Capitalism, Communism, and Fascism


Doesn’t really matter in my eyes, since as far as I know, they privatized industries. No visible socialist influence was in the party in any relevant capacity. Nazism is a defined ideology, it’s not theoretical like socialism or something. Nazism is the set ideology and implementation of the policies of the Nazi party. None of these things are socialist.


Yes, some, not all, some were nationalised, such as aviation, synthetic oil, rubber, aluminium, chemicals, iron, steel and military equipment. Between 1934 and 1943 govt finances for state-owned enterprises quadrupled, and Nazi nationalisation brought the number of state-owned business to over 500.

R. J. Overy, War and Economy in the Third Reich

Naziism is theoretical in places, like socialism and many other ideologies. Naziism is not an entirely rigid ideology.


Then how can you say they were socialist? There was no pursuing of the means of production being given to the workers. I think @StrangeSignal would better argue this point, but nationalization doesn’t speak ‘socialism’ to me, it speaks some weird quasi state-capitalist system. Or, more like what it was, a fascist system.

But being a fascist ideology by nature, it’s theoretical economics (if there’s even any theoretical things about it) wouldn’t stem to socialist economics. Plenge advocated for an authoritarian, rational ruling party that would develop the ideology through a hierarchical technocratic state, and that formed the basis of Nazism.

The Nazi’s pursued political solutions to economic problems, namely the elimination of organized labor groups. Market boards were given monopoly rights to control farm production.

Hitler himself believed that private ownership was useful for creating competition and innovation, and pursued the privatization of public services, as well as a command economy planned to be achieved with rearmament. (R. J. Overy, The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia)


Besides it literally being founded by socialists, and there being modern Nazis who consider themselves more in common with Strasser economically than Hitler. I wouldn’t say Nazism is inherently socialist, because a good many are not. But to say it’s “not socialism” is silly.[quote="_lake, post:41, topic:110853"]
Nazism is the set ideology and implementation of the policies of the Nazi party

As though the Nazi Party was this unified thing with a united concept on what the ideology was and what it should achieve.


National Socialism is such a shit name

Fuck you Hitler


I’m not saying the NSDAP were socialist, you’re not listening to me. I’m saying many were, and the Nazis identified with the labour struggle.

Socialism is very broad ideology, with many modern-day socialists not holding the view that the MoP should be given to the workers through socialisation (and rather through nationalisation).

The Nazis weren’t fascist.

Many early socialists held the view that a nation-state couple with corporate solidarism, and
as I said, socialism is a very broad ideology.

Sometimes I copy and paste what people reply to see if it’s really their words, especially if I think that level of understanding is above them or the way of writing is different to how they usually post. Anyway, I like how you copied and pasted that exert from Wikipedia and conviently miss out the bit slightly above your quote - “This National Socialism was a form of state socialism that rejected the “idea of boundless freedom” and promoted an economy that would serve the whole of Germany under the leadership of the state.[100] This National Socialism was opposed to capitalism because of the components that were against “the national interest” of Germany, but insisted that National Socialism would strive for greater efficiency in the economy.”.

Where did I say Hitler was a socialist?


Pretty much this. Saying Nazis were Fascist would be like saying Fascists were Bolsheviks.


oh god not this argument again


Did someone say Jewish Bolshevism?


What argument?


Mussolini’s Jewish mistress helped him create Fascism.

Coincidence? I think not.




I will just link a topic from actual fash people. If anybody wants to understand why fash = National Socialism, this’ll explain it best once you get past some of the insults;


Oh the irony.

They argue that Fascism is a “worldview” which “manifests” in different ideologies. I’ve seen their bizarre stuff before and it has nothing to do with Fascism. Don’t know what you would call them, probably some bizarre neo-reactionaries who never actually participated in a tradition. Which would make them the same LARPers that they rail against, as though having policies for how your beliefs should be applied in the real would is live action role playing and just not being an autistic twit locked in their room thinking how special they are.[quote=“Champion, post:53, topic:110853”]
If anybody wants to understand why fash = National Socialism,

There’s no compelling argument that they’re the same, and I already stated my reason for believing that they’re different (them developing separately, analogue to the Bolshevik movement who they were inspired by).


Then there’s no debate to be had. Don’t reply and try to refute my original point that Nazism isn’t socialist if you’re just wasting time.

In what way is Nazism not categorized as fascist?

I copy pasted something, so I don’t understand it? I left out that part because it wasn’t relevant. This was the idea of Plenge who was purged from the party for these socialist-leaning views. Just like most others that leaned toward socialist ideas. Funny that.

We can look at what ideas from Plenge that were and were not kept in the implementation of Nazism; and given that private ownership was encouraged along with state industry, it demonstratably wasn’t state socialist.

You’ll come off a lot better without the ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude, thanks.

If your point of refuting my original point wasn’t to argue that the Nazi’s were socialist, then why did you reply at all?


It being an independent movement which arose on it’s own?[quote="_lake, post:55, topic:110853"]
his was the idea of Plenge who was purged from the party for these socialist-leaning views. Just like most others that leaned toward socialist ideas.

