013 #2
Projection AgingAmerican May 2013 #4
Hitler was by no means a socialist Canuckistanian May 2013 #5
Yes, right wing socialism exists AProgressiveThinker May 2013 #10
Was there ever such a society? Canuckistanian May 2013 #15
America in the early 20th century loyalsister May 2013 #79
wasn't Charles Lindbergh one of the prominent American eugenics supporters? /nt Dragonfli May 2013 #87
Yes and an environmentalist loyalsister May 2013 #90
How does corporatism = socialism demwing May 2013 #51
Socialism is a financial system. Fascism is a political system. You can be both. Ian David May 2013 #12
fascism is corporatism which tends to be financial in nature. ellenfl May 2013 #58
Okay, maybe. Ian David May 2013 #60
sorry, not arguing the rw governance, just that people often ellenfl May 2013 #61
Socialised production to benefit an elite ISN'T socialism. I don't think socialism means what YOU HiPointDem May 2013 #72
i was defining fascism, not socialism. the ruling class in the countries mentioned ellenfl May 2013 #98
No, you can't. Socialism is an economic system which by its nature disallows fascism. Fascism HiPointDem May 2013 #73
Got it. n/t Ian David May 2013 #74
Because they are morons. Old and In the Way May 2013 #6
Why do conservatives claim anything? Dyedinthewoolliberal May 2013 #7
Because he was a bad man who did what they secretly want to do Warpy May 2013 #8
Obamacare was invented to save Hitler's brain! nt onehandle May 2013 #11
It worked! (now Hitler is pissed) Dragonfli May 2013 #89
Conservatives and projection go together like flies and you know what. marmar May 2013 #13
It's a convenient misunderstanding of the party name magellan May 2013 #14
NSDAP moondust May 2013 #16
You can't just highlight part of the name and expect it to mean something. stevenleser May 2013 #19
I know that. moondust May 2013 #21
if you don't understand that, check out some of the rw pac/tea party names. eom ellenfl May 2013 #59
Which of the policies are you refering to? TampaAnimusVortex May 2013 #92
Just prop words. defacto7 May 2013 #33
Equating any modern mainstream party to the Nazis is ignorant, stupid and offensive. (nt) Nye Bevan May 2013 #17
on the other hand, Hitler didn't exist in a vacuum demwing May 2013 #52
And not only that, but....... socialist_n_TN May 2013 #91
So we're supposed to be able to smell the death camps before...... socialist_n_TN May 2013 #93
They are not there yet. Nye Bevan May 2013 #96
Because they are morons. Hitler killed leftists, liberals, & communists. He was a rightwing nut job. JaneyVee May 2013 #20
Because a) some of them are that stupid Rex May 2013 #22
because hitler has a bad reputation. unblock May 2013 #23
You'd think with Hitler's rep for killing gays, socialists and liberals magellan May 2013 #46
i'm not saying they disagree with his policies, only that it's bad advertising for them. unblock May 2013 #67
The word "socialist" is part of the Nazi party's name. Deep13 May 2013 #24
That's what I was going to say too laundry_queen May 2013 #32
Well it was certainly an activist government by today's standards Recursion May 2013 #39
More powerfuL?? I think it was more that most governments of the 30s eridani May 2013 #44
That's what I said Recursion May 2013 #45
Because they have no clue what the National SOCIALIST Party stood for. kestrel91316 May 2013 #25
Because the Nazis called themselves "socialists"--and every right winger "knows" Lydia Leftcoast May 2013 #26
This ^^^^^^^ treestar May 2013 #62
Just ask any loud-mouthed Republican Mr.Bill May 2013 #27
Because Hitler was about the evillest guy anybody can think of, The Velveteen Ocelot May 2013 #28
Hitler was a Conservative Authoritarian. Dash87 May 2013 #29
Except Stalin wasn't a leftist, either Scootaloo May 2013 #53
Stalin was a leftist. Hitler was far-right. Dash87 May 2013 #57
Stalin, as Lenin, believed and practised State Capitalism. Democracyinkind May 2013 #69
THey are so far to the right even Atilla the Hun seems too left Rosa Luxemburg May 2013 #30
They just want to distance themselves. abelenkpe May 2013 #31
If you keep repeating the same thing defacto7 May 2013 #34
Conservatives project ArcticFox May 2013 #35
Check out the Ludwig Von Mises Institute... Agnosticsherbet May 2013 #36
I think it might be worth removing the beam from our own thread first... N.T. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #43
Curious biblical refernence. Agnosticsherbet May 2013 #83
That this thread is full of people who cannot believe Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #84
Yes, there are a few here. There are totalitarian mass murderers on both the left and the right. Agnosticsherbet May 2013 #85
I don't. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #86
The US has drifted far enough right that some Rreich economic policy is to the left of us now Recursion May 2013 #37
Ignorance. Stupidity. They're liars. Zoeisright May 2013 #38
Left and right are nonsense labels. David__77 May 2013 #40
Because they're liars. Jamaal510 May 2013 #41
Because on some issues he was. Look up e.g. his welfare policies. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #42
His welfare policies were basically Bismarck's welfare policies eridani May 2013 #47
purely military infrastructure. Democracyinkind May 2013 #48
For Keynsian purposes, infrastructure is infrastructure eridani May 2013 #49
military spending is a form of public consumption Democracyinkind May 2013 #50
Bismarck implemented the first "old age pensions" Kolesar May 2013 #55
"Volkish equality" was not leftist policy Scootaloo May 2013 #54
The early NSDAP did have a number of "leftist" position points... JHB May 2013 #56
Exactly this. backscatter712 May 2013 #64
great post... also Democracyinkind May 2013 #70
You said it yourself MattBaggins May 2013 #63
For the same reason they think Iraq had WMD, Downtown Hound May 2013 #66
Because they hear the "Socialist" part of "National Socialist Party" Arkana May 2013 #71
Rewriting history /nt War Horse May 2013 #75
Same reason vampires don't like mirrors sarisataka May 2013 #76
Because they don't know their butts from a hole in the ground. That's why. Zen Democrat May 2013 #77
Nazis merged with monarchists to have power rest in one individual. That's how they paint Obama. SleeplessinSoCal May 2013 #78
Because.. LeftishBrit May 2013 #80
because conservatives and especially repugs seem to lie a lot samsingh May 2013 #81
Jonah Goldberg Taught Them To, Sir The Magistrate May 2013 #82
because he was a conservative arely staircase May 2013 #88
No clue damnedifIknow May 2013 #94
Because WILLFUL MISINTERPRETATION is what the do emulatorloo May 2013 #95
 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
1. They desperately do not want to be associated with Fascism and Nazism because they know
Sun May 12, 2013, 09:43 PM
May 2013

