[First published August 22, 2005] What is socialism? It is a politico-economic philosophy that believes government must direct all major economic decisions by command, and thus all the means of production for the greater good, however defined. There are three major divisions of socialism, all antagonistic to each other. One is democratic socialism, that places the emphasis on democratic means, but then government is a tool for improving welfare and equality. A second division is Marxist-Leninism, which based on a “scientific theory” of dialectical materialism, sees the necessity of a dictatorship (“of the proletariat”) to create a classless society and universal equality. Then, there is the third division, or state socialism. This is a non-Marxist or anti-Marxist dictatorship that aims at near absolute economic control for the purpose of economic development and national power, all construed to benefit the people.
Mussolini’s fascism was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitler’s National Socialism was state socialism at its worse. It not only shared the socialism of fascism, but was explicitly racist. In this it differs from the state socialism of Burma today, and that of some African and Arab dictatorships.
Two prevailing historical myths that the left has propagated successfully is that Hitler was a far right wing conservative and was democratically elected in 1933 (a blow at bourgeois democracy and conservatives). Actually, he was defeated twice in the national elections (he became chancellor in a smoke-filled-room appointment by those German politicians who thought they could control him — see “What? Hitler Was Not Elected?”) and as head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, he considered himself a socialist, and was one by the evidence of his writings and the his economic policies.
To be clear, National Socialism differs from Marxism in its nationalism, emphasis on folk history and culture, idolization of the leader, and its racism. But the Nazi and Marxist-Leninists shared a faith in government, an absolute ruler, totalitarian control over all significant economic and social matters for the good of the working man, concentration camps, and genocide/democide as an effective government policy (only in his last years did Stalin plan for his own Holocaust of the Jews).
I’ve read Hitler’s Mein Kampf (all online here) and can quote the following from Volume 2:
Chapter VII:
In 1919-20 and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois [capitalist] meetings. Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days. . . . And so it is not surprising that the sane and unspoiled masses shun these ‘bourgeois mass meetings’ as the devil shuns holy water.
Chapter 4:
The folkish philosophy is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its view of life.If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a philosophy of life. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.
Chapter XII:
The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing the National Socialist People’s State, must always bear steadfastly in mind the principle that every future institution under that State must be rooted in the movement itself.
Some other quotes:
Hitler, spoken to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930:
I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. . . . What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism.
On this, see Alan Bullock, Hitler: a Study in Tyranny, pp.156-7; and Graham L. Strachan “MANUFACTURED REALITY: THE ‘THIRD WAY’”
Gregor Strasser, National Socialist theologian, said:
We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak … and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.
F.A. Hayek in his Road to Serfdom (p. 168) said:
The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism—Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle—are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism. …. From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and reactionaries, but the hard-working laborer and idealist youth into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine.
See also his chapter 12: “The Socialist Roots of Naziism.”
Von Mises in his Human Action (p. 171) said:
There are two patterns for the realization of socialism. The first pattern (we may call it the Lenin or Russian pattern) . . . . the second pattern (we may call it the Hindenburg or German Pattern) nominally and seemingly preserves private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary markets, prices, wages, and interest rates. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs, but only shop managers … bound to obey unconditionally the orders issued by government.
This is precisely how Hitler governed when he achieved dictatorial power.
In a previous blog, i referred to John J. Ray’s piece (“Hitler Was A Socialist”, and I was asked who he is. He has a Ph.D. in psychology, but taught sociology for many years. His fulsome bio is here. His article on Hitler is excellent and well researched. He has a blog on “dissecting leftism.”
Link of Note
“Myth: Hitler was a leftist By Steve Kanga
(note: A liberal activist, Kanga apparently shot himself to death outside of the office of anti-Clinton billionaire philanthropist Richard Mellon Scaif, February 8, 1999. It was ruled a suicide.)
Kanga says:
Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named “National Socialist.” But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship — it can only be democratic. Hitler’s other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.
Here you have a taste for how the left maintains its myth, as in conflating democracy and socialism. That is, true socialism “can only be democratic.” Right, like the Democratic People’s Republic of [North] Korea, or the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Democratic peace Q&A/FAQ
May 23, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Well, these definitions are always shifty. However, traditionally the extremes of left and right have been close to each other in their insistence on the moral authority of the government, whereas in the center the government is seen as a more or less neutral organizer and arbiter.
It is important to understand that Hitler was deeply sentimental, but only intermittently, so that anytime he could take anybody off guard. His values were those of the extreme right.
Where on the extreme left there is “the People”, on the extreme right there is “your Fatherland” and in either case not much about “the Law”.
May 24, 2009 at 2:07 am
Yes, definitions can be shifty. That is why what definition are used must be theoretically sound, conceptually tight, and empirically grounded in history and sociology. Saying this, as study of Hitler shows that he was a self-proclaimed National Socialist, also a fascist (fascism was and is socialist), and on the center of a scale from communist to monarchist. Communism is the end point of a scale from communism to libertarianism. And Monarchism is the end point of a scale from Monarchism to Libertarianism. Thus, political ideologies form a triangle within which all ideologies can be located. The left right scale just does not do it theoretically conceptually, and empirically, although popular among intellectuals and the chattering class
July 9, 2009 at 12:36 pm
cantueso is an idiot they dont shift, the left wing blames the right wing for its misfortunes fascism was born of the far left and remains so.
now as for nazism it was national socialism instead of international. Meaning? it was very left wing they say nazi’s destroyed the left wing it merely replaced it and then destroyed the right.
