I am going to keep track of Substackers who make public comments about Nazis and Fascist but then refuse to debate me on this topic.
From a civil debate challenge that I issued in Notes today to @Noah Belatsky, he replies
"Fuck you." and then blocks me.
This coming from a man who claims that people who disagree with him should "try reading a book!"
On his bio, Noah claims that he is "a freelance writer in Chicago. He writes for Public Notice, the Independent, CNN, the Chicago Reader, and various other places. Also he’s kind of a poet now."
I have heard most of this crap before. Fascism is a reactionary ideology, and hence of the right, not the left. Hitler himself did not like using the term socialist in the party name, and only reluctantly agreed to it. The “socialism” here was not real. It was used to con the working classes and win them away from the real socialists. Fascism controls capitalism. It does not abolish it as socialism does. And fascism allows the accumulation of wealth, which is anathema to socialism. The German war machine was supplied with armaments and supplies from private enterprises that retained their wealth, not by state-owned industry. Fascism and socialism are both authoritarian, but that is where the resemblance ends. And, yes, National "Socialism" is fascism.
German reactionaries of the 1920s and 30s supported the restoration of the Kaiser and his regime. Hitler and the National Socialists were contemptuous of them and made their movement illegal.
The National Socialist regime was nothing like anything else that had ever existed in German history.
So, no, the National Socialists were not reactionary. They were revolutionaries, and they said that again and again. They supported the National Socialist Revolution, and they implemented it.
Hindenburg and the German industrialists supported the Nazis and were largely responsible for putting them in power. In other words, the Nazis were totally creatures of the right.
Really. So industrialists wanted the National Socialists to remove property rights from the German constitution (one of Hitler's first acts)? That was their plan?
Do you consider the British Labour Party of the period to be socialist?
Do you consider the German Social Democratic Party of the period to be socialist?
I certainly do, and so would most historians, but they do not fit your criteria. And the National Socialist intervened far more in economic affairs than either one of those parties did when they were in government.
The British Labour Party used to be a formally socialist party. That changed when Blair got their charter changed, to remove the old Clause IV, although many Labour members are still socialists. As for the SDP, social democracy used to be a form of socialism. Today the term refers to a form of capitalism. The Nordic Model is social democracy in the modern sense: capitalism with a high degree of welfare and high taxes.
Yes, so we agree that in the 1920s and 1930s (which is the period that we are talking about) both the UK Labour party and German SPD were socialist parties.
Do you not agree that their period of power had less intervention in the economy than under National Socialism?
You are not very bright. Labour never had enough electoral support to carry out a full socialist program, or they would surely have done so. Same with the socialist parties in a variety of other Western European countries. And the SPD did not have sufficient electoral support in the prewar period either, as demonstrated by their losing the vote over the Enabling Act. Socialism means state ownership of the means of production. That is not the fascist way. Fascism controls the economy and business, yes. But under fascism business is still privately owned and individuals may accumulate wealth.
No, "state ownership" is only one type of Socialism. There are many different types of socialism.
I am glad that we agree that National Socialism is about controlling the economy and business. I wish that you had stated that from the beginning. The rest is just semantics.
That is bs. I know some today try to redefine socialism, but some form of communal ownership of the means of production, whether directly or through the state, has been consistent among all strands of socialist ideology, throughout its history. Fascism in no way agrees with that.
National Socialism is not the same as Fascism. Those are two different ideologies.
What is your evidence that “Hitler did not like the term” and “only reluctantly agreed to the term?” He was after all the undisputed leader of the party when the name was adopted.
Hitler also repeatedly used the term “National Socialism” in Mein Kampf and throughout his life. Why would he keep using the term after he had been in absolute power for over a decade if he did not actually believe in it?
I cannot find the reference to Hitler's objection to the term right now. He was not in control of the party at the time the name change occurred. However, I don't know who this guy is, but what he is saying comports with what I have read on the subject. Furthermore, it is well-known that Hindenburg and the major industrialists in Germany supported Hitler and the Nazis, precisely because they were against the left and socialists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2biEiuTzsgw&ab_channel=OwenJones
I seriously question your knowledge of the period.
Find me a link from a real history book. Your claim does not match the time line. The name NDSAP was adopted after Hitler took total control of the party, and it was Hitler who wanted to add the word "Socialist" to the name.
And the myth that major industrialists in Germany supported Hitler coming to power has been totally demolished by historians. This book in particular:
Yes, they donated money after Hitler came to power, but that is hardly a sign of support. It was trying to get on the right side of a regime that might expropriate them. Many non-Nazis joined the party after 1933 just to boost their careers. It was like joining the Communist party in the USSR.
The only major industrialist who supported Hitler before he took power was Fritze Thyssen and his company was later expropriated by the National Socialists:
Hindenburg tried to do everything that he could to avoid appointing Hitler as Chancellor but with opposition from the Communists, there was not other viable alternative. If he had not died, he might have been able to keep Hitler from becoming Fuhre.