those -isms are just more extreme versions of conservatism.

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
65. This. But to add they believe that their ideology is pure
Mon May 13, 2013, 10:35 AM
May 2013

they are like children in a way - thus to become more and more conservative is to become better and better; they can't admit that the extreme of their philosophy might be negative.

In fairness, libertarian right wingers don't have as much in common with Fascism/Nazism.

Bryant

Initech

(100,083 posts)
97. And let's not forget that conservative American businessmen gave rise to the Nazis.
Mon May 13, 2013, 08:50 PM
May 2013

But if you bring up facts like that they'll call you a nazi faster than one could seig heil. :eyes
:

Canuckistanian

(42,290 posts)
5. Hitler was by no means a socialist
Sun May 12, 2013, 09:46 PM
May 2013

His party's name was a ruse to garner more of the centrist and center left vote. It was dishonest as hell.

But, once he was in, he dropped any pretense about being a progressive.

And there's no such thing as a "right wing socialist"

10. Yes, right wing socialism exists
Sun May 12, 2013, 09:48 PM
May 2013

Right wing Socialism is a real thing. Examples of right wing socialism are types of eugenics where the master race lives in a Socialist system and corporatism is also right wing Socialism. Look this up.

Canuckistanian

(42,290 posts)
15. Was there ever such a society?
Sun May 12, 2013, 10:07 PM
May 2013

I can't think of one. Romania during Ceausescu once had an extensive eugenics policy, but they were hardly right wing.

