• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A tale of two cars: why Hitler's socialism was superior to Marxism

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:

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:

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
16,632
Reaction score
7,210
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
If Hitler was such a socialist, why was he supported by the German - and others, like Henry Ford - capitalist class? You know, that tiny percentage who benefitted greatly until the war destroyed their factories. Doesn't look very socialist to me but then that's just my opinion supported by the facts.
 

aociswundumho

Capitalist Pig
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
11,106
Reaction score
5,429
Location
Bridgeport, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
If Hitler was such a socialist, why was he supported by the German - and others, like Henry Ford - capitalist class?

Because Hitler was very vocal about being against Marxism. Big businesses saw what Marxists did to Russia, and they wanted no part of that. They figured Nazism had to be better than Marxism.

See post 43 regarding Henry Ford.

You know, that tiny percentage who benefitted greatly until the war destroyed their factories.

This was written before the war started:

But not only Jews have suffered. Out of Germany has come a steady, ever-swelling stream of refugees, Jews and Gentiles, liberals and conservatives, Catholics as well as Protestants, who could stand Naziism no longer. TIME'S cover, showing Organist Adolf Hitler playing his hymn of hate in a desecrated cathedral while victims dangle on a St. Catherine's wheel and the Nazi hierarchy looks on, was drawn by Baron Rudolph Charles von Ripper (see p. 20), a Catholic who found Germany intolerable. Meanwhile, Germany has become a nation of uniforms, goose-stepping to Hitler's tune, where boys of ten are taught to throw hand grenades, where women are regarded as breeding machines. Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for foodstuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism.


Doesn't look very socialist to me

Perhaps you should look again.

but then that's just my opinion supported by the facts.
 

CaughtInThe

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
67,170
Reaction score
46,905
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
look at the OP trying his hardest to make ole Hitler (authoritarian racist dictator) into a socialist.

maybe Hitler was really fighting just to dominate the coming iPhone or microchip market run by the Germany. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:



"In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated his desire to "make war upon the Marxist principle that all men are equal."

He believed that "the notion of equality was a sin against nature."

Nazism upheld the "natural inequality of men," including inequality between races and also within each race. The National Socialist state aimed to advance those individuals with special talents or intelligence, so they could rule over the masses."
 

aociswundumho

Capitalist Pig
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
11,106
Reaction score
5,429
Location
Bridgeport, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
look at the OP trying his hardest to make ole Hitler (authoritarian racist dictator) into a socialist.

He was a socialist, as was Mussolini. There are many kinds of socialism.

"In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated his desire to "make war upon the Marxist principle that all men are equal."

Marx didn't believe all men are equal, he just wasn't as much of a racist as Hitler was. Marx also believed in phrenology.

He believed that "the notion of equality was a sin against nature."

Nazism upheld the "natural inequality of men," including inequality between races and also within each race. The National Socialist state aimed to advance those individuals with special talents or intelligence, so they could rule over the masses."

Yes, Nazism is based on race. Marxism is based on class. Your point?
 

CaughtInThe

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
67,170
Reaction score
46,905
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He was a socialist, as was Mussolini. There are many kinds of socialism.



Marx didn't believe all men are equal, he just wasn't as much of a racist as Hitler was. Marx also believed in phrenology.



Yes, Nazism is based on race. Marxism is based on class. Your point?
you keep trying. at least it shows us what media you consume.
 

NOVA66

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2022
Messages
626
Reaction score
300
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
A Republican must be the one that bought Hitlers watch at auction.
 
Top Bottom