When you actually look at nazism on the 3 category political compass it's just racist socialism. What I mean is that it is on the left on the economic axis right on the culture axis and totalitarian on the government axis which is just racist socialism and has more in common with modern day socialists then modern day american conservatives.
It's not left on the economic axis. Since when did natural social hierarchies become compatible with economic equality. Seriously, what crack are you smoking to believe that the Nazis were even close to the left
In what way was it not on the left economically? Nationalized insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, and by 1941 nationalized health care. It was only for white Germans but as I said RACIST socialism, socialism but only for one specific race.
Bruh wdym they privatized multiple industries, were more often than not corporate allies, and private means if the ownership of production. That last one especially. You cannot be socialist if you have private means of production. That's just by definition.
When did I say privatized or industry? I said nationalized and insurance, as in an industy owned by the state. Also is China not socialist because they have private industry and they say their communist. Not to mention that the ussr had private industries later on. So how is nazi Germany not socialist because it doesn't meet those standards if the same countries that are called socialist by the general public don't meet those standards either.
"The Nazi government developed a partnership with leading German business interests, who supported the goals of the regime and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts and subsidies as well as the suppression of the trade union movement." From the Wikipedia. Oh, and did I mention, the Nazis despised trade unions, which are one of the vote aspects of leftism.
And no, China isn't socialist. They run under a capitalist economy. I'm guessing you haven't read any socialist literature because you have a Steven Crowder level understanding of it lmao
"One of the NSV branches, the Office of Institutional and Special Welfare, was responsible for travellers aid at railway stations; relief for ex-convicts; 'support' for re-migrants from abroad; assistance for the physically disabled, hard-of-hearing, deaf, mute, and blind; relief for the elderly, homeless and alcoholics; and the fight against illicit drugs and epidemics'" Wikipedia on the NSV(Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt or in English national socialist people's welfare)
And you never addressed the ussr but oh well just ignore any point you can't debunk. While yes hitler did ban all trade unions he also replaced them with one trade union that was directly run by the state. So true they didn't have trade unions but that doesn't dismiss the fact that a lot of the programs they did have modern day Democratic socialists in the U.S. are trying to put into practice.
Dude the state run trade unions didn't function as unions. They functioned less as unions and more of as ways for the Germans to find and kill commies. And how is support for migrants, alcoholics, and disabled people exactly socialist? Even if that was true, that would be one system of welfare for one race in a sea of privatized, corporate industries.
Sorry I didn't address, the USSR, but yes, they're not socialist. They're state capitalist. Actual examples of socialism would be anarchist Catalonia, and modern day Rojava.
That was a bad quote for the argument there are others in that article that explain more socialist programs they did as that quote is talking about one specific branch. Later on they did make it maditory that citizens use their healthcare and welfare thereby outlawing all private industry in that field and nationalizing both. Both of these were through the NSV.
So what it seems like is the only socialist countries are the ones that are closer to anarcho-communism, this is a flaw however because saying that a socialist state must not have a powerful govenment is equal to saying capitalism must have a powerful government, it is taking an economic system and saying that it can only function in a certain way, communism is totalitarian and left wing economically, whereas anarcho-communism is left wing economically but also anarchistic. Communism and socialism are ideas that only function on one axis, the economic, so a totalitarian socialist state can exist as socialism itself does not mean that there cant be a powerful government.
The NSDAP had powerful capitalist allies, privatized much of the German economy, and had slaves. What does that have to do with a worker-owned economy?
The ussr worked with private companies as well if nazi Germany isn't socialist because they worked with private companies the ussr is nowhere near communist.
Publicly, McDonald's however coke had been selling privately to high ranking communist party members for years by the time the ussr dissolved. The main problem is the double standard, if you say nazi Germany isn't socialist because private companies existed there then there is no such thing as a socialist country as every country that was socialist had private companies working in it.
Do you understand that selling a product to a country doesn't mean that operate in that country. There were no coke factories or McDonald's restaurants.
In Nazi Germany companies physically worked there, companies such as BMW or messerschmitt or any other company which existed in the Weimar republic. There was no tangible difference between the economy of Nazi Germany and the economy of the US. You can't say the same for the USSR.
First of all there were McDonald's in the ussr, no joke look it up. Secondly most socialist states allow companies to operate within them(China, Cuba, etc.) So even if you disregard the ussr there are still other examples. Thirdly while I will admit the nazis didnt seize all the companies they did seize all insurance and health-care companies under the NSV essentially nationalizing both healthcare and insurance, an idea that has been recommended by socialists in the U.S. I'm not saying they were communist but to say they didn't at least have similar ideas to Democratic socialists and thereby a similar system is dishonest.
Secondly nationalizing a company isn't a socialist policy. A socialist policy is a policy which profits the workers, if you nationalise insurances but your state isn't subject to election then it means the working class doesn't benefit from this. It only benefits the ruling class which now has control over the economy. The Nazis nationalised companies not on an ideological basis, but because they were putting in jail anyone who was in the opposition. When a party has total control of a country and their most social policy is welfare, they are not socialists, they are capitalists trying to appease the masses, the same goes for China. The Nazis cracked down heavily on workers rights for exemple, why would a socialist government do that?
Welfare can be used to empower the working class, but also as a pragmatic answer to growing class consciousness because of inequalities.
Socialism, capitalism and fascism aren't about "big government", they're about power. Do you want to know how socialist is a country? Look at who holds the most power, I think we can all agree that in totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany, the people who were in power were high ranking officers and powerful CEOs, not the working class.
Yes there were and you obviously didnt. All you have to do is search,"McDonald's in the ussr" multiple sources all say that the first location opened in Moscow on January 31, 1990.
By your definition there has never been a socialist country because there isn't a fully socialist state that holds elections. Every single country that has gone socialist or communist has turned into a dictatorship either immediately or very shortly after. On the political compass that I mentioned there are 3 axes one is economic and one is governing power(the third isnt really important so im not going to talk about it but it's the cultural axis), a state can be a totalitarian nation that seizes the means of production as many nations have done or it could be a more libertarian nation that does not interfere with its people but still controls the economy, it's not one or the other.
Yes there were and you obviously didnt. All you have to do is search,"McDonald's in the ussr" multiple sources all say that the first location opened in Moscow on January 31, 1990.
You do realise that the USSR collapsed a year after. These policies allowing for private companies were the beggining of the end of the USSR.
By your definition there has never been a socialist country because there isn't a fully socialist state that holds elections.
Yes, some socialist territories existed but most of them were taken over by foreign powers. A true political revolution is complicated and likely to fail, changing the power from one guy to another is easy.
There were autonomous communes during the Spanish revolution, which is probably the most successful exemple of a communist country but it took years to organise through worker's movements and also had the hindsight of the failure of the USSR.
977
u/_Xero2Hero_ Oct 26 '19
I was expecting the "Nazis were socialist, see it's right there in their name!" argument.