The Nazi's socialist?

DirtbagLeft

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Reaction score
14
Edit:
READ BEFORE POSTING: There is one of me and many of you. If you cannot take the time to explicitly state which premise you are objecting to where I will point you back to the OP but will otherwise not engage you. Attempting to remember who is making which argument where and at what point is too much for one individual to take on. I fully accept that the intent of the people here was not to dog pile me. That is however the current effect. Thank you for your understanding.
End Edit.

I've been invited a member to do a debate here and I am going to assume this is the correct thread to do this. If not just let me know and I will move it.
Question to be obtained: The Nazi's were Socialist. True or False.
Premise 1) Socialism is defined as the workers owning the means of production.
Premise 2) Socialism rejects the notion of Private Property.
Premise 3) Socialism does not reject the notion of Personal Property.
Premise 4) State Capitalism/State Socialism are semantically the same.
Premise 5) Appropriation of a term is does not entail application of the values expressed in the term.
Premise 6) The Democratic Republic of Congo is neither democratic nor a republic.
Premise 7) Neither the Nazi party nor the Nazi government rejected Private Property.
Premise 8) The Nazi government arrested, detained in concentration camps, and outright murdered individuals for advocating the workers owning the means of production.
Conclusion: The Nazi Party was not a socialist party.

Which of the above premise do you dispute and on what grounds?
 
Last edited:

Duke Nukem

Hail to the king baby
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Reaction score
3,422
I've been invited a member to do a debate here and I am going to assume this is the correct thread to do this. If not just let me know and I will move it.
Question to be obtained: The Nazi's were Socialist. True or False.
Premise 1) Socialism is defined as the workers owning the means of production.
Premise 2) Socialism rejects the notion of Private Property.
Premise 3) Socialism does not reject the notion of Personal Property.
Premise 4) State Capitalism/State Socialism are semantically the same.
Premise 5) Appropriation of a term is does not entail application of the values expressed in the term.
Premise 6) The Democratic Republic of Congo is neither democratic nor a republic.
Premise 7) Neither the Nazi party nor the Nazi government rejected Private Property.
Premise 8) The Nazi government arrested, detained in concentration camps, and outright murdered individuals for advocating the workers owning the means of production.
Conclusion: The Nazi Party was not a socialist party.

Which of the above premise do you dispute and on what grounds?
I don't think the Nazis were left or right wing more like Authoritarian Center.
 

DirtbagLeft

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Reaction score
14
I don't think the Nazis were left or right wing more like Authoritarian Center.
I will take this as an honest mistake on your part as I have no reason to assume malice. However that is a non-sequitur. The question which needs to obtain is not "Are the Nazi's left?" but "Are the Nazi's Socialist?".
 

Duke Nukem

Hail to the king baby
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Reaction score
3,422
I will take this as an honest mistake on your part as I have no reason to assume malice. However that is a non-sequitur. The question which needs to obtain is not "Are the Nazi's left?" but "Are the Nazi's Socialist?".
Oh, my mistake.
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling accountant
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Reaction score
5,161
Location
Slovenija
If you read the Hitler's incoherent word salat aka Mein Kampf, you will notice that he claimed that true social revolution was only possible once the Germany achieved autarky, which in turn was only possible once Germany controled the Lebensraum, since as long as they had to be a part of international trade network, they had to play by capitalist rules. Thus the Nazi state as we know it wasn't the end state of national socialist revolution, but intermediate period, before true socialism (presumably state socialism) was to be implemented, so yes they were socialists, on a murderous path to their socialist paradise.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Reaction score
1,324
In practice, they are fairly indistinguishable to socialists, do what the state says or your business gets taken from you by the state.

On principles, the NAZIs actively denied the idea of having principles. The espoused pragmatism and dictatorship in all things, including the truth. The truth was whatever the dictator needed it to be.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Reaction score
2,732
Location
ch'Rihan
Premise 1) Socialism is defined as the workers owning the means of production.
This seems a grossly simplistic understanding of Socialism and one I think is inherently incorrect. It may be an ideal of Socialism, but the fact is Socialism espouses considerably more than just this idea, as if this was all it took to be socialist, the best method of creating socialism would simply be to organize worker cooperatives that then have ownership and management of parts of industry and would not require the considerable governmental intervention that we consistently see in real life.

