Looking at an Old Lie

 

The Company Sign, by Jacobus Belsen

 

One annoying thing about historical research on Hitler and the Nazi party is, the never ending game of hot potato. This week, one Elon Musk hosted a discussion with the leader of the political party Alternative for Germany (AfD). It provided a platform for the AfD's controversial views and rhetoric, which puts the party firmly in the far right of the Bundestag. In addition to lamentations over immigrants, Musk and the leader of the AfD declared that that Hitler bloke was a Commie.

On Thursday, Elon Musk agreed with the leader of a far-right German political party that Adolf Hitler was a communist and that left-wing groups who support Palestinian causes have more in common with Nazis than with her own party.

The deeply weird and disinformation-filled conversation between Musk and Alice Weidel, the leader of Alternative for Germany (AfD), took place on X. It came after weeks of Musk’s efforts to boost the far-right party, which has deep links to neo-Nazism and has been surveilled for suspected extremism by Germany’s own intelligence services.

“The biggest success after that terrible era in our history was to label Adolf Hitler as right[-wing] and conservative, he was exactly the opposite,” Weidel said. “He wasn't a conservative, he wasn't a libertarian, he was a communist, socialist guy, and we are the opposite.”

“Right,” Musk responded.

These quotes come from Wired, who have done an excellent job of debunking this absurdity. 

This is not an isolated incident there is a vocal minority out there who hate Hitler and the Nazis, not out of disgust for his views and policies but because Hitler and the World War II Fascists have given them the mother of all PR disasters. They know they're lying and to an absurd degree, they also know many people will be appalled at such flagrant disregard for historical fact, including Hitler's own words, but this is aimed at their own base of support and the members of the public who aren't engaged and forgotten what they were taught in schools.

If you're an AfD member or voter, you know have an authority figure to appeal to when you repeat such nonsense. If enough people repeat this nonsense, eventually it will have an impact on some other people and serve to shift blame from groups like the AfD to the opposition. Is this a key plank of their propaganda? No, but it's part of it and if it's left unchecked it will take root in some soil like a weed.

Casting Hitler as a socialist is already popular amongst the US far right and Republican fringe, so it can gain traction elsewhere. 

The Wired article dissects this specific example better than I could, so check that out if you're curious. https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-far-right-german-leader-weidel-hitler-communist/

What I will do instead is comment on the general thrust of this tactic historically. It's a terrible argument to bury, since there really isn't anything to it beside the name. The name of course is National Socialist German Workers Party NSDAP or Nazi for short. Now aside from the name containing the word Socialist, there's nothing more to pin the label on. 

 Argument 1, It's on the Tin!

The usual rebuttal to this is to sarcastically ask if North Korea is a Democracy, since its official title in English is The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). But we don't need to go outside Germany to find a similar corner example. At the same time the Nazis were knocking about you had the KPD which stood for Communist Party of Germany, and you also had the KAPD the Communist Worker's Party of Germany. Does that mean that the KAPD was the party for workers who were Communists and the membership of the KPD solely made up of non-working Communists? Sticking with this for a bit longer, the A in KAPD and NSDAP was the same, it stood for Arbeiter which is German for worker. If the S means they were Socialists, then the A must mean the Nazis were workers, so how do we explain the factory owners who members like the famous Oskar Schindler? 

And to take yet just one more example of the name game being deficient, we have the SPD. The SPD was the largest of the German Socialist parties, and yet the name didn't include Socialism it used Social, Socialist for the Nazis comes from Sozialistiche, but the SPD used and still uses Sozial for Sozialdemokratische Partei Deustchlands. So I guess the SPD the party which included Kautsky, Liebknecht, Luxemburg, Bebel, Engels and Marx amongst its membership wasn't socialist at all, they were the Socials. 

Let's move on in time to modern Germany, we currently have two curiously named parties in the Bundestag, the CDU and the Greens. The CDU are the Christian Democratic Union, a conservative party, based on their name we could expect them to discriminate and only allow Christians to join them but this is not the case. The name comes from when they were founded by socially Conservative groups attached to Germany's Protestant Christianity. The Greens are widely understood to be a party representing people concerned about the environment, but they aren't called the Ecology/Environment party they're called the Greens. Which should mean that they should militant colourists campaigning to pass legislation at the state and federal level to promote Green and ban other colours.

The past three paragraphs are confused nonsense because they're addressing a confused argument on its own merits and applying to other examples. The point is to demonstrate that the name or title aren't enough to prove anything.

Argument 2, they said they were for workers X speech and Y pamphlet

"German socialism is not an economic doctrine but a profound Weltanschauung [worldview] that is adhered to almost religiously, a spiritual movement which also catches hold of our thoughts and feelings and renews us, and will make better men."  Carl Riedahl 1921, published in the Völkischer Beobachter

Yeah, that's the point of political propaganda, to appeal to an audience. One important caveat though, they never actually appealed to workers for support, they always appealed exclusively to German workers, and by German workers I do not mean workers living and working in the borders of Germany, I mean the specific narrow and racially defined group of workers. Jewish, Polish, Czech minorities within Germany were not appealed to, they were often targetted within the same appeals to the "Pure" German workers. They never once abandoned their nationalist views, even rhetorically. This predates Hitler joining the party, the founder of NSDAP, back when it was just called DAP its founder Anton Drexler declared that his party was the true champion of the workers in Germany because he believed the SPD was controlled by Jewish and other foreign interests. So, from the start, the appeals to workers were rooted in a nationalist world view. Here's what Hitler thought of Drexler's work

"In his (Feder's) little book he described how his mind had thrown off the shackles of the Marxist and trades-union phraseology, and that he had come back to the nationalist ideals."