Strasser and Rohm were purged from the Nazi Party because they stood in Hitler’s way to power and not because of their socialist-leaning views. Even in the 30’s and 40’s, Nazis expressed socialist ideas to an extent. Günter Reimann expressed fear that after the Jews, the Nazis might turn on businessmen as “white Jews” and “Nazi radicals think of nothing except ‘distributing the wealth.’” figures such as Oswald Spengler who proposed a kind of corporative socialism were courted, but rebuffed the Nazis[quote="_lake, post:55, topic:110853"]
You’ll come off a lot better without the ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude, thanks.

Honestly at this point, you’re not fit to lecture @BingoBongoLand on “holier-than-thou” attitude, if your head gets any bigger at this point it’s liable to explode.

Bloody baby socialists who read Wikipedia and think they know everything.


I’m sorry you feel that way :slight_smile:


It is.

It does.

You are hardly an authority by comparison.

oh dear the ignorance

> coming from the literal anime nazi fan-tran[quote=“Flavia, post:54, topic:110853”]
There’s no compelling argument that they’re the same, and I already stated my reason for believing that they’re different (them developing separately, analogue to the Bolshevik movement who they were inspired by).

Ah okay something of substance. I’ll be cordial in this response.

Where the disagreement arises is in that you appear to view “fascism” as an equivalent to Nazism or Bolshevism. From my encounters with you previously you seem to draw more from non-fascist philosophers and a bit of “classical fascism” (which isn’t a real ideology, but that’s a separate argument). Here’s the thing, it’s very difficult to put a finger on fascism from the outside and even those who claim the title often are mislead.

I will admit, though I refuse the label I have been heavily present around fascists and their beliefs (shocker!). The best way to describe fascism is that it is a worldview. Though the term as we know it today was sort of “created” with the likes of Mussolini, it always existed in at least a more primitive state previously. The Roman Empire and the Napoleonic Empire are sometimes considered a sort of “forerunner” in fashy circles.The reason for this line of thought is that fascism as a worldview is temporal- that is, based on the time and circumstances a people is faced with. In that respect, fascism manifests itself in alternate ways with different ideas in the face of the people’s temporal circumstances. The National Socialists of Germany and the Falange of Spain and the National Fascists of Italy are all manifestations of fascism under different societies/ cultures and temporal conditions. It is very easy and obvious to pick out certain policy differences or even issues as fundamental as the concept of a master race, but all follow the sort of spiritual bearings of fascism as a worldview.

Simply put, there’s no single situation or movement or party which constitutes “the fascism”, so to speak. It is very easy to get bogged down on contemporary writers and their argument for how national socialism does not equate to Mussolini’s fascism, etc, but to do so misses the point and the beliefs of those who follow the worldview. It’s sort of the opposite of the socialist insistence on “It’s not real socialism!!!” in that “real fascism” actually has many manifestations.

I am not sure how far you personally delved into fascist writers, or even at what age you claimed to be one yourself, but I would recommend Codreanu’s writings as a sort of gateway into understanding fascism as a worldview. As a final sort of explanation, nazism is a fascism, but fascism is not a nazism.

I doubt flavia would admit it, but, hopefully for the rest of you you can see the difference between truly understanding fascism and the street goons and anime weebs that compose modern day “nazism”.


I’ve debated true facists like Il Duce , they are no joke ideologically speaking or in terms of philosophical capacity to argue, people tend to favour freedom over authoritarianism which is one of the main defences liberal societies have against facism, it’s inherently less appealing to anyone who has a half decent life already , and it’s probably the main reason why it has not returned to full ideological strength in recent times, conditions are not bad enough to convince modern conservatives like me to throw away our liberal(neoclassical) values , to facism being diametrically opposed, as that is what most modern European conservatives are fighting for


@StrangeSignal, I don’t think we even need to wage revolution. We just need to convince right-wingers to become more like Iron Marchers: autistic meme posters who think they’re some kind of celestial Hyperborean warrior and believe in magic race spirits while paying absolutely no attention to real life things like policies.

It has a philosophical worldview the same as any other ideology, but to say it’s only a worldview is just stupid. It probably has a worldview less than Communism because it was a combination of a lot of opportunistic and contradictory elements.[quote=“Champion, post:60, topic:110853”]
It does.

“Okay man we believe in this vital cosmic Truth which we have to live by - let’s arbitrarily give it the name Fascism despite it having absolutely nothing to do with the historical ideology known as Fascism.”

Actually, I am. I’ve actually read Fascist literature and studied it’s history. Your autistic little ad hominems about me being transgender aside, it has no bearing on my understanding of the ideology.[quote=“Champion, post:60, topic:110853”]
> coming from the literal anime nazi fan-tran

“Yeah I may be a Neo Fascist Monarchist, Clericalist, Half Slav Esoteric Hitlerist who dresses up in Nazi Uniforms, faps to trap porn, and pretends to be a militant online. But you’re the LARPer here.”