Were The Nazis Socialists And Le

Were The Nazis and the Fascists Left-Wingers and Socialists?

First, not everyone who calls him/herself a ‘socialist’ is a socialist, just as a King Crab isn’t a King, just as the East River in New York isn't a river, or the State of Rhode Island isn’t an island. Indeed, just as not everyone who calls him/herself a Republican is a Republican. Ever heard of the phrase “Republican in name only” [RINO]? The “Nationalist” part of “Nazism” [Nazi = National Socialist] negates the “Socialist” part — rather like “Atheism, big government, pro-choice, open borders, greatly reduced military expenditure, and high taxation” would negate Republicanism.

Of course, there are critics who ignore the above and who retort “It’s in their name, for goodness sake — ‘National Socialist’!” In that case I am sure they also believe that the regime in N Korea is democratic since that’s in their name, too: the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”.

The growth of universal suffrage since the turn of the 20th century has meant that if any party (of the right, the centre or even the ‘acceptable’ left) wants to win electoral support they have to offer popular policies. After WW1, Germany was dominated by the largest socialist party on the planet, the SPD, and a very large communist party, the KPD, as well as other leftist groups. If the Nazis ever hoped to win power, they had to offer popular, socialist-looking policies in order to draw support from the other two main parties, and they had to have a name that suggested they were serious about doing that. We have witnessed something similar in 'the west' since then. For example, both Republican and Democratic parties in the USA pretend to be the party of working people, even though, when in power, they do sod all for working people. Same here in UK, and the rest of Europe. But, we can see how sincere the Nazis were when in office; they sided with big capital from the get-go, and destroyed all the institutions of working class power (unions and parties) almost as quickly. For these reasons, the Nazis incorporated the word "socialist" in their title — they wouldn’t choose ‘communist’ because of the involvement of the KPD in the failed German Revolution of 1918–23, and because the Nazis were an anti-Bolshevik party. By way of contrasts, the SPD had been in the forefront of the fight against that revolution, so the word "socialist" wasn’t ‘tainted’ in the eyes of ordinary Germans.

Far more important than what a party says, however, is what it does when in power. As noted above, the Nazis in office fully supported the capitalist system, as did the fascists in Italy, Spain, Chile and Portugal. They were pretend anti-capitalists. Hence, the Nazis were ‘socialist’ in name only, and had nothing whatsoever to do with socialism as such — indeed, as we are about to see.

Second, you have to look at who the Nazis, the alt-right and the fascists associate themselves with. For example, in Charlottesville, back in August 2017, they attended a ‘Unite the Right’ march. So they, at least, know where they belong. Have you ever seen the Nazis or the fascists march with the genuine socialists? The column of demonstrators that was attacked back in August 2017, with that car killing Heather Heyer, driven by a fascist subsequently convicted for her murder, was largely comprised of members of the Democratic Socialists of America and the International Socialists. Furthermore, when the fascists are in power the first to be arrested or killed are the socialists. The Nazis rounded up and threw the latter (and the communists) into Dachau long before they even began to pogrom the Jews.

Third, socialism is first and foremost an internationalist movement/ideology, whose rallying call (drawn from The Communist Manifesto) is the following: "[Workers] of all countries unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains". Ever seen the Nazis or the fascists come out with that one? In fact, the Nazis preach the exact opposite of this; they regard internationalism -- which they call "cosmopolitanism”, or these days “globalism”, their code words for a mythical ‘Jewish world conspiracy’ aimed at destroying the ‘white race’ -- as the enemy. It underpins their fairy tales about 'white genocide' and the alleged plot devised by 'international Jewry' to replace the 'white race' (the latter phrase invented in the early 18th century to 'justify' slavery and ‘white supremacy’ in the USA; it didn’t exist before then). That is why the fascists were chanting "Jews will not replace us" as they marched through Charlottesville in mid-August 2017 — those whom Trump called "very fine people" a few days later, while Heather Heyer lay in the morgue.

Fourth, the narrative that Nazis and the fascists are left wing, or are socialists, is then conflated with fanciful ruminations about the nature of Russian communism, which is then used to smear socialism and leftism in general with all the hideous crimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro. This fable is then elaborated upon with the specious argument that communism is just another form of Nazism -- they are both collectivist and totalitarian, and hence they are really the same.

That argument is no more sophisticated than this one:

Cats have legs, heads and eyes.

So do alligators.

Therefore, cats and alligators are really the same.

Those who now try to equate fascism and Nazism with communism or socialism conveniently forget that conservatives back in the 1930s (both sides of the Atlantic) viewed the Nazis and the fascists in a positive light — as good anti-communists, allies in the fight against Marxism, socialism and leftism in general. Indeed, many of them helped bankroll Hitler or did business with the Nazis.