Also, in no socialist system implimented on a national scale have the workers owned the means of production, rather, the state has owned the means of production (sure, they claimed it was in the name of the workers, but the workers were not the ones making decisions for the industry, were they, no, agents of the state were).

Further:
Premise 2) Socialism rejects the notion of Private Property.
Premise 3) Socialism does not reject the notion of Personal Property.
These premises are generally rejected by everyone outside of socialism. Most people make no distinction between Private and Personal Property as in reality there IS no logical difference.

Further, most people see no functional difference between the state commanding an industry pursue certain ends enforced with the power of the state for violence and the idea of the state owning an industry. Both end up with functionally the same results and as such the Fascist command of national industries while allowing supposedly private ownership is in the end no different than the state owning and directing how industries operate as they have in socialist systems.

Thus why many see no functional difference between Socialism and Fascism. While there are differences in details, in function they are fundamentally the same.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Reaction score
1,472
Premise 4) State Capitalism/State Socialism are semantically the same.
I really reject this one, but it argues in your favor.

If major businesses are all (or almost all) entirely owned by the state, that's state socialism.

The thing that separates State Capitalism from state socialism is that entrepreneurship and major private businesses are allowed, and sometimes encouraged. Basically, can businessmen get rich?

What makes State Capitalism STATE capitalism, and not regular capitalism, is that the major companies created are ultimately, forcefully, suborned to the state. Modern examples include China using its internet companies to spy/censor on its populace, China using Huawei to spy on foreign countries, partial state ownership, etc. In contrast, in America, most major businesses aren't directly advancing American Governmental goals, outside of being economically profitable. The ones that are mostly treat America as a customer. There have been exceptions (AT&T datacenter linked up to the NSA), but those are exceptions.

Oddly, many countries were state capitalists during WW2, as they needed to mobilize for total war. Notably in America, the Wartime Production Board was in charge of this.

So Let's look at Nazi Germany. Yes, they have socialist in the name, but that doesn't matter. They privatized a lot of stuff, but the privatization came with strings that gave Germany more control over the economy.

Premise 8) The Nazi government arrested, detained in concentration camps, and outright murdered individuals for advocating the workers owning the means of production.
As for this, it's not a good point. Commies kill commies all the time. Notably the Bolsheviks killed off a number of competing ideologies, including Trots and Mensheviks.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Reaction score
1,472
Pretty much every one here hates national socialists we just disagree about what made them murderous psychopaths the nationalism or the socialsm?

My money is on the socialsm.
I disagree with this. Even if you accept that the Nazi's were socialists (and I don't) it doesn't hold up. The Holocaust was very nationalistic in that it defined what a German was (an abled bodied, straight, Aryan), then killed those outside of that. A socialist would deny there are any differences, and enforce these non differences by killing dissenters at gunpoint. In other words, socialists kill their own people, extreme nationalists kill the 'other'.

In addition, the war was not designed to spread the ideology of fascism to better other people, but to take stuff for the fatherland. That's not how socialists do war. They view war as 'liberating, and taking out capitalists'.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Reaction score
1,324
I disagree with this. Even if you accept that the Nazi's were socialists (and I don't) it doesn't hold up. The Holocaust was very nationalistic in that it defined what a German was (an abled bodied, straight, Aryan), then killed those outside of that. A socialist would deny there are any differences, and enforce these non differences by killing dissenters at gunpoint. In other words, socialists kill their own people, extreme nationalists kill the 'other'.
The NAZIs killed the Jews for the exact same reason that communists did: The Jews were disproportionately wealthy and they claimed that the Jews somehow cheated to get that way out of envy.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Reaction score
1,472
The NAZIs killed the Jews for the exact same reason that communists did: The Jews were disproportionately wealthy and they claimed that the Jews somehow cheated to get that way out of envy.
I'd say most of that was russia hating Jews, which it had done so for centuries before. Anti-semitism is not a necessary part of socialism at all, though the USSR was very antisemetic, especially under Stalin. But it is a necessary part of Naziism, which was built on hatred of 'others' in order to create unity.

