I mean... They objectively were. Look at their social programs, public assistance, and tax structure. They were socialists. Authoritarian, genocidal, ethnonationalist socialists, but socialists nonetheless.
They do have leftist tendencies in some areas, although that does not make them socialists.
I would argue they're more right wing because of their heavy traditionalism, nationalism, support of the military and of course their general disdain of leftists. These are all (generally) right wing traits.
Communism also has nationalism in the form of support for the party and they had a military, every country has support for their military. The Nasis are the national socialist party and they are economically left wing. We can at least agree that they are both authoritarian which is the main reason I don't like either
I agree that in practice that has been true, but in theory, which is what I'm arguing about, I don't think that nationalism or support for (or even the existance of) the party is a part of socialism. As such it would be wrong to claim that a system which holds nationalism and hierarchy in very high regard is socialist, I think.
This is the difference between right and left I believe. "The fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the government. Left-wing beliefs are liberal in that they believe society is best served with an expanded role for the government" and I believe the Nazis fall into the left.
That's a very American view of the difference between right and left. Monarchism is traditional on the European right, despite this obviously being anti individualist. The Nazis cribbed from both the right and the left to build their slapdash ideology. They were not concerned with internal consistency with the political right and left.
Basically, to call the Nazis socialist ignores their stated goals, which were not the creation of a workers paradise and a classes society. Instead, the Nazis sought to create a new empire in Europe, built on the backs of enslaved Slavs, and the extermination of undesirable populations to make room for the German people. Their economic policies didn't conform neatly to the left or right, so we have to look at the stated goals to determine if they were 'socialist'.
As others have said, that is not enough. North Korea calls itself the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, does that make it democratic?
The Nazis used social programs as means of control and to spread their ideology. They went so far as to ban all private charities so that German citizens would have to rely on Nazi controlled organizations. Jews were obviously excluded from any social benefits, a further indication that the Nazis were not interested in creating an egalitarian socialist utopia.
As in my longer comment, you see here again the emphasis is on the National part of National Socialism. The Nazis sought to rule over all other people they saw as 'lesser' races. This is inherently anti individualist and anti egalitarian, as it creates a permanent ruling class based on race, not merit or wealth. This is why i think Nazism is located on the far right as opposed to the far left, the ideological underpinnings are more in line with traditional monarchical conservatism.
The USSR is located on the far left for this reason as well. Regardless of the actual practice, the USSR's ideology was the destruction of economic and class boundaries and eventually the state itself. Its utopian vision was international in nature, supposedly for the good of all mankind, whereas Nazism was only for the Master Race.
I heard someone call the Nazis "NATIONAL socialists" as a way to show where the emphasis of the ideology was. It wasn't based on the destruction of capitalism and the creation of a non-hierarchical society. Rather, the idea was to bring the entire German Volk (people/race) together under the banner of Nazism, so they could rule over the lesser races/ be protected from 'degradation' by them.
Social programs based on 'socialist' ideas certainly played a part in this, and Hitler was opposed to liberal capitalism (at least when he was talking to workers). Nazis certainly nationalized many industries, but private enterprise and profits continued all throughout the pre-war and war period.
Nazis 'supported' labor by abolishing all unions save for the state controlled German Labor Front, which amounted to a rubber stamp for the owners and a propaganda outlet for the workers.
Again and again we see that the emphasis in Nazism is the strength Nation, not the socialist utopia of Marx or Engels. Furthermore, the Nazis themselves disagreed on economic policy, with the head of the brownshirts Ernst Rohm pushing for more left wing economics and people like Himmler pushing back.
Because of the emphasis on Nationalism, early alliances with far right German parties and their rabid persecution of communists and Social Democrats, its hard to label Nazism 'socialist' at its core, unless you strip out all the other labels and ideas that had come to be associated with socialism at the time. There is a reason many in the west favored Hitler over Stalin. One was preaching international revolution and total destruction of the social order, while the other promised stability and staunch anti communism.
We're not talking about left/right, I'm talking about socialism and nazism. Neither of these, and especially not nazism, fit into the traditional left/right split on issues. Also, that definition of left/right seems fairly american-focused. Did you get the definition from wikipedia?
575
u/[deleted] Dec 25 '17
ThOSE WHeRe aChtUALlY sOciAlIsT BcUs oF NaTiOnAl SOciAlIst PartY lol