Here is a picture of Henry Ford, for example, receiving the Grand Cross of the German Eagle from Nazi officials, 1938:

Henry Ford also wrote The International Jew, an anti-Semitic tract much admired by the Nazis.

The_International_Jew

Henry_Ford

Henry Ford wasn’t known as a supporter of Marxism, socialism or, indeed, workers’ power. You do the math…

American supporters of the European Fascists

Notorious Nazi collaborators or sympathisers

Nazis & America: The USA’s Fascist Past

German American Bund

When Nazis Filled Madison Square Garden

American-Nazis-in-the-1930s

Hitler even gained the support of prominent, conservative newspaper owners — such as Randolph Hearst:

=====================

All this ever-more-fabulous wealth–perhaps $140 million by 1935–began to seep ever-deeper into his politics. By the early thirties Hearst had resolved all his former contradictions by marching rightward. He was rich, and he wanted policies that would keep him rich. Now he broke strikes at his own papers and viciously attacked the 1934 San Francisco general strike. When Franklin Roosevelt presumed to suggest that economic recovery might include regulation of newspaper wages, Hearst turned on him ferociously.

All the while he flirted with fascism. From 1927 through the mid-thirties, Hearst solicited and ran regular columns from Benito Mussolini and then Adolf Hitler. After years of courtship, Hearst finally got to meet Hitler in 1934 in a carefully arranged rendezvous.

======================

Quoted from here:

The Devil and Mr. Hearst

As well as the ultra-conservative UK Daily Mail owner, Lord Rothermere:

======================

Let us begin in 1930 when Adolf Hitler made considerable gains in the German elections. Mein Kampf had already been written, making clear Hitler’s ideas on the racial supremacy of the supposed ‘Aryan’ race. And yet, for the Daily Mail, Hitler, his party and their success represented the “birth of Germany as a nation”.

Fast forward a few years to January 1934, when they ran with the headline “Hurrah for the Blackshirts" with an article celebrating Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists (BUF). Mosley was highly influenced by Benito Mussolini, so much so that members of the BUF were given the nickname of ‘Blackshirts’ as their uniform was modelled on that worn by those belonging to the National Fascist Party in Italy. Lord Rothermere, owner of the Daily Mail and author of the article, praised Mosley and the Blackshirts seeing them as the correct party to “take over responsibility for [British] national affairs”.

Not only did this positive reporting gain them exclusive access to publish interviews with Hitler, it also earned Lord Rothermere and his son a place at the dinner table as honoured guests of Hitler himself.

=====================

Quoted from here:

The Horrible History of the Daily Mail

Support for Hitler even came from the UK Royal Family; here is the recently abdicated King Edward VIII (later The Duke of Windsor) and his future wife, Wallis Simpson, meeting Hitler in October 1937:

The man who wanted to be the Nazi King of England

In fact, support for the Nazis even included George W Bush’s grandfather, Prescott Bush:

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

The above weren’t closest socialists — reds under four-poster beds. They knew only too well what Hitler and fascism stood for.

And here is Churchill -- no friend of Marxism or socialism -- in a letter to Mussolini:

=========================

What a man! I have lost my heart!... Fascism has rendered a service to the entire world.... If I were Italian, I am sure I would have been with you entirely from the beginning of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passion of Leninism.

========================

From here:

Mussolini

So, it is a bit rich of conservatives now pointing their grubby fingers at socialists and ‘the left’ when they looked to the Nazis and the fascists back then to oppose socialism. Their attempt to muddy the waters now is clearly aimed at deflecting attention from their own shameful history in this regard.

And, who was it that persuaded Hindenburg to make Hitler Chancellor of Germany in 1933?

The Marxists?

No.

The communists?

Nope.

The socialists?

Wrong again!

The ‘left’?

Not doing too well, are you…?

It was the German Conservatives:

=========================

Adolf Hitler was not elected to power in Germany by an overwhelming upsurge of popular demand. The Nazi Party certainly achieved substantial support, winning 37 per cent of the total vote in the 1932 election. This made it the largest party in the Reichstag, but it was Franz von Papen and other conservatives who persuaded the German president, Field Marshal von Hindenburg, to appoint Hitler as chancellor in a coalition government. [Bold added.]

==========================

Quoted from here:

Adolf Hitler becomes German Chancellor

That's why conservatives now try to deflect attention from their own unforgivable and despicable record.