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
79. America in the early 20th century
Mon May 13, 2013, 06:26 PM
May 2013

Also had an extensive eugenics policy with an unholy alliance. Right wingers and progressive groups supported eugenics for different reasons. The right wingers wanted to create a "Nordic Superior Race" and progressives wanted to keep people from suffering. Some in the middle supported the practices because they believed that the targeted populations (immigrants, people with various disabilities and people believed to be of poor moral character) were a drain on society and the common good.

Americans who came from "proper" backgrounds were encouraged to practice positive eugenics to reproduce (with each other) as much as possible, while marriage restrictions were enforced to limit the introduction of bad genes into the preferred race.
Progressives supported the practice of negative eugenics where they tried to limit the perpetuation of bad genes through forced sterilization and marriage restrictions, based on the idea that children should not born into conditions where they would suffer.

One supporter of American eugenics complained that "Hitler was getting ahead of us."

Once again, the good old days weren't all that good.

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
90. Yes and an environmentalist
Mon May 13, 2013, 08:03 PM
May 2013

Alexander Graham Bell and Margaret Sanger also supported eugenics for what they believed were humanitarian reasons.

Ian David

(69,059 posts)
12. Socialism is a financial system. Fascism is a political system. You can be both.
Sun May 12, 2013, 09:57 PM
May 2013

But Hitler was neither Socialist nor left-wing.

ellenfl

(8,660 posts)
58. fascism is corporatism which tends to be financial in nature.
Mon May 13, 2013, 09:14 AM
May 2013

both philosophies were used politically.

Ian David

(69,059 posts)
60. Okay, maybe.
Mon May 13, 2013, 09:21 AM
May 2013

But in theory, you could have Socialist financial policies, and still be on the far-right wing on everything else. Just because people have public roads and water systems does not mean they can't also have a dictatorship that imposes harsh rules and commits genocides.

ellenfl

(8,660 posts)
61. sorry, not arguing the rw governance, just that people often
Mon May 13, 2013, 09:27 AM
May 2013

conflate fascism with nazism. mussolini coined 'fascism' which defined the corporate controlled italian government of the time. in practice, it is the same as the 'socialism/communism' of germany in the 30s/40s and the ussr. it is actually where we are now headed, with the ruling class enjoying success while the rest of us become serfs.

paraphrasing inigo montoya to our rw . . . 'i don't think socialism/fascism means what you think it means'.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
72. Socialised production to benefit an elite ISN'T socialism. I don't think socialism means what YOU
Mon May 13, 2013, 02:47 PM
May 2013

think it does.

ellenfl

(8,660 posts)
98. i was defining fascism, not socialism. the ruling class in the countries mentioned
Mon May 13, 2013, 09:58 PM
May 2013

were not socialists. they weren't even communists. they were oligarchs and that's where i meant we are headed.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
73. No, you can't. Socialism is an economic system which by its nature disallows fascism. Fascism
Mon May 13, 2013, 02:49 PM
May 2013

is control by an elite. Socialism = worker control of production and consumption. Worker control disallows control by an elite to whom most of the benefits of socialized production accrue.

Dyedinthewoolliberal

(15,579 posts)
7. Why do conservatives claim anything?
Sun May 12, 2013, 09:47 PM
May 2013

Except to further an agenda that is oppressive and favors the wealthy...........

Warpy

(111,282 posts)
8. Because he was a bad man who did what they secretly want to do
Sun May 12, 2013, 09:47 PM
May 2013

and because they're profoundly ignorant people who think anything they shouldn't like is somehow "leftist."

That's why.

magellan

(13,257 posts)
14. It's a convenient misunderstanding of the party name
Sun May 12, 2013, 10:00 PM
May 2013

But the only socialism the Nazis promoted was the community working together for the nation (not for the people) -- and only as long as the community was made up of healthy hetero Aryans. That's why white supremacist groups latch onto Nazi symbols and revere Hitler.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
19. You can't just highlight part of the name and expect it to mean something.
Sun May 12, 2013, 10:52 PM
May 2013

National Socialism is not the same thing as "Socialism". THey dont believe in virtually any of the same policies.

moondust

(19,993 posts)
21. I know that.
Sun May 12, 2013, 11:02 PM
May 2013


Selectively picking and choosing words and phrases out of context without regard for their intended meaning is a shameless tactic of the rabid right.

