Hitler was not a Socialist. Is that so hard to get?
You guys are living in a parallel universe.
Articles Forward They Cried
Hitler practiced "
state socialism," a dictatorship with a goal of near absolute economic control for economic development and national power, all supposedly to benefit the people. Hitler said, "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak." And, "
Fascists were convinced that, as Hitler told an enthusiastic Mussolini, 'capitalism has run its course'."
I'm looking at your articles. Not sure who wrote the bit when you click "state socialism", just some person, it's not a peer reviewed article or anything like this. I wonder if this person is a right wing person with an agenda or not.
However, I'll take what is there.
Hitler was right wing because he had a hierarchical society. The idea that the Aryans (whoever they were) were higher than others. Hitler was at the top, his cronies were just below him, those in the Nazi Party were above those who weren't.
He did have a form of govt that required people to do what he wanted them to do. This is generally what extremism is. However turning this into Socialism is a big, BIG leap.
O'Hara, Phillip (September 2003).
Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2.
Routledge. p. 71.
ISBN 0-415-24187-1.
"In order of increasing decentralisation (at least) three forms of socialized ownership can be distinguished: state-owned firms, employee-owned (or socially) owned firms, and citizen ownership of equity."
The problem I have with saying Hitler was a socialist is that Socialism comes at this from the point of view that it's about the people. That the people come first.
Hitler wasn't about "the people", he had this hierarchy. The Jews were part of the people. In theory Socialism would be inclusive, Hitler was exclusive. There is a big difference.
Hitler Socialism
Here's a nice quote.
"this is rather like using the example of East Germany, the German Democratic Republic, to discredit democracy"
However:
"In 1927, Hitler said: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”[51] Yet two years later, in 1929, Hitler backtracked, saying that socialism was “an unfortunate word altogether” and that “if people have something to eat, and their pleasures, then they have their socialism”. Historian Henry A. Turner reports Hitler’s regret at having integrated the word socialism to the Nazi Party name.[52] The Nazi Party’s early self-description as “socialist” caused conservative opponents, such as the Industrial Employers Association, to describe it as “totalitarian, terrorist, conspiratorial, and socialist”."
Now, the thing with the 1927 quote is that you need to take the context of Hitler and Germany at this time. The first is that the Monarchy prior to WW1 was shamed by surrender. The nationalists like Hitler wanted to get rid of such a system that existed at this time. He did want the poor to rise up against these people.
However Hitler was put in to the DAP (forerunner of the NSDAP) as a spy. This was around 1919 and he was attracted to the ideals of this party which were anti-Semitic, Nationalistic, Racist but also about the working people. It's not that they were Socialists, but they did want the people to rise up against the regime. Now, int he period of time from 1919 to 1933, Hitler would probably have come across quite a lot of different views, potentially accepting something and then rejecting it quickly. This doesn't mean he was a Socialist.
Hitler changed the name of DAP to NSDAP, putting the National Socialist part in front. Hitler wanted this to be Social Revolution Party but he was convinced otherwise.
Now the interesting part here is why did they use the term "National Socialism"? I'd say you can see similar tactics in European far-right groups today. The almost dead BNP from the UK is one perfect example. They have no qualms about using words in a way which makes them look better than they actually are.
Here's some bits of what he said (to people like David Duke former KKK grand wizard.):
"There's a difference between setting out your ideas and selling your ideas and the British National Party isn't about setting out its ideas, which are **** ideas too, but we are determined now to sell them, but that means basically to use the same old words, as I say, freedom, security, identity, democracy, nobody can criticise them, nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas, they are saleable. "
"So, instead of talking about racial purity, you talk about identity."
Other far right parties do the same. Hitler also did something similar.
National Socialism was about putting GERMAN workers first. The BNP would always talk about doing things for the "British people" but would mean white British, not all British. But you'd have to know the meaning of the words to understand what was being said.
They weren't against Capitalism. Look at the names of the Airplanes from WW2. Messerschmitt, Heinkel and so on, they were private companies producing goods in a capitalist manner. Messerschmitt needed contracts from the Nazis, but still, it was a profitable business, and it went broke after WW2 because no one wanted his planes any more, because of the name.
So Socialist the National Socialists weren't. You can call the National Socialists, but National Socialists were hardly Socialists. They were for the German people, against the traditional powers that had been up until 1918, but not for all people.
