In this other post, I talked about the different kinds of socialism. In this post I'm going to talk about Hitler's brand of socialism, and why it was superior to Marxism.
All forms of socialism are collectivist. Marxism is based on class, where the proletariat is the good group, and the bourgeoisie is the bad group which needs to be exterminated. National socialism is based on race, where the Aryans are the good group, and the Jews are the bad group which needs to be exterminated.
But the two are also different when it comes to economic implementation, and Hitler's way was superior. Some of it had to do with the timing. Germany was in a really bad way when Hitler came into power, and he was able to deliver on a very important political promise: full employment. Of course, creating jobs is easy for any government to do. Many people, including most of the people reading this, believe the economy is nothing more than a jobs program. In my opinion this fooled the German people into believing Hitler was making Germany better off, when in fact, he wasn't. But Hitler's goal wasn't prosperity for the German people, it was building a war machine while appearing to comply with the Versailles treaty.
One thing you will notice about people sympathetic to Marxism is that they don't particularly care about results, but they do care enormously about the process. For example, no matter how badly a government-run school fails, the modern leftist will never want the school to be closed down. To them it's the process that is of primary importance, not the results. They want the state running the schools, end of story, and nothing will change their minds. This is no different in principle than Stalin forcing family farms to be collectivized, even after famines killed literally millions of people as a result of that policy.
Hitler was a socialist, be he was different in this respect. He cared about results, not the process. He didn't give a shit how things got done, he just wanted his desires to get done.
When Hitler met with Gregor Strasser in 1930 he argued:
History proved that Hitler was correct. He built his war machine in just six years, and remember, building tanks and bombs doesn't raise the standard of living one iota.
Hitler understood that by simply using government power - laws, regulation, taxation, etc, he could control and direct the entire economy in order to achieve his political goals. If you are a businessman running a business in a dictatorship, and the dictator tells you to do something, you are going to do it, because if you don't, there's a good chance you will end up six feet underground or in a concentration camp. Hitler knew that too much state ownership results in the debacle that was going on in Russia at the time. Much better to focus on control rather than ownership. This way you can leave alone those parts of the economy which are irrelevant to your political goals.
One of the clearest ways to see the difference between Marxism and National socialism is in the cars they made. In Marxist East Germany, the Trabant was designed by a party member by the name of Werner Lang. It was what you would expect from a car built by the state.
When Hitler set out to have a car built (because this is socialism) he ordered none other than Ferdinand Porsche to design it. Hitler, being a leftist, named it "The People's Car" (Volkswagen). The enterprise to build the car was Volkswagenwerk AG, and it was state-owned. They didn't build many cars, because by 1939 the factory switched entirely to war production, but I think we can all agree that Hitler's factories would have produced cars far superior to any Marxist country, based on the quality of German tanks produced from that same factory.
Let's keep in mind that any kind of socialism is awful and will result in living standards falling off a cliff, but Hitler's socialism was smarter and better, because he focused on results, not the process.
Edit: Another Marxist car.
All forms of socialism are collectivist. Marxism is based on class, where the proletariat is the good group, and the bourgeoisie is the bad group which needs to be exterminated. National socialism is based on race, where the Aryans are the good group, and the Jews are the bad group which needs to be exterminated.
But the two are also different when it comes to economic implementation, and Hitler's way was superior. Some of it had to do with the timing. Germany was in a really bad way when Hitler came into power, and he was able to deliver on a very important political promise: full employment. Of course, creating jobs is easy for any government to do. Many people, including most of the people reading this, believe the economy is nothing more than a jobs program. In my opinion this fooled the German people into believing Hitler was making Germany better off, when in fact, he wasn't. But Hitler's goal wasn't prosperity for the German people, it was building a war machine while appearing to comply with the Versailles treaty.
One thing you will notice about people sympathetic to Marxism is that they don't particularly care about results, but they do care enormously about the process. For example, no matter how badly a government-run school fails, the modern leftist will never want the school to be closed down. To them it's the process that is of primary importance, not the results. They want the state running the schools, end of story, and nothing will change their minds. This is no different in principle than Stalin forcing family farms to be collectivized, even after famines killed literally millions of people as a result of that policy.
Hitler was a socialist, be he was different in this respect. He cared about results, not the process. He didn't give a shit how things got done, he just wanted his desires to get done.
When Hitler met with Gregor Strasser in 1930 he argued:
Why do we need all that socialisation of the banks and factories? What does it matter once I have the people firmly fitted into a discipline from which they cannot escape? We are socialising the people."
History proved that Hitler was correct. He built his war machine in just six years, and remember, building tanks and bombs doesn't raise the standard of living one iota.
Hitler understood that by simply using government power - laws, regulation, taxation, etc, he could control and direct the entire economy in order to achieve his political goals. If you are a businessman running a business in a dictatorship, and the dictator tells you to do something, you are going to do it, because if you don't, there's a good chance you will end up six feet underground or in a concentration camp. Hitler knew that too much state ownership results in the debacle that was going on in Russia at the time. Much better to focus on control rather than ownership. This way you can leave alone those parts of the economy which are irrelevant to your political goals.
One of the clearest ways to see the difference between Marxism and National socialism is in the cars they made. In Marxist East Germany, the Trabant was designed by a party member by the name of Werner Lang. It was what you would expect from a car built by the state.
When Hitler set out to have a car built (because this is socialism) he ordered none other than Ferdinand Porsche to design it. Hitler, being a leftist, named it "The People's Car" (Volkswagen). The enterprise to build the car was Volkswagenwerk AG, and it was state-owned. They didn't build many cars, because by 1939 the factory switched entirely to war production, but I think we can all agree that Hitler's factories would have produced cars far superior to any Marxist country, based on the quality of German tanks produced from that same factory.
Let's keep in mind that any kind of socialism is awful and will result in living standards falling off a cliff, but Hitler's socialism was smarter and better, because he focused on results, not the process.
Edit: Another Marxist car.
Last edited:
