• 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!

If Fascism was a literal ideology, then why are there no pro Hitler liberal politicians?

Ernst Rohm, leader of the S.A., was an original member of the socialist German Workers Party, as were many S.A. rank-and-file. Gregor Strasser, leader of the leftist Strasserist faction of the new Nazi party went down that night too. His brother Otto had already fled to Czechoslovakia, being better able to read the writing on the wall.
Trotskyists were killed by Stalin too. Intramural violence is a common feature of revolutionary movements
You're right, there were several stripes of Freikorps but Hitler and his group were definitely anti leftist and anti socialist. They were far-right. Once Hitler consolidated his power he supported Franco's conservative rebellion against the socialist government in Spain
Most of Hitler’s advisors didn’t want any involvement in Spain, and to the extent the Germans supported the Nationalists it was for self interested motives and not because of ideological sympathy.
and had socialists confined in concentration camps.
But simple-minded rightists still insist on pointing to that 'S' and calling Nazism leftist.
The Nazis pulled all of their ideology from leftist theory.
 
Hitler was a national socialist, not a fascist. The Nazis never called themselves fascists, and Hitler would often criticize Mussolini.
Just don't, you're talking to people who've already drank the kool-aid of the far-left's cult mentality.
The mass amount off propaganda in the OP, really doesn't help them either.
 
Socialism is public control over the means of production. Hitler's government controlled the German economy to the same extent as Lenin's did over the Russian economy but he did it in a different way. Socialism comes in many different varieties and there are many different ways to get the same result.

You mention the autobahn, but the list is very long. One example is the state-owned Reichswerke Hermann Goring:



Hitler could never have done what he did without complete control over the economy.
Problem: socialism controls who gets profit, not production. In socialism, production is based on capitalist markets to make the profit for the government to dole out.
 
Gregor Strasser, leader of the leftist Strasserist faction of the new Nazi party went down that night too. His brother Otto had already fled to Czechoslovakia, being better able to read the writing on the wall.

Yes, the Strasser brothers were leftist; Otto was a former member of the SDP, which was one of the very first Marxist political parties. Their antisemitism came from the observation that Jews do very well under capitalism. Marx (who was a Jew himself) also hated Jews for this reason.

You're right, there were several stripes of Freikorps but Hitler and his group were definitely anti leftist and anti socialist. They were far-right.

Then how do you explain the fact that both Strasser brothers were members of the "far right" "anti socialist" Freikorps?

Once Hitler consolidated his power he supported Franco's conservative rebellion against the socialist government in Spain and had socialists confined in concentration camps.
But simple-minded rightists still insist on pointing to that 'S' and calling Nazism leftist.

By this reasoning, the Bolsheviks were right wing because they had the Mensheviks killed.
 
LOL The 1st thing Hitler did when he took power is arrest all socialists and ban all unions. He was a fascist and the term National socialist was just another lie.

He arrested Marxists, not socialists per se, and Hitler was quite fond of unions. From Mein Kampf:

In the present state of affairs I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the economic life of the nation. Not only are they important in the sphere of social policy but also, and even more so, in the national political sphere. For when the great masses of a nation see their vital needs satisfied through a just trade unionist movement the stamina of the whole nation in its struggle for existence will be enormously reinforced thereby.

Hitler didn't ban the unions, he did what a socialist would do - he nationalized them, and created the German Labor Front. He had no choice, as no independent unions have ever existed in any socialist state - you can't have labor strikes in a socialist planned economy:

Hitler extended to Göring the power to make law simply by publishing decrees, which enabled him to create other plenipotentiaries in overall charge of various industries. Göring constantly expanded the scope of the plan until he became the de facto master of the German economy

I.e. public control over the means of production.
 
He arrested Marxists, not socialists per se, and Hitler was quite fond of unions. From Mein Kampf:



Hitler didn't ban the unions, he did what a socialist would do - he nationalized them, and created the German Labor Front. He had no choice, as no independent unions have ever existed in any socialist state - you can't have labor strikes in a socialist planned economy:



I.e. public control over the means of production.
Fascist dictators control everything including the "means of production". That does not make them socialist.
 
Fascist dictators control everything including the "means of production". That does not make them socialist.

Actually, it does.

Btw, you broke the narrative. You are suppose to claim that Hitler was a capitalist.
 
