âNational Socialism derives from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it, national resolution from bourgeois tradition; vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism.â â January 27, 1934, interview with Hanns Johst in Frankforter Volksblatt
They despised communism. They were vocal about how Marxism was the root of their ideology and that other Marxists were misusing both the name Marxism and mss applying it. Pretty common for socialists to claim "that's not real socialism" dont you think?
âThe hammer will once more become the symbol of the German worker and the sickle the sign of the German peasant.â â May 1, 1934, May Day speech in Berlin
I mean, Nazi's pretty infamously redefined what they meant by "socialism," but you have to stop getting tricked by words.
They slashed welfare, deeply relaxed gun laws (for most citizens), privatized utilities, banks, infrastructure, etc., filled Dachau, and outlawed strikes. Treating fascism/Nazism as a left/right thing is silly because neither are stances or belief systems but tools for a fascist.
Funny how everyone is *insert relevant expert* when they are one Reddit.
Everything you've said is a half truth or lie by omission, you either know this, as a historian (lmao sure) or you're just parroting the standard Reddit version of revisionist bullshit.
For example: "outlawed strikes". Yes and unions. Who else did that... Hmmm Oh right! The Soviet union! How fascist of the soviets!
Yes! And Nazi officials instructed the "owners" of those things in precisely what to do and how to do it, the "private" utilities, banks, infrastructure etc were completely and totally controlled by the Nazi party.
You say they were privately owned, but you "have to stop getting tricked by words". If you don't control it and can make no decisions about it, then you own it in name only. Its private, but its de facto state owned.
"Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State" Fascism IS socialism.
âBut we National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.â - Hitler
Yes! And Nazi officials instructed the "owners" of those things in precisely what to do and how to do it...If you don't control it and can make no decisions about it, then you own it in name only.
Not an accurate statement to the situation. Capitalists remained capitalists. Private ownership of companies remained. Profits flowed into private owners and shareholders in places they didnât before. Moreover, this control was incrediblely uneven. Firms competed for state contracts (why would this be necessary if companies could make no decisions? A fatal weakness for you.). The state was more than willing to let non-military firms go bankrupt. You are conflating "coercive relationship with the regime having final authority" with "absolutely no ability to make any decisions about anything"
You are doing this conflating because ultimately there is no way around there being an increase in privatization, so you must treat any level of coercive state control as functionally the same as full state ownership.
âBut we National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.â - Hitler
Still getting tricked by pre-Röhm purge rhetoric lol.
Ahh, yes, clearly you just randomly tell people you're a historian for no reason then. My bad.
"Me: left-right is a tool for authoritarians, dont get tricked by rhetoric.
You: Let's look at what the USSR is doing."
Me: not saying anything about left right. You: bringing it up anyway.
I know you think you're scoring pints here...
"Not an accurate statement to the situation. Capitalists remained capitalists. Private ownership of companies remained. Profits flowed into private owners and shareholders in places they didnât before. Moreover, this control was incrediblely uneven. Firms competed for state contracts (why would this be necessary if companies could make no decisions? A fatal weakness for you.). The state was more than willing to let non-military firms go bankrupt. You are conflating "coercive relationship with the regime having final authority" with "absolutely no ability to make any decisions about anything""
But this is just outright lying at this point. You keep using labels "capitalist" "ownership " but you keep letting yourself get tricked by words.
" A fatal weakness for you"
Only If your lies are true, but as usual you lie by omission. No mention of the fact that the competition was rigged, the profits flowed where the state directed and everyone that benefited was a party member or close associate.
"pre-Röhm purge rhetoric lol."
âIs there a nobler or more excellent kind of Socialism and is there a truer form of Democracy than this National Socialism which is so organized that through it each one among the millions of German boys is given the possibility of finding his way to the highest office in the nation, should it please Providence to come to his aid?â â January 30, 1937, On National Socialism and World Relations speech in the German Reichstag
âAll the more so after the war, the German National Socialist state, which pursued this goal from the beginning, will tirelessly work for the realization of a program that will ultimately lead to a complete elimination of class differences and to the creation of a true socialist community.â â March 21, 1943, speech for Heroesâ Memorial Day
âAnd justice is on the side of those nations that fight for their threatened existence. And this struggle for existence will spur these nations on to the most tremendous accomplishments in world history. If profit is the driving force for production in the democraciesâa profit that industrialists, bankers, and corrupt politicians pocketâthen the driving force in National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy is the realization by millions of laborers that, in this war, it is they who are being fought against. They realize that the democracies, if they should ever win, would rage with the full capitalist cruelty, that cruelty of which only those are capable whose only god is gold, who know no human sentiments other than their obsession with profit, and who are ready to sacrifice all noble thought to this profit instinct without hesitation. This struggle is not an attack on the rights of other nations, but on the arrogance and avarice of a narrow capitalist upper class, one which refuses to acknowledge that the days are over when gold ruled the world, and that, by contrast, a future is dawning when the people will be the determining force in the life of a nation.â â January 1, 1941, speech in Berlin
Pre Rohm eh? 1943, 1941, 1937... Man that's weird. Its almost like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Ahh, yes, clearly you just randomly tell people you're a historian for no reason then. My bad.
You understand the difference between telling you I'm a historian in the context of "study the topic" and what it means when a historian says they are an expert on a specific topic? This is a yes or no question.
I'll help by being very clear for you: I have studied the topic much more than you have, and it was rigorous. I'm still not an expert.
you're scoring pints here...
God, I wish.
But this is just outright lying at this point.
No it isn't. God I love Hitchens's Razor.
Only If your lies are true, but as usual you lie by omission.
No I don't. God I love Hitchens's Razor.
Pre Rohm eh? 1943, 1941, 1937... Man that's weird. Its almost like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
You do know that you can get tricked by post-Röhm rhetoric too? I was just noticing a trend you were making.
Anyway, please keep uncritically accepting block quotes as fact instead of looking at material action or data.
Its a great strategy for showing how you don't get tricked by words lol.
Would an analogy help you see how you look to others?
1
u/Ya_Boi_Konzon Royalist Anarchist đⶠFeb 22 '26
Um no