Look at the different ways they were targeted as well. The Nazis targeted all jews, just based on descent. In contrast, the Soviets used euphemisms to target powerful ones, like the Doctors Plot.
 

DirtbagLeft

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Reaction score
14
I am going to reply to each post but before I do I want to express my general frustration at the ahistorical understanding generally expressed within the responses. What I find particularly depressing is the lack of political understanding expressed here. Judging by a few comments I am picking up anarchist/minarchist vibes which means at least someone ought to be familiar with socialist thinkers and writers given their importance to the development of anarchist and minarchist thought.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Reaction score
1,472
First, and sorry I forgot to do this earlier, welcome to the Sietch! Glad to have a lefty on the board.
I am going to reply to each post but before I do I want to express my general frustration at the ahistorical understanding generally expressed within the responses. What I find particularly depressing is the lack of political understanding expressed here. Judging by a few comments I am picking up anarchist/minarchist vibes which means at least someone ought to be familiar with socialist thinkers and writers given their importance to the development of anarchist and minarchist thought.
You can get to anarchy/minarchy from the right as well. And honestly, I don't have a huge amount of respect for socialist thinkers or writers based on the plentiful economic evidence against socialism, which means I have little interest in moral arguments for something that doesn't make any economic sense, just as palentologists don't buy religious arguments for creationism. I'll listen to economic arguments from them, but I have found almost none that were convincing.

In addition, the distinction between private property and personal property isn't a good one. First, what does that have to do with Nazi Germany? Second, it is a crap distinction that no one cares about or recognizes. It's like monarchists and divine rights of kings. Sure, they can say it exists, but no one else buys into it or the theory behind it, and it only makes sense to people deep in the ideology.
 

DirtbagLeft

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Reaction score
14
If you read the Hitler's incoherent word salat aka Mein Kampf, you will notice that he claimed that true social revolution was only possible once the Germany achieved autarky, which in turn was only possible once Germany controled the Lebensraum, since as long as they had to be a part of international trade network, they had to play by capitalist rules. Thus the Nazi state as we know it wasn't the end state of national socialist revolution, but intermediate period, before true socialism (presumably state socialism) was to be implemented, so yes they were socialists, on a murderous path to their socialist paradise.
I have read both Mein Kampf and Hitlers table talks as well as his debate with Strasser in which he said "Your socialism is Marxism pure and simple. You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings. " he went on to say "Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that."
When asked about what he would do with the major powerful and oppressive steel firm at the time Hitler answered "Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy? The state will only intervene if people do not act in the interest of the nation. There is no need for dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The state will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior motives, without regards to particular interests. "

Hitlers true political leanings were fascist in nature "Fascism offers us a model that we can absolutely replicate! As it is in the case of Fascism, the entrepreneurs and the workers of our National Socialist state sit side by side, equal in rights, the state strongly intervenes in the case of conflict to impose its decision and end economic disputes that put the life of the nation in danger." He cared nothing for the worker and everything for the nation.

But lets look at Hitlers definition of socialism so we can see how that word is to be understood within Nazi "Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of the nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, “Deutschland ueber Alles,” to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land — that man is a Socialist."
"Deutschland ueber Alles" does not translate well into English as while we can literally translate the words as "Germany over all" this does a disservice to the meaning and intent of the phrase. If you are familiar at all with the problems of translating one language into another then you are aware that various words and phrases (particularly phrases) can be stronger or weaker than the translated version in their original language. The phrase is better understood as "Germany the master of the world".

So according to Hitler he believed that anyone who believed that Germany should dominate the world was a socialist.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
An important point about this definition of socialism is that socialism is not equivalent to, and is arguably in conflict with, statism. (i*) involves expansion of social power—power based on the capacity to mobilize voluntary cooperation and collective action—as distinct from state power—power based on the control of rule-making and rule enforcing over a territory—as well of economic power—power based on the control of material resources (Wright 2010). If a state controls the economy but is not in turn democratically controlled by the individuals engaged in economic life, what we have is some form of statism, not socialism.