July 9, 2009 at 12:44 pm
as for rudyrummel there are several difference between fascism and socialism and what it boils down to is fascism is more of a cult of the state, its like a state worship, in fascism talking bad of the state or the military is treason, it has happened in America under Woodrow Wilson, he broke the American constitution by placing acts such as the Sedation Act.
Fascism is a cult of the state and works to make everybody equals which in that case is a branch of socialism, it takes an extreme pride in its military and the becomes involved in bussiness, it doesnt like individual freedom rather it prefers the state to think of itself as one whole body, FDR did this as well this his blue eagle program, fascism has been here but through liberals who were not called liberals until the 1930’s rather they called themselves progressives meaning liberals dont even know who they are. real progressvism inside America is fascist not socialist.
Now calling fascism right wing is simply idiotic now that we have this all done, its called right by the left because of its right left wing, its closer towards the middle but possibly one of the most dangerous, all forms of left wing government are oppressive and it makes no sense why they say “individual freedom is useless now” and “the constitution is useless inside today’s day and time. Karl Marx was an idiot and we should all learn to accept that.
July 9, 2009 at 12:47 pm
as for saying hitler supported capitalism that is retard research him he hated it, but he realized that the rich were funding him so he kept capitalism around realizing its how the would make all of this money before making his final blow to its engines and having it crumble…
which by the way is terrible because capitalism is an awesome system we all have to work up don’t we?
so save up and move onto the next level.
August 25, 2009 at 6:27 pm
It’s Revisionist Orwellian doublespeak to claim that Hitler and the nazis were on the polital left. The Truth is that Hitler and the nazis were politically far right and loathed all those on any segment of the left.
Hitler only used the term socialism because he believed the ideology was right-wing and opposed to Marxism:
1. ‘NATIONAL’ AND ‘SOCIAL’ ARE TWO IDENTICAL CONCEPTIONS. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it ”National Socialist.’ – Munich speech, April 12th, 1922
Hitler and the Nazis despised ALL politics on the left, and also they were funded by major german industrialists and also supported by the right-wing, anti-union, anti-semitic Henry Ford.
September 3, 2009 at 10:26 pm
[...] a Socialist, not a Right Wing Conservative August 22nd, 2005 Democratic Peace Blog Hitler Was A Socialist, (And Not A Right Wing Conservative) (LINK) What is socialism? It is a [...]
September 17, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Nazis were ideological conservatives. They were as right-wing as they come.
Why are americans so dense?
September 21, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Hitler was radical, not conservative.
The photo – I can’t see a Talmud, Torah or menorah anywhere – how is she Jewish, by simply looking at the pic? She could be Slav Atheist, Czech catholic, Gypsy or anything else. Germans killed plenty non Jew (more than Jews) so really the pic only illustrates man’s inhumanity to man.
September 22, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Hitler’s Germany was capitalist and imperialist. Hitlers loyalties lay with big business, he regarded free enterprise as an expression of ‘might is right’. Big business funded Hitler, this brought him into confrontation with the socialists and nationalists within the party.
Gregor strasser and Ernst Roehm (leader of the brown shirts) called for a completion of the revolution, condemning Hitlers new allegiances with the right. They both subsequently died as a result of the infamous ‘night of the long lives’ in 34, this night consolidated power for Hitler.
Hitler could then do what he really wanted to do with Germany, become the Fuhrer, turn his back on socialism and accelerate programs like eugenics. Having said that post 34 nazi-germany still advocated elements of socialism, nationalised healthcare, education, peasant land rights, improved factory conditions etc. This was partly to appease an expectant German nation, and partly due to left-nazi’s still within the party.
So no, Hitler was not a socialist, Hitler was anything he thought he needed to be.
September 28, 2009 at 2:56 am
[...] [...]
October 22, 2009 at 10:59 am
Nancy Pelosi and Rush Limbaugh are neither accurately compared with Hitler if you apply any perspective at all. There is political philosophies and then their is the proclivity to dominance. If you consider Hitler on the same side of the fence as conservatives you might as well through him in the same boat as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Nazi Germany was not a rule of law and attenuated government. It was a dictatorship; and our own (U.S.) constitution is engendered in limited government and more often than not the right pursue limited government (anti-gun control, limited government influence in the capitalist system, low taxes, and overall self determination of the individual rather than dependence on the government).
If you consider Hitler in the same arena as the modern left you are flawed as well. Hitler would not have cared for affirmative action, illegal immigrants voting (our any one for that manner), and he would not have been a big friend of lawyers (this unfortunately puts the biggest bastard of humanity on the same side of the fence as many of us). The point I am trying to make is that comparing Hitler to today’s political movements is like comparing a red Corvette to a cherry because they are both red.
The only real philosophical comparison to Hitler and the left is possibility in the abortion debate in the belief that people have the right to kill the unborn for the benefit of the others. If you are open minded of enough to consider this do a little bit of research on Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parent hood. Named the Birth Control League, its newsletter (The Birth Control Review) often featured articles by Prof. Dr. Ernst Rudin, head of Nazi Germany’s eugenics program in the April 1933 edition and in other articles promoted eugenic concentration camps.
Now you know.