Were Nazis really Socialist?

You mean authoritarian. Right wing is literally part of the definition of fascism, as it opposes liberalism and socialism.


…unless it’s National Socialism. Or the Soviet-Bloc police states.

1 Like

I am certain that they are covered by authoritarian.

Do you believe that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a democracy and/or a republic too?


Right? There isn’t a single reputable historian of the Third Reich that would call them actual socialists, because they weren’t.


Are you joking? You can’t be serious. Like, this is high school level social studies stuff.


I’m not joking. And it’s not high school level social studies stuff.

If you invent a time machine, instead of going in back in time and killing Hitler, you could just explain to him that he’s not a REAL socialist, and he needs to pick a new name for his party so that he won’t mess up future enthusiasts.

Wiki definition of fascism

"What constitutes a definition of fascism and fascist governments has been a complicated and highly disputed subject concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets debated amongst historians, political scientists, and other scholars since Benito Mussolini first used the term in 1915.

A significant number of scholars agree that a “fascist regime” is foremost an authoritarian form of government, although not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. Authoritarianism is thus a defining characteristic, but most scholars will say that more distinguishing traits are needed to make an authoritarian regime fascist.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

Similarly, fascism as an ideology is also hard to define. Originally, it referred to a totalitarian political movement linked with corporatism which existed in Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. Many scholars use the word “fascism” without capitalization in a more general sense, to refer to an ideology (or group of ideologies) which was influential in many countries at many different times. For this purpose, they have sought to identify what Roger Griffin calls a “fascist minimum”—that is, the minimum conditions that a certain political movement must meet in order to be considered “fascist”.[3]"

Hitler’s economic policies from a contemporary perspective:

":What were those economic policies? He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public-works programs like autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national healthcare and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime’s rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country."

Hitler’s Economics at Mises.org

Hitler didn’t found the nazi party, he just changed what it was to what he wanted, not that it wasn’t a shitshow before he joined. You do know what Hitler did to the Strasserists, the part of the Nazi part who claimed to be socialist in ideology rather than just in name only?

So any claim that the Nazis were socialist is provably false after July 2 1932 (a year into the twelve year dictatorship).

But we should split this off as we are now well off topic.

ETA: do you have any non ayn-cap sources? The Mises Institute would call Reagan a socialist if he was in politics today.


The Nazis called themselves National Socialists because at the time, they were fighting against people calling themselves International Socialists.

It’s roughly the equivalent of someone deciding to run a Straight Pride parade to counter a Gay Pride parade…


OK, now we have a new topic I just have to point out that Winston Churchill would have been a socialist going by what you quoted from the Mises Institute. He did most of that too.

Liberal in 1910 Britain does not mean what it means in 2019 USA.


I call George W. Bush a Socialist all the time for centralizing the banking industry, and then declaring a taxpayer bailout of his cronies when the governemnet intervention made it easier for them to speculate.

Reagan was just a puppet for George Bush the Elder, and I was a not a fan of any of their economic policies - especially the taxpayer bailout of the other failed Bush offspring and his Silverado Savings & Loan collapse that triggered a real estate collapse.

Economists tend to be ‘conservative’, in that they are not fans of change - penny-pinchers are drawn to Economics. Journalists tend to have a liberal bias, but that’s because they’re supposed to be skeptical muck-rakers. Woodward and Bernstein, et al, vs. Fox News.

Just as the Democrats of the mid-1800’s are almost nothing like the Democrats of the 21st century today.

What a difference a hundred years (or two hundred) makes, in general… even aside from the locations.


Yeah…I’m out. If I want to argue with people about politics and economics, I’ll head to one of those boards. The Happy Mutants can be entertaining, but open-minded and well-read…ehhh, not so much.

But that’s not socialism’s meaning. Governments intervene all the time and have done so since their inception throughout all of history. Socialism is specific in its meaning to that the means of production are held in common such that no class exists or at least no class has an advantage over another. Meaning that a bank being bailed out has no equalizing force on the economy or society as a whole. Those who run the banks are still free to operate as capitalists. Just because they’re not the kind of capitalists you like doesn’t make their bailout anymore socialistic than a farmer’s subsidy would make Cargill part of some commune.

Edit: I should know equalizing here means no profit is gained by the endeavor (no rent extraction or surplus value taken).


It’s only an argument because you decided to pick a definition for socialism that only rightwing nutjobs agree with.

Socialism is a specific thing. You can’t just call any bad thing you don’t like socialist and expect everyone to agree with you all the time.


Were Nazis really Socialist?

Their “social welfare” programs were parasitic in nature. Rapine of its conquered territory to provide for German citizens.


Populists are not left- nor right-wing they are populists.


Answer to the question from someone who’s spent decades studying the history: nope.


Oh, but didn’t you know?

“Most of us are neither ‘well-read’ nor ‘open-minded’.”



All populism means is “against the elites”.

Left-wing populism differs in nature from right-wing populism. You can also have anti-authoritarian populism across the left-right spectrum too.