Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Neo Nazi Converts To Islam

I'm not sure if this story has been getting much attention on the blogosphere- I really don't have the time to keep right up to date at the moment- but it caught my attention enough to warrent a quick post.

A British neo-Nazi, David Myatt, founder of the British National Socialist Movement, member of Combat 18 and the purported author of a fascist terrorist handbok, has converted to Islam.

Is he now converted to peace and love? Islam is, afterall, the Religion of Peace. Not quite-

Myatt supports the killing of any Muslim who breaks his oath of loyalty to Islam, and the setting up of a Muslim superstate.

“The pure authentic Islam of the revival, which recognises practical jihad (holy war) as a duty, is the only force that is capable of fighting and destroying the dishonour, the arrogance, the materialism of the West . . . For the West, nothing is sacred, except perhaps Zionists, Zionism, the hoax of the so-called Holocaust, and the idols which the West and its lackeys worship, or pretend to worship, such as democracy.

“They want, and demand, that we abandon the purity of authentic Islam and either bow down before them and their idols, or accept the tame, secularised, so-called Islam which they and their apostate lackeys have created.

“This may well be a long war, of decades or more — and we Muslims have to plan accordingly. We must affirm practical jihad — to take part in the fight to free our lands from the kuffar (unbelievers). Jihad is our duty.”

It's worth reading the entire article. Somehow this recent convert seems to have completely misunderstood this peaceful, non-violent religion. Seems to happen quite a lot.

It's also worth noting that the term "far right" is used in the article when this is clearly incorrect. National Socialists (Nazis) are, of course, socialists- "far left" is the proper term.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

"It's also worth noting that the term 'far right' is used in the article when this is clearly incorrect. National Socialists (Nazis) are, of course, socialists- "far left" is the proper term."


Are you saying Nazis weren't a Far Right party/movement? Are you insane? Or maybe you consider yourself right-wing, so there's no way *Nazis* could be right wing??
In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.
Hitler, included the word "Socialist" in his party's name to get votes, nothing more meaningful than that.. so Hitler therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. Or made it meaningless.
The suggestion that the Nazis are/were not on the far right, is so bizarre it makes me wonder if your blog is a satirical spoof. Do you know anything about history?
Yours sincerely,

A one-off reader

Jay.Mac said...

Yes, I do know a little bit abvout history- and about politics.

The term Far Right is usually applied to racists- but it has little or nothing to do with the politics of the groups involved. The Nazi Party were very much Left wing. The word "socialist" and "workers party" weren't there for nothing.
The term far left is actually more accurate- and the same applies to groups like the BNP whose politics are socialist in nature- you won't find any other party advocating a redistribution of wealth labeled right wing; unless their views happen to be racist, in which case the actual policies of the group are ignored for the handy label "right wing". In these cases that label exclusively refers to their views of race- not economic policy.

I advise that you read this- http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/hitler.html

Anonymous said...

Good heavens. John J Ray. Him again. The man who said that Jews were the cause of Anti-semitism, because they were too Jewish. Yeah, that one AND your Socialist Hitler one are both on his website, under the 'unpublished papers', because no academic journal would give it the time of day.. not that I don't believe in free speech, nor do I think Ray is an anti-semite, Nazi or racist.. he just really doesn't know what he's talking about.

The form of argument Ray employs in his Nazis-were-Socialists notion, which is that if you can find a quote from a historical figure which has a passing resemblance to the statements of a modern political movement, it therefore follows that the modern political movement is destined to follow the same trajectory.

So if I could go and find a quote from somebody who was once a Conservative but later became a white supremacist, that would then prove that Conservatism evolved inevitably into white supremacism?

When conservatives feel the need to obliterate all negative aspects of right-wing political ideology, and stubbornly ignore all positive aspects of leftwing political ideology in order to prove the superiority of conservativism, it's political blindness. Open your eyes.

Anonymous said...

I see you are a Bush supporter. I applaud you for not dismissing everything John J. Ray says, given his stance on Bush:


http://www.omnicenter.org/essays/01.html

Jay.Mac said...