 As Jacobus Belsen pointed out at the time, Nazi propaganda was crafted for specific audiences, so it isn't strange to see Nazi party spokesman and news-sheets aimed at working class districts to play up ideas and policies that appeal more to that demographic. If you're curious, the cartoon says "for the proletarians" in the top and "for the affluent circles" with the name of the party emphasised differently for each audience. That's what you do when you want to win support. The UK's Labour Party has been doing something very similar, it talks to the Trade Unions about plans to end zero hours contracts, improve workers rights and make it easier for Trade Unions to operate, it then goes to the heads of British Trade and Industry groups and talks about its plans to stimulate growth of the economy and how it won't be increasing taxes on the rich. It's a common tactic, political parties can't build a path to power in a nation solely by appealing to one or two parts of society, they have to draw from many, often competing groups. 

So, if we can't trust what they say, how then can we know what they actually stand for? Well, by looking at what they did and do. Hitler allowed industrialists to be party members, and build alliances with them and conservative institutions and parties, e.g. the Catholic Church and the DNVP (German National People's Party). Did he do the same with the workers associations and political parties? No, in May 1933 Trade Unions were outlawed by his government, the KPD and SPD weren't banned yet but their leading members were being arrested, the bans came in July. The bans applied to all parties that weren't the Nazi party including his friends in the DNVP, but their leaders were allowed to join the Nazis and its paramilitary wing, members of the left wing parties were not allowed to join and were often arrested. 

So, we have a political party that talks to both sides while touting for votes and members, but then once in power firmly leans to the big business and conservative right once in power, and even sweeping policies that affect all of Germany make exemptions for these groups so long as they're willing to collaborate.

Experience of sharing this image has taught me I need to translate this banner, it reads "Death to Marxism" and its carriers are members of the Nazi Party SA paramilitary

Argument 3, okay he wasn't a Marxist, but he was still a lefty!

 Well I agree he wasn't a Marxist, aside from a tiny circle of fundamentalist Christians in the United States I don't think anyone would claim Hitler was a Marxist. It's easy to find passages in Mein Kampf disparaging Marx and Marxism, and also Communism and even Socialism. So, where do we go from here? If we accept the argument that the Nazis were socialists (and to be clear I do not accept that) then that would mean that the Germany of the 1920s-30s was the most socialist nation on the earth. In addition to the Nazis we also have the KPD, KAPD, SPD and other smaller groups not previously discussed, but just sticking with the KPD, SPD and NSDAP that gives us a combined population in the tens of millions all clambering for the same thing.

Well, this argument acknowledges that there are degrees of socialism, but that just raises the spectre of what actually is socialism? What is the germ or seed of socialism? Depending on the dictionary you bought, you may get a definition along the lines of state involvement in the economy, but that definition makes every political leader of a nation a socialist to a degree as they all direct some form of state/gvoernment entity, and would in the case of the Nazis make them less socialist than the Weimar Republican governments as they privatised large parts of the economy. 

A better definition involves the phrase workplaces/industry/economy operated by the workers themselves with an added descriptor of self-organisation. Some argue that this alone is not enough to make a socialist society and I agree but without something close to this as a foundation there's nothing to build from. A loose version of this definition includes the German Council movement, the early Soviets in the Russian Empire, the Wobblies strategy of "Building the new society from within the shell of the old" the collectives in Spain during the revolution and civil war etc. 

There isn't an equivalent to point to for Nazi Germany. In addition to selling stocks and stakes in previously government owned companies to wealthy individuals they also banned independent workers associations. The only legal representation a worker in Germany had (reminder, these are the "pure" German workers) was the Germand Workers Front DAF. The DAF was a Nazi party organisation whose loyalty was the the Nazi party and not the workers. A lot is made of the DAFs luxuries and gifts to German workers, package holidays, medals for productivity, credit schemes, radios etc. All these good things were run by the Nazi party and came with other changes, the restoration of piece rate work where pay was based on how much work you did per day, observation and monitoring, and the radios were set to recieve only authorised channels with unauthorised usage punished severly. 

I'm not seeing any socialism here, I certainly see nationalism, and I see paternalism, a system where the workers of Germany are brought under the benevolent tutelage of their rulers. Its certainly different to the laissez-faire style of capitalism popular in our current climate where the worker is free on their time off but also completly unsupported, but is socialism really holidays, radios and medals for achieving targets?

Of course not, we're only supposed to think of the "good" things the Nazis did once the political atmosphere has changed enough that comparisions to the goose-steppers is no longer taboo. For now we must think the Nazis are scarier because they are allegedly an example of the  Red Terrorists. So, labour camps and secret police.

Well, forced labour and powerful police forces were certainly a feature of the Nazi society. Just like they are for many societies some of which are led by declared socialists and most are not. No, this isn't whattaboutery I acknowledge and oppose the repressions of working people in all countries regardless of the colour of the flag or party name and logo. My point is that if like the "government doing stuff" repression is the defining standard of socialism than we must conclude that all nations on the planet are socialist to one degree or another, they all have institutions for coercion and control, they all used coerced labour. No, I'm not equating my employment to prevent homelessness to building the White Sea Canal or an Autobahn towards the Polish border, but that's the underlying social relationships, the workers do not have control of their own economic or social lives.

Its why the only definition of socialism that makes sense is the one I stick to above.

TL:DR

Hitler and the Nazis are socialists when the word has lost all meaning.