No Nazism Wasn’t Equivalent to Soviet Socialism or Maoism
why are we doing this? can we stop imposing present day political structures and nomenclature on 1930s Germany?
I just want to point out that it’s alienating and arrogant to resort to calling people names when they challenge your assertion that we can equivocate Nazism with Soviet Socialism because they are both types of state overreach which limit personal liberty.
First of all, let’s establish that Soviet Socialism refers to Bolshevism. I won’t even touch Maoism here, because it’s its own beast entirely.
Also, FFS. Can we not do this thing where we debate where we should put an 1930s political movement on the 21st century political spectrum? Because fcuk. Okay, just, fcuk.
Equivocating Nazism with Bolshevism is like saying water and vinegar are the same because they’re both clear liquids. Stop that. Each liquid has distinct properties that make them different from the other, despite appearing the same. Similarly, Nazism and Bolshevism have distinct properties that make them different from one another, despite appearing the same in that they both curtail personal liberty through state overreach.
So we’ve got conservatives redefining distinct political moments and the structures they created by whether they limit personal liberty through state overreach? Really? Why?
Are we now at the point where words mean nothing, and we shape the narrative to suit our personal views? Because nah.
Here’s an excerpt from that post.
“I just saw a low-rent Canadian Leftist writer claim if you say Nazis are Socialists (they were) then you are buying into Nazi propaganda. Oh goodness what a pathetic deflection. Did the Nazis control the entire economy? Yes. Then they are socialists … The opposite of Nazism Soviet Communism, Fascism, and Maoism is small government capitalism.“
Also, here’s Poilievre, who perhaps started this discussion with this Xwitter post.
Here’s another Xwitter post from another conservative.
What I like most about Pierre’s post is not that he correctly correlates socialism (in any form) with a decrease in personal liberty, but that he triggered liberal accounts on X to the edge of madness.
When you hold a mirror up to a liberals face, they rarely like what they see.
Below the line you can find my two cents worth rebuttal to the whole Nazism = socialism discourse.
It’s still a no. 🙄
Nazis weren’t socialists as we use the word today. They were statists and they were nationalists. Not socialists as we see socialism today.
Your big mistake in this is looking at the past through the lens of the present. That’s a big no no when analysing and studying history. What you mean by socialism is what they called Bolshevism back then. Nazism opposed Bolshevism.
So we’re looking at a contrast between racial statism versus classless centrally planned society—these are miles apart.
No, Nazi society wasn’t classless as we conceive the term. In fact, the Nazis catered to the bourgeoisie class, not the working class. Please stop imposing present day nomenclature and political structures on 1930s Germany. It’s untenable as a working model to examine history. It leads to making meaningless, self serving conclusions about important things. It mocks history. Let’s avoid that, okay?
Look, the fact that Nazis manipulated language to give themselves the name Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP for short, doesn’t make them socialists as we know the term. Nazis excelled at manipulating and they mastered propaganda. What did Hitler do to George Strasser on the Night of the Long Knives? He had him executed! Because Strasser was what we would call today very left wing, he was an anti-capitalist revolutionary.
Socialism seeks to abolish class. Nazism definitely didn’t do that. The Nazis privatised state owned industry. They were fascist as fcuk, not Bolshevik.
In the words of the great psychopath himself:
“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility. It has not been able to save millions of human beings from starvation in Russia, the greatest Agrarian State in the world” — Hitler, speech made at the Reichstag (21 May 1935)
Note. I’m not willing to argue with anyone about this. Because I don’t argue on social media— it’s a rather futile endeavour. I said what I said. Before you tell me to go read a book, know that I’ve read a lot because I’m a nerd when it comes to the Holocaust and Nazism and I’m old and know things. My mother was 14 when the allied forces liberated the extermination camps—believe me when I say all my life I have learned about abc researched the Holocaust and the Nazis. It’s not a political game for me. It’s serious sh1t, it’s sacred history.
Anyway.
Constructive comments and thoughts on this welcome. There are brighter minds than I out there who can speak to this better than I. Have at it. But I’m not debating. Because I’m not changing my mind, it’s fairly made up on this matter. Believe what you want. Just don’t call people names when they challenge you on this topic.
Peace out. Let’s get back to agreeing to disagree and then moving on.