To cherry pick a definition of socialism that is rejected by every socialist thinker is fallacious in the extreme. To define socialism by the definition of an individual who's definition reflects in no way even slightly any prior understanding of that term verges on the dishonest.

Allow me to make your argument absolutely clear.
Your argument is that the Democratic Republic of Congo is a democratic republic because their leaders define it into being a democratic republic.

That is neither how definitions work nor is it how political science works.
 

DirtbagLeft

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Reaction score
14
In practice, they are fairly indistinguishable to socialists, do what the state says or your business gets taken from you by the state.

On principles, the NAZIs actively denied the idea of having principles. The espoused pragmatism and dictatorship in all things, including the truth. The truth was whatever the dictator needed it to be.
I ask for understanding in my response as I am attempting to withhold a great deal of frustration at the moment.
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
"An important point about this definition of socialism is that socialism is not equivalent to, and is arguably in conflict with, statism. (i*) involves expansion of social power—power based on the capacity to mobilize voluntary cooperation and collective action—as distinct from state power—power based on the control of rule-making and rule enforcing over a territory—as well of economic power—power based on the control of material resources (Wright 2010). If a state controls the economy but is not in turn democratically controlled by the individuals engaged in economic life, what we have is some form of statism, not socialism"

Please substantiate your claim that the Nazi's denied the idea of private property.
From the abstract "Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment profiles. Even regarding war-related projects, freedom of contract was generally respected; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency."

What is exceedingly frustrating is how many people criticize socialism based solely on propaganda intended to discredit socialism without any regard to any counter arguments made by socialists. Socialists are anarchists which means they are opposed to the state. Your strawman depiction of how socialism functions shows a complete and utter lack of any even elementary understanding of how socialism functions. In a socialist society all businesses are owned by the workers in what amounts to a co-op. The government does not own the business. The workers own the business.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Reaction score
1,472
An important point about this definition of socialism is that socialism is not equivalent to, and is arguably in conflict with, statism. (i*) involves expansion of social power—power based on the capacity to mobilize voluntary cooperation and collective action—as distinct from state power—power based on the control of rule-making and rule enforcing over a territory—as well of economic power—power based on the control of material resources (Wright 2010). If a state controls the economy but is not in turn democratically controlled by the individuals engaged in economic life, what we have is some form of statism, not socialism.
I disagree with this. FIrst, any practical definition of socialism ought to include China under Mao, the USSR, Cuba, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, and North Korea. If your definition does not consider these to be socialist, then the definition fails. Some of these countries were statist as well, notably North Korea and the Khmer Rouge.
 

DirtbagLeft

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Reaction score
14
This seems a grossly simplistic understanding of Socialism and one I think is inherently incorrect. It may be an ideal of Socialism, but the fact is Socialism espouses considerably more than just this idea, as if this was all it took to be socialist, the best method of creating socialism would simply be to organize worker cooperatives that then have ownership and management of parts of industry and would not require the considerable governmental intervention that we consistently see in real life.
I have gone with this definition of socialism because it is the definition which encompasses all other definitions. As of the 1920's there were more than 40 definitions of socialism. The definition I have provided encompasses them.

It is a demonstrable fact that the US government in partnership with US business interests have an established policy of disrupting any and all socialist projects. This was a policy which started with the red scare. The fundamental problem with the critique which you here offer is the utter and complete lack of consideration of both history and the policy which you advocate. From what you have said I take it that we can both agree that corporatism is a problem. And that they have both influence and money which they have "earned" through illegitimate means with businesses buying politicians to both protect them from competition and to carry out their will (if you dispute this I will gladly demonstrate it). Specifically addressing your best method. I would love if that were possible. However sticking to within the boundaries of the US banks as a rule do not loan to co-ops even though they are more financially stable. The rules and regulations regarding Co-ops are difficult to navigate and make it difficult to both start and grow a co-op.