Another example: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

TampaAnimusVortex

(785 posts)
92. Which of the policies are you refering to?
Mon May 13, 2013, 08:09 PM
May 2013

Your bringing up the concept of policies, which ones in particular are or aren't socialist here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program#The_25-point_Program_of_the_NSDAP

One could argue the following points sound fairly socialist, either directly or indirectly:
13
14
15
16
18 - not directly socialist, but highly anti-capitalistic

So, I wouldn't say they don't believe ANY of the same policies... They didn't just call themselves socialists randomly.

That said, most of what is listed there is simply fascist rather than socialist or communistic.

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)
91. And not only that, but.......
Mon May 13, 2013, 08:07 PM
May 2013

the Hitler's power when he began isn't the same as when he was at the height of his power.

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)
93. So we're supposed to be able to smell the death camps before......
Mon May 13, 2013, 08:11 PM
May 2013

we can call a modern manifestation of fascism in it's earliest forms, fascism? I don't think so. I'd rather fight fascism BEFORE they come for me.

And I'm doing some research on fascism and the Tea Party organizations for a future article. So far with just a few minutes, I've found four correlations between the Teabaggers and the fascists. I'm sure there will be more.

unblock

(52,261 posts)
23. because hitler has a bad reputation.
Sun May 12, 2013, 11:09 PM
May 2013

if hitler somehow had a good reputation, they would claim him as their own in a heartbeat.

magellan

(13,257 posts)
46. You'd think with Hitler's rep for killing gays, socialists and liberals
Mon May 13, 2013, 04:16 AM
May 2013

...and for busting unions, the right would be in paroxysms of Nazi worship, not trying to disavow any connection to him.

Deep13

(39,154 posts)
24. The word "socialist" is part of the Nazi party's name.
Sun May 12, 2013, 11:30 PM
May 2013

Just like the word "Democratic" is in North Korea's official name.

That's about as deep as EW thinking gets.

laundry_queen

(8,646 posts)
32. That's what I was going to say too
Mon May 13, 2013, 12:44 AM
May 2013

conservative thinking (yes, an oxymoron) is incapable of getting past the window dressing.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
39. Well it was certainly an activist government by today's standards
Mon May 13, 2013, 01:45 AM
May 2013

Governments were just much more powerful in the 1930s than today, all over the place. To the extent that some people view the right/left distinction as one about power of government (it's not, really), then every government in the 1930's would be to the "left" of every government today.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
44. More powerfuL?? I think it was more that most governments of the 30s
Mon May 13, 2013, 04:08 AM
May 2013

--did a hell of a lot of Keynsian spending to get out of the Great Depression. Hitler included.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
45. That's what I said
Mon May 13, 2013, 04:15 AM
May 2013

Government spending was a much larger portion of the economy, and so government had a much more direct say in things, all along the political spectrum.

But please do note that Keynesianism isn't simply "big government". It's just government that runs deficits in recessions and surplusses in expansions. Nobody's ever actually tried this except Bill Clinton.

Lydia Leftcoast

(48,217 posts)
26. Because the Nazis called themselves "socialists"--and every right winger "knows"
Sun May 12, 2013, 11:46 PM
May 2013

that socialism is a BAD THING, even though they aren't quite sure what it is.

By their logic, Cream of Wheat is a dairy product.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
62. This ^^^^^^^
Mon May 13, 2013, 10:11 AM
May 2013

The Cream of Wheat reference is perfect.

This saves them from comparisons to the Nazis and that they share some similar goals. The can conveniently compartmentalize the evil Nazis and socialists and therefore leftists and hide from the fact their views are the ones that lead towards that path.

Dash87

(3,220 posts)
29. Hitler was a Conservative Authoritarian.
Sun May 12, 2013, 11:55 PM
May 2013

Comparing Nazi Germany to present day American politics is a little silly, and I doubt Hitler would approve of either party.

It's interesting, though - if they wanted a valid version of a leftist murderer, they could actually use Stalin - Leftist Authoritarian, killed more people than Hitler did. What either man has to do with present day American politics is a the real question (spoiler: nothing)?

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
53. Except Stalin wasn't a leftist, either
Mon May 13, 2013, 07:05 AM
May 2013

If you want to use Lenin for an example of a leftist authoritarian, that at least works. But Stalin was every bit as much a reactionary fascist as Hitler was, and as with the Nazis, the "leftism" was just a veneer of slogans and gestures.

Dash87

(3,220 posts)
57. Stalin was a leftist. Hitler was far-right.
Mon May 13, 2013, 09:07 AM
May 2013

Stalin was hardline Communist / Authoritarian, and while having similarities to fascism, he was not a fascist. The two were both authoritarian murderers, but their ideologies were fairly incompatable with each other.

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
69. Stalin, as Lenin, believed and practised State Capitalism.
Mon May 13, 2013, 02:02 PM
May 2013

But yes, they called it communism mostly for marketing reasons (the movement they coopted was leftist in nature.)

There's this great dialogue in "the kindly ones" about this... Not to say that they were rightists, but these details can explain a lot.

abelenkpe

(9,933 posts)
31. They just want to distance themselves.
Mon May 13, 2013, 12:03 AM
May 2013

Conservatives are fond of rewriting history. In their view FDR's new deal was just an elaborate setup for the crash of 2008. Slave owners were nice guys who were loved and treated their slaves well. Women were happier at home. Blah blah blah


defacto7

(13,485 posts)
34. If you keep repeating the same thing
Mon May 13, 2013, 01:01 AM
May 2013

over and over... it changes the facts... It's like prayer, only you pray to the media.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
36. Check out the Ludwig Von Mises Institute...
Mon May 13, 2013, 01:19 AM
May 2013

the man rewrote the whole political science theory because he could not tolerate the notion that anything on the right side of the political spectrum could be bad or wrong. You can find it by goggling the "Ludwig Von Mises Institute..."

Read that, and I you survive the mandatory 15 point drop in your IQ, you will understand that part of the "Big Lie" foisted by conservatives on the rest of the world.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
83. Curious biblical refernence.
Mon May 13, 2013, 07:29 PM
May 2013

Are you implying that Hitler was a leftist, or those in the thread are to biased to criticize the right, which is the gist of the biblical reference.

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
84. That this thread is full of people who cannot believe
Mon May 13, 2013, 07:33 PM
May 2013

that anything on bad or wrong could be on the left side of the political spectrum.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
85. Yes, there are a few here. There are totalitarian mass murderers on both the left and the right.
Mon May 13, 2013, 07:38 PM
May 2013

And I suspect we might even find some at the center.

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
86. I don't.
Mon May 13, 2013, 07:39 PM
May 2013

Mass murderers are extremist in some sense pretty much by definition. If you don't differ widely from other people, why kill them?

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
37. The US has drifted far enough right that some Rreich economic policy is to the left of us now
Mon May 13, 2013, 01:43 AM
May 2013

The Reich government was more active in the economy than the American Right would like the US government to be, so there are plenty of examples to cherry pick (though they often wrongly attribute to Hitler aspects of the German welfare state that date back to Bismark).

David__77

(23,423 posts)
40. Left and right are nonsense labels.
Mon May 13, 2013, 02:06 AM
May 2013

But Hitler was most certainly pro-capitalist, not a socialist. In the Nazi party, the Strasser brothers represented the socialist (though racist and reactionary) forces.

Hitler waved a red flag, talked about the evils of the bourgeoisie, the merits of the working class, and his devotion to "socialism." That's why some feel that they can get away with talking of him being a leftist.

Hitler was pro-capitalist, saw class division as a natural outgrowth of innate ability, opposed women having a role in the sphere of public administration, and of course was a genocidal imperialist and racist! Not "leftist" per most people's definition.

Jamaal510

(10,893 posts)
41. Because they're liars.
Mon May 13, 2013, 02:42 AM
May 2013

It probably adds to the confusion, though, how there is a hate group called "National Socialist Movement", so it's easier for most rank-and-file RWers to associate socialism and Left-wing politics with evil.