Actually, it does.

Btw, you broke the narrative. You are suppose to claim that Hitler was a capitalist.
He was both at the same time. He was for whatever policy worked at the moment for his cultural goals.

That is usually how fascists go about economics, its not a core concern.
 
Actually, it does.

Btw, you broke the narrative. You are suppose to claim that Hitler was a capitalist.
LOL You do know that many German corporations got rich under the 3rd Reich. Hitler's power was created by the rich and he never failed them. He was at least as much of a "capitalist" as Putin is. His friends got very wealthy.

The great majority of German businessmen behaved in a decidedly unheroic manner during the Nazi era. Most of them, especially leaders of larger companies, not only refrained from risking their lives to save Jews, but actually profited from the use of forced and slave labor, the "Aryanization" of Jewish property, and the plundering of companies in Nazi-occupied Europe.

https://www.adl.org/news/op-ed/german-businesses-and-nazis
 
Last edited:
He was both at the same time.

He was at least as much of a "capitalist" as Putin is. His friends got very wealthy.

Ok, so for both of you: list Hitler's capitalist policies. Name the economic policies which Hitler enacted that Milton Friedman would approve of.
 
Ok, so for both of you: list Hitler's capitalist policies. Name the economic policies which Hitler enacted that Milton Friedman would approve of.
Whether Milton Friedman approved of anything is irrelevant, Capitalism has a lot of definitions that are applied in the real world and the one you tend to go with is usually so strict that it could never possibly be enacted in a modern economy. So given that ...

Here is one example : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties
 
Whether Milton Friedman approved of anything is irrelevant, Capitalism has a lot of definitions that are applied in the real world and the one you tend to go with is usually so strict that it could never possibly be enacted in a modern economy. So given that ...

Here is one example : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties

Let's have a look:

The Great Depression had spurred increased state ownership in most Western capitalist countries. This also took place in Germany during the last years of the Weimar Republic.[41] However, after the Nazis took power, industries were privatized en masse. Several banks, shipyards, railway lines, shipping lines, welfare organizations, and more were privatized.[42]

The citations point to a paper by Germa Bel, called AGAINST THE MAINSTREAM : NAZI PRIVATIZATION IN 1930s GERMANY. I happen to be familiar with it, and note that the wikipedia editor did not quote the paper, instead he interpreted it for us, hoping no one would actually read it. From that paper, bold by me:


The fiscal importance of privatization proceeds to 1934-37 Germany can hardly be denied,
particularly in comparison to modern privatizations like those applied recently in the European
Union countries. However, it is worth noting that the general orientation of the Nazi economic
policy was the exact opposite of that of the EU countries
in the late 1990s: Whereas the modern
privatization in the EU has been parallel to liberalization policies, in Nazi Germany privatization
was applied within a framework of increasing control of the state over the whole economy
through regulation and political interference.


Interesting how "privatization" under Hitler resulted in more state control over the economy. That was because these enterprises were often sold to party members.

With respect to his position with regard to private ownership, Hitler explained that “I want everyone to keep what he
has earned subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the
individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of
the State....The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners.”

Those are the words of a socialist, not a capitalist.

In 1939, Time Magazine named Hitler the man of the year:

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.


Hitler was a socialist, not a capitalist. The entire German economy was tightly controlled by the Nazi government.
 
Let's have a look:



The citations point to a paper by Germa Bel, called AGAINST THE MAINSTREAM : NAZI PRIVATIZATION IN 1930s GERMANY. I happen to be familiar with it, and note that the wikipedia editor did not quote the paper, instead he interpreted it for us, hoping no one would actually read it. From that paper, bold by me:



Interesting how "privatization" under Hitler resulted in more state control over the economy. That was because these enterprises were often sold to party members.



Those are the words of a socialist, not a capitalist.

In 1939, Time Magazine named Hitler the man of the year:

The privatization is consistent with capitalism. Capitalism isn't about state or private control but about private ownership of capitol assets. Ownership does not mean an absence of things like regulations or laws either. It simply means that its owned by an individual or a group through stocks and that markets are used for price discovery.

In terms of how the Nazis applied it ... Was it universal among all industries? No. Were tools associated with capitalism used? Yup.