Here is the thing. If we abolish crony capitalism that money doesn't just vanish. Their ability to use the disproportionate amount of wealth to manipulate and control the economy does not vanish. It is not theft to take back what was stolen. If jim steals from you and gives what he stole to me it is not theft if you take from me what was stolen from you. Even from an AnCap or minarchist perspective the entire economic system must be reset. (note I personally started from an AnCap perspective before moving to Market Socialism). And it was the question of how to reset the economy that drove me unwillingly to my conclusion. The only way to reset the economy is a hard reset. If you work there you own it if you live there you own it.

Also, in no socialist system implimented on a national scale have the workers owned the means of production, rather, the state has owned the means of production (sure, they claimed it was in the name of the workers, but the workers were not the ones making decisions for the industry, were they, no, agents of the state were).
This is factually untrue. See the AnarchoSyndicalism of spain. Further the reason socialists say that most examples of governments which people claim as examples of "socialism gone amuck" are not socialists. Is exactly because the workers do not own the means of production. You are correct however that I should have added one other thing to my definition. Socialism is also democratic. The form of democracy (just like in modern democracy) varies but every socialist system requires democracy (see workers co-ops).

Further:

These premises are generally rejected by everyone outside of socialism. Most people make no distinction between Private and Personal Property as in reality there IS no logical difference.
Understanding that what I am about to say is going to sound extremely condescending and elitists. IDGAF what "most people" think. Most people think the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that it was created in 7 days. Historians, political science, sociology, and every major field of study disregard "most people's" understanding of socialism as ahistorical, apolitical, trash. Hell most fields disregard most peoples understanding about most things because "most people's" understanding of nearly everything is wrong, and if it is not wrong it is so distorted as to be wrong. When you want to learn about a topic you start with the published literature for a number of very good reasons. 1) standard terms. Even a 20 year shift in colloquial language can cause devastating effects when trying to understand something. 2) peer review. While not perfect it is currently the best method available to ensure what is published is fact checked. 3) The expert know how to research. As someone with multiple degrees in multiple fields the one thing I have learned is this. Research is much harder than people believe. 4) They have the relevant background to understand the topic. Standing directly next to research one of the key things experts learns is how to step outside of ones bias. Learning to unsee things from our preconceived bias is extremely difficult. These are just a few reasons.

As to your claim that there is no logical difference between personal property and private property you are factually incorrect. Personal property is that property which you own through use and occupancy. Private property is that property which you own through title.

Further, most people see no functional difference between the state commanding an industry pursue certain ends enforced with the power of the state for violence and the idea of the state owning an industry. Both end up with functionally the same results and as such the Fascist command of national industries while allowing supposedly private ownership is in the end no different than the state owning and directing how industries operate as they have in socialist systems.
Here is the thing. I agree with you that there is no functionally meaningful difference between the state commanding an industry and the state owning an industry. (there is a difference in fact but it is not relevant to the conversation and so may be granted as not existing for our purpose). What is omitted by you is that there is no meaningful or functional difference between the state and the corporation with only one exception. Geographic limitation of the state. In a very real way however the state and considerations are in truth incestuous extensions of one another. What you said falsely implies that the state is fascist while the business owners are not and that the two are inherently opposed to one another. This is factually false. The way in which you are using the term private property is not only ahistorical but has never existed. Private property as a concept has always existed subject to the state. Private property being defined by the state cannot exist without the state. There is property directly owned by the government and property which is indirectly owned by the government (private property). The concept of private property goes back to the time of plato and this is the long standing understanding of that term. Personal property began to develop as a concept at the enlightenment. If you read Locke you will see that he argues for what later became termed Personal Property in opposition to the monarchist understanding of property and private property.

This is one of those areas where I was talking about understanding the background is important. The pre-existing definition of private property was one thing. Locke and others came along and made a new argument but using the same term as no new term had yet arisen. Private property held two simultaneous definitions at the time. Title property and personal property. Private property as personal property fell out of favor when the term personal property was developed and the two became demarcated as distinct concepts.

Thus why many see no functional difference between Socialism and Fascism. While there are differences in details, in function they are fundamentally the same.
[/QUOTE]
 
Top Bottom