This has nothing to do with branding modern political movements Nazis, or with ignoring negative or positive aspects of anything- it's a matter of fact that the original Nazi party, and modern equivalents are at their heart left wing/socialist organisations. The policies of that party, and their modern equivalents today, are left-wing in nature. I'm not trying to make any point about modern day Democrats, socialists or conservatives or Republicans.

My point is that "right wing" is generally used by the media as short hand for racism- but it is an inaccurate term because the groups to which it is applied do not hold right wing POLITICAL or ECONOMIC views.

The National Socialist German Worker's Party was a left wing movement. THe "Socialist" and "Worker's" are the big clues in the name. The Nazi Party's economic theory was created by an anti-capitalist, Rudolf Jung.

The Nazis rose to power with three popular aims- limiting of profits, the abolishing of rents and the increasing of social benefits.

Hardly goals of right wing parties.

Here are some points from the original Nazi Party manifesto-

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.
Therefore we demand:
11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

Similarly the fascists of Italy had these goals-

The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories; A strong progressive tax on capital; A minimum wage; An eight-hour workday for all workers and the participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions.

While the term "far right" is used today to indicate a nationalist sentiment or a racist attitude, the political goals of these groups are left wing in nature. There is nothing politically to link the policies of any Nazi or Fascist group, then or now, to the right wing (which seems to me is best defined as classical liberalism- "a political ideology that embraces individual rights, private property and a laissez-faire economy, a government that exists to protect the liberty of each individual from others, and a constitution that protects individual autonomy from governmental power."

The polar opposite of the state-control advocated by the left wing, and which we can see in the FAR LEFT Nazi and Fascist groups, which take this stance to an extreme. That's not a comment on the left wing of today- most of my left wing friends (and most of my friends are NOT conservative in any way) are ardent anti-fascists.

Anonymous said...

I fear my lack of eloquence has not helped here. I'll leave you with a link to someone else's (better worded) version of my core point:

http://kieranbennett.com/?p=25

But you seem quite unresponsive to any other opinion, so even if you read it, I doubt you'll take it on board as a counter-argument.

'Bye.

Jay.Mac said...

Well, I've had a look at that site and I totally agree with "example 1". A phrase used by the Nazis beign somewhat similar to one used by today's Left is not convincing. And here's where I think you're missing the point- I'm not trying to call modern socialists Nazis. I am however trying to point out that the label of right wing is erroneous- a person can be left wing and still be a bigoted nationalist.

There is this point made on the link you gave me- "He concludes this contention with a perfect example of his flawed logic. Again we see the conclusion drawn, Nazis use the word socialist, 'the left' use the word socialist, thus the Nazis are socialists."

Well, yes. The Nationalist Socialist German Worker's Party was socialist. That's why I used the examples of their own manifesto to illustrate the point. I'm not trying to say that all socialists are Nazis- but it's an undeniable fact that the Nazis were socialist in nature. That places them firmly on the left wing of the political spectrum.

I fail to see how this can be disputed. Can you provide acutal evidence that the Nazi Party was not, in actual fact, a socialist party?

My argument is simple- the Nazis called themselves socialists and they had socialist policies. Why then refuse to label them as Far Left Wing. Why does their nationalism and racism suddenly make them Right Wing? My belief is that the label far right is incorrect as it ignores the politics of the groups themselves.

If you can find any evidence that the National Socialist German Worker's Party or any of their modern equivalents hold actual right wing views (not racism and/or nationalist ideas) I'll be glad to consider it.

Have a look at the zombietime website- where you will see photographic evidence of a good number of LEFT WING marches and demonstrations. Note also the anti-zionist claims, the support for Palestinian terrorism and the calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. Perhaps the Nazi's far left anti-semitism is alive and well today among the left wing?

religion of pieces said...

Right or Left - who cares?. What's important is that this guy has decided that the Nazis aren't violent enough for him, and maybe their genocidal policies are too limited in scope, so he's found a more congenial spiritual home in Islam.

Allah Akbar!

Anonymous said...

Because Nazism is an abbreviation for "National Socialism", and Nazi leaders sometimes described their ideology as a form of socialism, some people believe that Nazism was a form of socialism, or that there are similarities between Nazism and socialism. It has also been argued that the Nazi use of economic intervention, including central planning and some limited public ownership, is indicative of socialism.