Conservatives both sides of the Atlantic are again making overtures to White Supremacist and neo-fascist parties on the rise in the USA and Europe:

European conservatives open door for Italy's far-right

Tory MPs give sickening support to a 'white supremacist' group

How the Republican party quietly does the bidding of white supremacists

Tory MP, Rees-Mogg defends tweet of far-right AfD clip

Canada's probable next PM is courting the far right to win

Donald Trump Jr gives interview to far-right conspiracy website that reports on 'lizard people'

Donald Trump retweets anti-Muslim videos posted by neo_Nazi Britain First deputy leader

Is-it-a-coincidence-that-Trump-uses-the-language-of-white-supremacy

And, we have already seen Trump describe neo-Nazis and fascists as “very fine people”:

Trump Defends White-Nationalist Protesters: 'Some Very Fine People on Both Sides'

This ploy also helps distract attention from the truly lethal nature of capitalism itself:

Attempting the Impossible – Calculating Capitalism’s Death Toll

As noted above, despite what Mussolini and Hitler said, when in power they fully supported capitalism, and in no way even attempted to establish a workers’ state — the primary goal of socialism. Indeed, they not only physically destroyed all the institutions of socialism and the working class (in Germany and then across occupied Europe), but even those of centrist parties. They were all ‘enemies of the state’, ‘enemies of the people’, you see.

Does any of that sound familiar?

Fifth, the US formed an alliance with the communists in WW2, even calling Stalin, "Uncle Joe". Here is Stalin as Time Magazine’s ‘Man of the Year’ (chosen twice, in 1939 and 1942):

3/4s of WW2 was fought on the Eastern Front by the Russians, who lost 20+ million dead and countless wounded as a result. If the communists were no different from the Nazis, that means the US formed an alliance with the Nazis! How many times have you heard a conservative (or even a 'liberal') draw that conclusion?

Finally, communism and socialism parted company in Russia in the mid-1920s, after Lenin died and the Stalinists took over. Reversing the Bolshevik commitment to international revolution, the Stalinists attempted to build "socialism in one country", in the former Soviet Union [fSU]. Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and the Bolshevik Party had earlier argued that socialism couldn’t be built in one country. Hence, their commitment to internationalism.

How-did-Karl-Marx-define-socialism/answer/Rosa-Lichtenstein

When Stalin and his henchmen seized power in the mid-1920s, they knew full well that the capitalist states would either strangle them to death or they would invade and crush them. This they would do in order to ‘quarantine’ the Bolshevik revolution, guarantee it failed, or physically destroy it. But, the fSU in the mid-1920s was economically backward, its industry all but destroyed by WW1 and the Civil War that followed. As Stalin argued, they would either have to make up the yawning gap between their economy and the rest of the capitalist world in a generation or they would be crushed.

That is indeed what was attempted by the Nazis in 1941.

This meant that the Stalinist regime had to impose an anti-democratic, autocratic and violently oppressive regime on the mass of the working population of the fSU. That is because, in order to catch up, the state would have to subject them to super-exploitation -- whereby, the proportion of wealth going to that section of society would be reduced almost to subsistence level, and often even below that (hence the massive famines — for example in Ukraine) -- so that investment in heavy industry could be maximised. This would help create a modern and powerful military, capable of defending Russia’s borders. This in turn meant that the state had to become totalitarian, executing and terrorising hundreds of thousands — including nearly every one of the leading Bolshevik revolutionaries of 1917, sentenced to death on trumped up charges in the 1930s — since working people would resist, as they have always done, extreme economic deprivation anti-democratically imposed on them. Only absolute terror would intimidate them enough to keep their heads down and follow orders.

Post-1925 Communism destroyed itself by such moves — moves forced on it by trying to create socialism in one country. Attempting to catch up with ‘the west’ forced the Stalinist regime to trample on every socialist principle it had once embraced. It thus became its own opposite.

To a greater or lesser extent the same considerations applied right across the former communist block, including Cuba.

Hence, those regimes were never popular; quite the reverse, in fact — and when most of them fell nearly 30 years ago, as they were always doomed to do, not one single proletarian hand was raised in their defence. Indeed, workers were glad to see the back of them, many joining in their demolition.

What Stalin and his henchmen had created in the fSU wasn’t socialism, but State Capitalism. Having to fight capitalism meant they had to emulate it, but they could only do so by exploiting and oppressing their workforce even more than was the case in the ‘free market’ economies.

So, even if, per impossible, it could be shown that Nazism is the same as Russian or Chinese Communism, that would simply mean they were two different forms of State Capitalism — whereby the Russian and Chinese versions completely owned or controlled the means of production, distribution and exchange, while the German version only owned or controlled a sizable proportion of it.

State Capitalism

State Capitalism in Russia

Tyrannies ruling in the name of socialism

==============================