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
42. Because on some issues he was. Look up e.g. his welfare policies.
Mon May 13, 2013, 03:53 AM
May 2013

I believe there was an interesting book a while back on how a lot of France's welfare policies are left over from Vichy too, which was well reviewed (although I haven't read it myself, and I'm not enough of a historian to comment on the accuracy of that)

eridani

(51,907 posts)
47. His welfare policies were basically Bismarck's welfare policies
Mon May 13, 2013, 04:20 AM
May 2013

The only thing Hitler added was a lot of Keynsian infrastructure spending. Most governments in the 30s that tried that found that it worked, so they did it some more. Including Hitler.

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
48. purely military infrastructure.
Mon May 13, 2013, 05:05 AM
May 2013

Adam Tooze, the wages of destruction excellently destroys the notion that the nazis promoted welfare socialism. war socialism it might be called, i guess.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
49. For Keynsian purposes, infrastructure is infrastructure
Mon May 13, 2013, 05:07 AM
May 2013

Both our own interstate highway system and the autobahns were sold as necessary for "defense," but were mostly used as civilian infrastructure.

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
50. military spending is a form of public consumption
Mon May 13, 2013, 06:38 AM
May 2013

Last edited Mon May 13, 2013, 08:36 AM - Edit history (1)

... it does therefore have a keynesian aspect, i agree. Socialism it is not. Socialism, imho, is public consumption, bit only when directed to wellfare. Military spending is therefore not Socialism per se.

I did not write this in disagreement with you. rather to just expand on the theme.

edit: the autobahn had almost NO civilian use. Contrary to our highways, it was a purely military project.

Kolesar

(31,182 posts)
55. Bismarck implemented the first "old age pensions"
Mon May 13, 2013, 07:20 AM
May 2013

A program that was copied in the US by Social Security

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
54. "Volkish equality" was not leftist policy
Mon May 13, 2013, 07:17 AM
May 2013

A typical welfare state seeks to lessen, if not erase socioeconomic divisions between the castes of the society. Everyone is entitled to receive the benefits the state offers.

The Nazis didn't do that. They had a welfare system... which only German citizens of aryan descent could take part in. The entire concept is founded on hardening and reinforcing existing caste stratification, and reinforcing the dominance of the already-dominant caste. Further, the Nazis operated as a meritocracy; their "welfare" was not a case of caretaking the less fortunate, even among those who were among the "in" caste (remember, the first victims of the Holocaust were the handicapped and mentally ill) - it was about rewarding those "brutes" who performed the best. This actually ended up creating caste stratification within the "herranvolk" caste, with the ill-abled or inept at the bottom, the better-abled above them, and the people already well-off at the top.

JHB

(37,161 posts)
56. The early NSDAP did have a number of "leftist" position points...
Mon May 13, 2013, 07:51 AM
May 2013

...that appealed to socialist-favoring workers. For instance, from their original "25-Point Program" of 1920:

10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently we demand:
11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
17. 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.
18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school (Staatsbuergerkunde) as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
The other points are those we more commonly associate with right-wing nationalists these days.

This continued through the Strasser wing of the party, favoring the brothers Gregor and Otto Strasser.

The name Strasserism came to be applied to this form of Nazism that developed around the brothers. Although they had been involved in the creation of the National Socialist Program of 1920, both called on the party to commit to 'breaking the shackles of finance capital'.[1] This opposition to "Jewish finance capitalism," which they contrasted to "productive capitalism," was shared by Adolf Hitler himself, who borrowed it from Gottfried Feder.[2]

This populist and antisemitic form of anti-Capitalism was further developed in 1925 when Otto Strasser published the Nationalsozialistische Briefe, which discussed notions of class conflict, wealth redistribution and a possible alliance with the Soviet Union. His 1930 follow-up Ministersessel oder Revolution ('Cabinet Seat or Revolution') went further by attacking Hitler's betrayal of the socialist aspect of Nazism, as well as criticizing the notion of Führerprinzip.[3] Whilst Gregor Strasser echoed many of the calls of his brother, his influence on the ideology is less, due to his remaining in the Nazi Party longer and to his early death. Otto, meanwhile, continued to expand his argument, calling for the break-up of large estates and the development of something akin to a guild system and the related establishment of a Reich cooperative chamber to take a leading role in economic planning.[4] Strasserism, therefore, became a distinct strand of Nazism that, whilst holding on to previous Nazi ideals such as ultranationalism and anti-Semitism, added a strong critique of capitalism and framed this in the demand for a more "socialist-based" approach to economics.