You are utterly wrong. Hitler was only the propaganda officer for the DAP voted to change its name. And you undercut your own argument. Of course the industrialists were afraid of having their businesses and wealth appropriated by socialists. That is what socialists do. Fascists let business owners keep their businesses and wealth, as long as they toe the party line. The fact that Hindenburg ran for election against Hitler and was not necessarily a fan of Hitler and the Nazis is no indication that Hitler or the Nazis were socialists. Hindenburg sided with the Nazis in the end because he thought that was the only way to protect the right-wing establishment rule and fend off the left and communism.
Fascists may at times expropriate businesses out of necessity, not by choice. They prefer most or all business in private hands, as long as they can control them from outside.
I never said that Hindenburg not supporting Hitler made them socialist. You claimed that Hindenburg supported National Socialists, and I showed why this was not true.
I am currently reading this article with great interest, and would only like to point out two typos I noticed before I continue to do so. From the sentence:
“A bit part of the problem is that historian correctly view National Socialism as anti-semitic and Nationalistic, but they see the rest of their ideas as an incoherent jumbled mess. “
I believe “bit” should read “big” and “historian” should be pluralized to “historians”.
Yes, all very obvious. Instead of Kulaks they had the Jews, but very similar.
Hitler wasn't planning to immiserate or even execute successful members of private industry, but neither would they be free to set the goals of their businesses. The Nazies would set their goals and they were mere managers with those limits, able to draw a comfortable salary/dividend but nothing else. Compared to the KPD or even other Nazies, that was a step up for the non-Jewish capitalists.
I largely agree with you, except for the "obvious" part. Maybe it should be obvious, but it is amazing how many people who are very knowledgeable in the period know little or nothing about it. I have read about the period for decades, but I had no idea until quite recently.
Even experts could not make this list of points that I have in the article off the top of their head.
It is hard not to believe that the ideological convictions of historians do not play a role in their inability to "see" these basic facts.
I am going to keep track of Substackers who make public comments about Nazis and Fascist but then refuse to debate me on this topic.
From a civil debate challenge that I issued in Notes today to @Noah Belatsky, he replies
"Fuck you." and then blocks me.
This coming from a man who claims that people who disagree with him should "try reading a book!"
On his bio, Noah claims that he is "a freelance writer in Chicago. He writes for Public Notice, the Independent, CNN, the Chicago Reader, and various other places. Also he’s kind of a poet now."
Excellent nice long review of the topic. Keep up the great work!
Persuasive!
I have heard most of this crap before. Fascism is a reactionary ideology, and hence of the right, not the left. Hitler himself did not like using the term socialist in the party name, and only reluctantly agreed to it. The “socialism” here was not real. It was used to con the working classes and win them away from the real socialists. Fascism controls capitalism. It does not abolish it as socialism does. And fascism allows the accumulation of wealth, which is anathema to socialism. The German war machine was supplied with armaments and supplies from private enterprises that retained their wealth, not by state-owned industry. Fascism and socialism are both authoritarian, but that is where the resemblance ends. And, yes, National "Socialism" is fascism.
German reactionaries of the 1920s and 30s supported the restoration of the Kaiser and his regime. Hitler and the National Socialists were contemptuous of them and made their movement illegal.
The National Socialist regime was nothing like anything else that had ever existed in German history.
So, no, the National Socialists were not reactionary. They were revolutionaries, and they said that again and again. They supported the National Socialist Revolution, and they implemented it.
Hindenburg and the German industrialists supported the Nazis and were largely responsible for putting them in power. In other words, the Nazis were totally creatures of the right.
Really. So industrialists wanted the National Socialists to remove property rights from the German constitution (one of Hitler's first acts)? That was their plan?
See point 21a in this article.
That completely conflicts with the historical record:
https://www.amazon.com/German-Big-Business-Rise-Hitler/dp/0195042352
Do you consider the British Labour Party of the period to be socialist?
Do you consider the German Social Democratic Party of the period to be socialist?
I certainly do, and so would most historians, but they do not fit your criteria. And the National Socialist intervened far more in economic affairs than either one of those parties did when they were in government.
The British Labour Party used to be a formally socialist party. That changed when Blair got their charter changed, to remove the old Clause IV, although many Labour members are still socialists. As for the SDP, social democracy used to be a form of socialism. Today the term refers to a form of capitalism. The Nordic Model is social democracy in the modern sense: capitalism with a high degree of welfare and high taxes.
Yes, so we agree that in the 1920s and 1930s (which is the period that we are talking about) both the UK Labour party and German SPD were socialist parties.
Do you not agree that their period of power had less intervention in the economy than under National Socialism?
For evidence, reread points 21, 23, 25, and 26.
