I have often seen the National Socialist Workers Party of the 1920 to 1945 era in Germany described as “right wing”. But, with socialist right there in the name it is obviously deserves the “left wing” label. Correct?
Well… perhaps not. I asked Copilot and Grok about this. They agreed with each other, but Grok described it best:
The National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP, or Nazi Party) included “socialist” and “workers'” in its name as a deliberate propaganda tactic to appeal to disaffected working-class Germans during the economic turmoil of the Weimar Republic in the 1920s. The party’s precursor, the German Workers’ Party (DAP), was renamed in 1920 to attract voters away from actual left-wing parties like the Social Democrats (SPD) or Communists (KPD). Early party programs, such as the 1920 25-Point Program, included some anti-capitalist rhetoric—like calls for profit-sharing in large industries or nationalization of trusts—to sound revolutionary and worker-friendly.
However, this “socialism” was redefined in nationalist terms, rejecting core Marxist elements like class struggle, international worker solidarity, and the abolition of private property. Adolf Hitler explicitly distinguished it from Marxism, stating in 1930 that “Our adopted term ‘Socialist’ has nothing to do with Marxist Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.” Instead, Nazi “socialism” meant subordinating economic activity to the state’s national goals, preserving private enterprise as long as it served the “Aryan” race and the regime’s militaristic aims. The economy under Nazism was a mixed system with heavy state direction (e.g., for rearmament and public works like the Autobahn), but it involved privatization of public services, alliances with big business (such as IG Farben and Krupp), and suppression of independent trade unions in favor of the state-controlled German Labor Front. This corporatist approach aligned more with fascist economics than left-wing collectivism.
Personally, I reject the left/right labels as far too simple. While probably still too simplistic I find the Political Quiz | Political Typology Test a big improvement over “left vs. right” labeling.
Your mileage may vary.
The key similarity is that both communism and naziism aim for an all-powerful state with the people mere pawns, to live or die at the whim of those holding the power. In that they are similar to the systems of most of the world, just a bit more consistent and extreme than, say, France or the UK.
Libertarians have long pointed out the fallacy of left vs. right, and instead created the diamond diagram with the two dimensions of liberty: https://www.theadvocates.org
Compare to CCP. Same partial privatization enforcing nationalist goals. Same private property rights. Same government controlled labor unions.
Nazism is not Marxism, but it is essentially the same as Xi-Jinping-thought.
True. The most important point is that in all its variants (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Xi, Putin, Saddam, Sadat) mass murder is a normal and expected way for the state to operate.
Mass murder is part of the mix because they’re all totalitarian ideologies.
“Totalitarian” is not used here as a ooga-booga-scary-word, but with an explicit meaning: “total” means everything is within potential purview of the State. There is no limiting principle. Thus, there can be no civil or human rights, because any protection could be overridden if the State, at its discretion, if it finds a “good cause” to stop affording that protection. Eventually, a totalitarian government will find a “good cause” why you need to be in a ditch with a hole in your head, because there is no fundamental reason why it can’t.
The variations between International Socialism (Communism and its class war stuff, no private property) and the National Socialism (nation substituting for class, private property at the tolerance and control of the state) is a distinction without a difference from the people that don’t want to live under a State where you have to check the regulations for anything and everything on your day’s peacefully-lived agenda.
The whole structure of US theory of government is to have a government where it is difficult for things to change, and difficult for the state to use its monopoly of coercive force, and there are entire facets of life that are none of its business even within the limited powers it has been afforded. It’s a beautiful thing, and it would be even more beautiful if we would actually use it (or, more specifically, not use it) as designed.
I personally think they all land squarely in human nature of totalitarianism.
Not one society in history has ever been any different in it’s collapse.
Every totalitarian to walk the earth has used some of the same techniques of money, power, control. Use any two to get the third.
The only difference between then and today is the internet. But the psychology is the same
Communism/fascist is just the latest pejorative we can give it.
No sooner had Adam bitten the apple, his kids started killing each other for some perceived advantage or insult.
It’s all just another way to take control and steal what you’re to lazy to work for.
Today is no different. And it won’t be till kingdom come, if then.
It’s just the nature of the beast. Until we learn to fight that part of ourselves.
Were all “Gen D”, Doomed.
And will end the same. Murder and misery.
AI often scrapes Wikipedia for its information. Which makes it questionable.
Top three are Wikipedia, Reddit and You Tube.
Marxist ideologies are simply lurid, hollow, false, appealing belief systems that are used to leverage the proletariat into believing the power seekers are benevolent.
Even Lenin viewed therm as a convenient stepping stone to achieve communism. It’s no surprise that Hitler would see them as a lever to hoist fascism into practice.
I think the better question is how does one inoculate a population from the belief that a power-seeker is benevolent?
Marxism is a kind of socialism.
National socialism is as well.
What that AI answer is really saying is that national socialism used a different marketing campaign for the same outcome than Marxists did.
The important thing about it was to distance themselves from Hitler so we wouldn’t notice that they are far closer to the bigger murderers in history.
To both you and Wallphone.
Mao stated in his speech about the “power is from the barrel of a gun” (Joe has links to the full speech.)
He states that “communism” is the vehicle used to create, in Russia, socialism.
And in China he was using it to create a socialist democracy.
That certainly open my eyes to what communism was truly about.
But now I understand why every politician you hear these days (And the last 50 year especially).
Talk about OUR democracy.
It’s a big club, (pun intended) and we ain’t in it. We just get it used on us daily.
Citing Grok as a source is like citing Wikipedia.
Please provide your references on this topic.
The only reason that the NSDAP was considered to be “right-wing” in Germany was that their major opponent were Communists. To the Communists, something as not-utterly-completely collectivist, like National Socialism, was to their “right”, and therefore “right-wing”.
It is also interesting to see a picture of the Communist Party headquarters in Berlin in 1933 (just before the brown-shirts killed off the red-shirts) with the original “Anti-Fascist” symbol in the windows. For some reason Wiki-Commies haven’t purged this picture from their files:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_B_145_Bild-P046279,_Berlin,_Liebknecht-Haus_am_Bülowplatz.jpg
Today’s “Antifa” uses that same symbol (oops, I’m forgetting that today’s media narrative is that it doesn’t and never existed), and still considers anything to the right of Marxism/Leninism to be “far-right”.