So the result is mixed, as I mentioned already, as an economy doesn't need to be 100% capitalist to be capitalist, be called capitalist, or to use capitalist tools and there is clear evidence in the wikipedia article that Nazis were capitalist when it suited them.
 
Last edited:
To answer the question in the thread title, to find pro-Hitler Liberals you need to look at the Liberal politicians of the '20s and '30s. After all, Mussolini and Hitler just took just took Liberal goals and positions and cranked them up to 11.

As for a definition of fascism, I like Jonah Goldberg's: "Fascism is a religion of the state. it assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the 'problem' and therefore defined as the enemy."

Mussolini started his political involvement as a socialist, but was unceremoniously kicked out of the Italian socialist party for his support of WWI.
Note that the reason he was expelled had nothing to do with his economic views but his rejection of internationalism. That is one of the major differentiations between communism and fascism, nationalism vs. internationalism.

Capitalism isn't about state or private control but about private ownership of capitol assets.
The Merriam-Webster definition of capitalism: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."

I don't see anything in that definition that includes massive levels of government regulation of the economy, such as you find under fascism/nazism or communism.
 
Nazism and fascism are different ideologies.
As best I can tell, the only real difference between them is that one focuses on nationality and the other focuses on race. That's why I see them as siblings while communism is a cousin to them both.
 
As best I can tell, the only real difference between them is that one focuses on nationality and the other focuses on race.

Yup, and that's a significant difference. I wrote a post about how socialism can be based on almost anything.
 
To answer the question in the thread title, to find pro-Hitler Liberals you need to look at the Liberal politicians of the '20s and '30s. After all, Mussolini and Hitler just took just took Liberal goals and positions and cranked them up to 11.

As for a definition of fascism, I like Jonah Goldberg's: "Fascism is a religion of the state. it assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the 'problem' and therefore defined as the enemy."


Note that the reason he was expelled had nothing to do with his economic views but his rejection of internationalism. That is one of the major differentiations between communism and fascism, nationalism vs. internationalism.
Exactly so you have to go back before the southern strategy to find something like that. Which proves my point. If you have to go back nearly 100 years, then there’s no argument to be made there.

Also your second point goes to my point of hurlers attitude of “whatever works at the moment”
The Merriam-Webster definition of capitalism: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."

I don't see anything in that definition that includes massive levels of government regulation of the economy, such as you find under fascism/nazism or communism.
The purity aspect of saying it has to be over whatever percent capitalist to be capitalist doesn’t work for this context. The pint of view of “it’s not capitalist unless it’s mostly capitalist” is an example of that. The fact is that capitalism was seen as a tool in the tool bag by the nazis.

Mid we are going by that standard, pretty much no capitalist economies exist in modern countries, it’s a useless standard for that reason as every modern economy is a mixed one. That’s why I am rejecting that standard and arguing from a different point of view, which is what I previously stated, the nazis regarded capitalism as a tool in the tool best with privatization being an example of that.
 
Exactly so you have to go back before the southern strategy to find something like that.
‘20s and ‘30s Leftists weren’t racists because they were Southerners, they were racists because they were Leftists and therefore had bought into the whole eugenics program that “Progressive” theorizers were pushing at the time. The debate on the Left wasn’t over whether eugenics programs should be instituted, but whether they should be “negative” (prevent the unwanted from breeding) or “positive” (restricted to encouraging the “right” sort of people to have more kids). Wilson’s brand of racism was “east coast college intellectual” rather than “southern.”


The purity aspect of saying it has to be over whatever percent capitalist to be capitalist doesn’t work for this context. The pint of view of “it’s not capitalist unless it’s mostly capitalist” is an example of that. The fact is that capitalism was seen as a tool in the tool bag by the nazis.
No, capitalists were seen as tools—rather than simply liquidate them as the Communists preferred, the Nazis and Fascists preferred to put them to work for the State instead. But having the State being the one making all the important decisions is the antithesis of Capitalism.

As for “whatever works for the moment”? Wasn’t that the same supposed attitude of the FDR Administration? Like the Fascists and Nazis, FDR was happy to go with “whatever works” … so long as whatever it was had the government in control.
 
Heads up @tacomancer the thread title is kinda embarrassingly misleading XD.