You are not very bright. Labour never had enough electoral support to carry out a full socialist program, or they would surely have done so. Same with the socialist parties in a variety of other Western European countries. And the SPD did not have sufficient electoral support in the prewar period either, as demonstrated by their losing the vote over the Enabling Act. Socialism means state ownership of the means of production. That is not the fascist way. Fascism controls the economy and business, yes. But under fascism business is still privately owned and individuals may accumulate wealth.
No, "state ownership" is only one type of Socialism. There are many different types of socialism.
I am glad that we agree that National Socialism is about controlling the economy and business. I wish that you had stated that from the beginning. The rest is just semantics.
That is bs. I know some today try to redefine socialism, but some form of communal ownership of the means of production, whether directly or through the state, has been consistent among all strands of socialist ideology, throughout its history. Fascism in no way agrees with that.
National Socialism is not the same as Fascism. Those are two different ideologies.
What is your evidence that “Hitler did not like the term” and “only reluctantly agreed to the term?” He was after all the undisputed leader of the party when the name was adopted.
Hitler also repeatedly used the term “National Socialism” in Mein Kampf and throughout his life. Why would he keep using the term after he had been in absolute power for over a decade if he did not actually believe in it?
I cannot find the reference to Hitler's objection to the term right now. He was not in control of the party at the time the name change occurred. However, I don't know who this guy is, but what he is saying comports with what I have read on the subject. Furthermore, it is well-known that Hindenburg and the major industrialists in Germany supported Hitler and the Nazis, precisely because they were against the left and socialists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2biEiuTzsgw&ab_channel=OwenJones
I seriously question your knowledge of the period.
Find me a link from a real history book. Your claim does not match the time line. The name NDSAP was adopted after Hitler took total control of the party, and it was Hitler who wanted to add the word "Socialist" to the name.
And the myth that major industrialists in Germany supported Hitler coming to power has been totally demolished by historians. This book in particular:
https://www.amazon.com/German-Big-Business-Rise-Hitler/dp/0195042352
Yes, they donated money after Hitler came to power, but that is hardly a sign of support. It was trying to get on the right side of a regime that might expropriate them. Many non-Nazis joined the party after 1933 just to boost their careers. It was like joining the Communist party in the USSR.
The only major industrialist who supported Hitler before he took power was Fritze Thyssen and his company was later expropriated by the National Socialists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Thyssen
Hindenburg never supported the National Socialists. He ran against Hitler in the 1932 German presidential election:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_German_presidential_election
Hindenburg tried to do everything that he could to avoid appointing Hitler as Chancellor but with opposition from the Communists, there was not other viable alternative. If he had not died, he might have been able to keep Hitler from becoming Fuhre.
You are utterly wrong. Hitler was only the propaganda officer for the DAP voted to change its name. And you undercut your own argument. Of course the industrialists were afraid of having their businesses and wealth appropriated by socialists. That is what socialists do. Fascists let business owners keep their businesses and wealth, as long as they toe the party line. The fact that Hindenburg ran for election against Hitler and was not necessarily a fan of Hitler and the Nazis is no indication that Hitler or the Nazis were socialists. Hindenburg sided with the Nazis in the end because he thought that was the only way to protect the right-wing establishment rule and fend off the left and communism.
And the National Socialists did expropriate industries. I just gave you an example. There are more in the article.
Fascists may at times expropriate businesses out of necessity, not by choice. They prefer most or all business in private hands, as long as they can control them from outside.
I never said that Hindenburg not supporting Hitler made them socialist. You claimed that Hindenburg supported National Socialists, and I showed why this was not true.
He supported them by putting them in power.
I am currently reading this article with great interest, and would only like to point out two typos I noticed before I continue to do so. From the sentence:
“A bit part of the problem is that historian correctly view National Socialism as anti-semitic and Nationalistic, but they see the rest of their ideas as an incoherent jumbled mess. “
I believe “bit” should read “big” and “historian” should be pluralized to “historians”.
Good catch!
I just corrected the typos.
Yes, all very obvious. Instead of Kulaks they had the Jews, but very similar.
Hitler wasn't planning to immiserate or even execute successful members of private industry, but neither would they be free to set the goals of their businesses. The Nazies would set their goals and they were mere managers with those limits, able to draw a comfortable salary/dividend but nothing else. Compared to the KPD or even other Nazies, that was a step up for the non-Jewish capitalists.
Thanks for the comment.
I largely agree with you, except for the "obvious" part. Maybe it should be obvious, but it is amazing how many people who are very knowledgeable in the period know little or nothing about it. I have read about the period for decades, but I had no idea until quite recently.
Even experts could not make this list of points that I have in the article off the top of their head.
It is hard not to believe that the ideological convictions of historians do not play a role in their inability to "see" these basic facts.
Thanks for the comment. I will check it out.