It is disputed, however, whether Strasserism effectively represented a distinct form of Nazism. According to historian Ian Kershaw, "the leaders of the SA (which included Gregor Strasser) did not have another vision of the future of Germany or another politic to propose." But they advocated the radicalization of the Nazi regime, and the toppling of the German elites, calling Hitler's rise to power a "half-revolution," which needed to be completed.


To keep a long story short, their faction was eliminated during the Night of the Long Knives purge.

So, during the 1920's there's an argument to be made that they were socialists, as long as you remember that it was a faction of the party, with an opposing faction. And it was the Strasser faction that was put to the knife, by Hitler loyalists.

But Hitler, particularly once he consolidated power and didn't have to "play nice" to anyone? Calling him "leftist" or "socialist" is so ignorant it's more of a vacuum than a gap in knowledge. It actively sucks in garbage.

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
64. Exactly this.
Mon May 13, 2013, 10:33 AM
May 2013

Hitler himself was not a socialist - he just gladhanded the socialist-leaning elements of his party, and sucked people in with the rhetoric in the early years, until he had enough power that he could use the long knives on them.

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
70. great post... also
Mon May 13, 2013, 02:06 PM
May 2013

Hitler didn't end up in the DAP because he was attracted to Socialism. They sent him there to spy on them and then he decided to coopt the party. But even the DAP outspoken brand of Socialism was völkisch in nature and therefore, in Marx' terminology, reactionary, not revolutionary. Bourgeois pseudorevolutionism.

MattBaggins

(7,904 posts)
63. You said it yourself
Mon May 13, 2013, 10:15 AM
May 2013

They never get past the Nationalsozialismus name.

They have no idea was the SA was, nor what the Röhm-Putsch was truly about.

Downtown Hound

(12,618 posts)
66. For the same reason they think Iraq had WMD,
Mon May 13, 2013, 10:40 AM
May 2013

Bush was a great president, all Muslims are evil, tax cuts for the rich are the magic ingredient that will make all of us prosperous, and global warming is a hoax:

IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE FUCKING STUPID!

Arkana

(24,347 posts)
71. Because they hear the "Socialist" part of "National Socialist Party"
Mon May 13, 2013, 02:06 PM
May 2013

and immediately assume Hitler must have been some sort of commie pinko.

That's literally all it is. They're like Pavlov's dogs--trained to foam at the mouth at a certain sound.

Zen Democrat

(5,901 posts)
77. Because they don't know their butts from a hole in the ground. That's why.
Mon May 13, 2013, 06:05 PM
May 2013

It's probably because the RW radio thugs always say that the Nazis were "National Socialists." That S-word hangs them up every time.

SleeplessinSoCal

(9,123 posts)
78. Nazis merged with monarchists to have power rest in one individual. That's how they paint Obama.
Mon May 13, 2013, 06:09 PM
May 2013

It's diabolical and completely insane. That's what the far right is. My question is why true conservatives would stand for what's going on.

LeftishBrit

(41,208 posts)
80. Because..
Mon May 13, 2013, 06:30 PM
May 2013

(a) they think everybody and everything that's bad is 'leftist'; (b) Hitler did call his party 'National Socialist' and they can't get beyond the word; (c) some right-wingers equate leftism with state authoritarianism.

The Magistrate

(95,248 posts)
82. Jonah Goldberg Taught Them To, Sir
Mon May 13, 2013, 06:45 PM
May 2013

Wrote a book claiming both Hitler and Mussolini really were progenitors or inheritors of the Progressive movement, and that Liberalism really was, therefore, Fascism and Nazi-ism, and the ditto-heads just lapped it up....

emulatorloo

(44,133 posts)
95. Because WILLFUL MISINTERPRETATION is what the do
Mon May 13, 2013, 08:27 PM
May 2013

Along with projection. That's what fuels the Republican Lie Machine.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why do conservatives clai...