If Fascism was a literal ideology, then why are there no pro Hitler liberal politicians?​

 
‘20s and ‘30s Leftists weren’t racists because they were Southerners, they were racists because they were Leftists and therefore had bought into the whole eugenics program that “Progressive” theorizers were pushing at the time. The debate on the Left wasn’t over whether eugenics programs should be instituted, but whether they should be “negative” (prevent the unwanted from breeding) or “positive” (restricted to encouraging the “right” sort of people to have more kids). Wilson’s brand of racism was “east coast college intellectual” rather than “southern.”
They were racist because pretty much everyone was a racist at that time. It wasn’t until civil rights that this started to wane.

Liberals learned that lesson in the 60s (not completely but better than conservatives did)
No, capitalists were seen as tools—rather than simply liquidate them as the Communists preferred, the Nazis and Fascists preferred to put them to work for the State instead. But having the State being the one making all the important decisions is the antithesis of Capitalism.
Capitalists were seen as tools as well. That helps underlying my point.
As for “whatever works for the moment”? Wasn’t that the same supposed attitude of the FDR Administration? Like the Fascists and Nazis, FDR was happy to go with “whatever works” … so long as whatever it was had the government in control.
If a ball and and a suitcase are both blue, it doesn’t mean the ball is a suitcase.
 
Exactly so you have to go back before the southern strategy to find something like that. Which proves my point. If you have to go back nearly 100 years, then there’s no argument to be made there.

Also your second point goes to my point of hurlers attitude of “whatever works at the moment”

The purity aspect of saying it has to be over whatever percent capitalist to be capitalist doesn’t work for this context. The pint of view of “it’s not capitalist unless it’s mostly capitalist” is an example of that. The fact is that capitalism was seen as a tool in the tool bag by the nazis.

Mid we are going by that standard, pretty much no capitalist economies exist in modern countries, it’s a useless standard for that reason as every modern economy is a mixed one. That’s why I am rejecting that standard and arguing from a different point of view, which is what I previously stated, the nazis regarded capitalism as a tool in the tool best with privatization being an example of that.
Hell even the control over businesses was nowhere near the extent of the soviets where they controlled the factories outright. Businesses competed for contracts and bought slaves….
 
There is a distinct lack of critical thinking occurring in this thread.
 
‘20s and ‘30s Leftists weren’t racists because they were Southerners, they were racists because they were Leftists and therefore had bought into the whole eugenics program that “Progressive” theorizers were pushing at the time. The debate on the Left wasn’t over whether eugenics programs should be instituted, but whether they should be “negative” (prevent the unwanted from breeding) or “positive” (restricted to encouraging the “right” sort of people to have more kids). Wilson’s brand of racism was “east coast college intellectual” rather than “southern.”



No, capitalists were seen as tools—rather than simply liquidate them as the Communists preferred, the Nazis and Fascists preferred to put them to work for the State instead. But having the State being the one making all the important decisions is the antithesis of Capitalism.

As for “whatever works for the moment”? Wasn’t that the same supposed attitude of the FDR Administration? Like the Fascists and Nazis, FDR was happy to go with “whatever works” … so long as whatever it was had the government in control.

😂😂😂

Claiming that Dixiecrats—- the folks who routinely claimed that the civil rights movement was a “communist plot” were leftists is downright hysterical. It takes a special kind of historical ignorance to think the south was “leftist” in any way, shape or form.
 
They were racist because pretty much everyone was a racist at that time. It wasn’t until civil rights that this started to wane.
Actually, it was after we learned about the Holocaust that it started to wane, it just waned at different rates in different parts of the country.

Liberals learned that lesson in the 60s (not completely but better than conservatives did)
Until they unlearned it with Affirmative Action, quotas, and eventually full-blown CRT.

If a ball and and a suitcase are both blue, it doesn’t mean the ball is a suitcase.
Alternatively, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... Though really, the FDR administration wasn't the most fascistic this country has had, that "honor" goes to the Wilson administration after we declared war in WWI.

Claiming that Dixiecrats—- the folks who routinely claimed that the civil rights movement was a “communist plot” were leftists is downright hysterical. It takes a special kind of historical ignorance to think the south was “leftist” in any way, shape or form.
I didn't say the Dixiecrats were leftists, I said the pre-WWII Left were racists. In truth, the Nazis just took the Liberals'/Progressives' racial program and cranked it to 11.
 
Back
Top Bottom