Nazi leaders were opposed to the Marxist idea of class conflict and opposed the idea that capitalism should be abolished and that workers should control the means of production. For those who consider class conflict and the abolition of capitalism as essential components of socialist progress, these factors alone are sufficient to categorize "National Socialism" as non-socialist.

Nazi leaders made statements describing their views as socialist, while at the same time opposing the idea of class conflict espoused by the Social Democrats (SPD) and Communists (KPD). Established socialist movements did not view the Nazis as socialists and argued that the Nazis were thinly disguised reactionaries. Historians such as Ian Kershaw also note the links between the Nazis and the German political and economic establishment and the significance of the Night of the Long Knives in which Hitler purged what were at the time seen as "leftist" elements in the Nazi Party and how this was done at the urging of the military and conservatives.

Many of the traditional center and right political parties of the Weimar Republic accused the Nazis of being socialists citing planks in the Nazis' party program which called for nationalization of trusts and other socialist measures. However, the German National People's Party (DNVP), the most important party on the mainstream right, usually treated the Nazis as a respected potential member of coalition cabinet.

The Nazis came to power through an alliance with some conservative factions, though also experienced opposition from some others. Franz von Papen, a conservative former German Chancellor and former member of the Catholic Centre Party supported Hitler for the position of Chancellor. Events during the Papen chancellorship led to the Enabling Act which gave the Nazis dictatorial powers, passed with the support of conservative and centrist deputies in the Reichstag, over the opposition of Social Democrats and Communists. Other conservatives opposed Hitler, notably Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher, who attempted to construct a center-right led "cross front" that united anti-Hitler factions on the right and center-left in the Reichstag. Schleicher, having been forced from the Chancellorship by Papen, was assassinated by the Nazis on the Night of the Long Knives.

When the Nazis were still an opposition party some leaders, particularly Gregor Strasser, espoused anti-big business stances and advocated the idea of the Nazis as a workers' party. In spite of this, most workers continued to vote for the SPD or the KPD as late as the March 1933 elections held shortly after Hitler's appointment as chancellor.

Ideologically, fascism and Nazism reject the most important aspects of Marxist theory. For instance, Hitler did not exalt the working class over the capitalist class as Marx prescribed. In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote 'the suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists... We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims. ' Hitler despised Karl Marx as a Jew and condemned communism and Marxism as a Judeo-Bolshevist conspiracy pledging to block its rise in Germany arguing that the nation's downfall was due to Marxism and its Jewish influence. These actions prompted some prominent conservatives and capitalists to fund and support the Nazis because they saw them as a bulwark against Bolshevism.

There were ideological shades of opinion within the Nazi Party, particularly prior to their seizure of power in 1933, but a central tenet of the party was always the leadership principle or Fuhrerprinzip. The Nazi Party did not have party congresses in which policy was deliberated upon and concessions made to different factions. What mattered most was what the leader, Adolf Hitler, thought and decreed. Those who held opinions which were at variance with Hitler's either learned to keep quiet or were purged, particularly after 1933. Although this is in some respects comparable to the behavior of certain Communist dictatorships such as that of Stalin in the Soviet Union or Mao Zedong in China, it also presents a strong contrast to the collective leadership exercised in other Communist parties, more so to the more democratic organization of most European socialist parties.

In power, the Nazis jettisoned practically all of the socialistic aspects of their program, and worked with big business, frequently at the expense of both small business and the working classes. Gregor Strasser was murdered, as was Ernst Rohm while Otto Strasser was purged from the party. Independent trade unions were outlawed, as were strikes. In place of the unions, the Nazis created the Deutsche Arbeitsfront. The Nazis took other symbolic steps to co-opt the working classes' support, such as the introduction of May Day as a national holiday in 1933. These were described by socialists as superficial moves designed to win the allegiance of workers rather than grant them any material concessions at the expense of capital.

Industries and trusts were not nationalised, with the exception of private rail lines (nationalised in the late 1930s to meet military contingencies). The only private holdings that were expropriated were those belonging to Jews. These holdings were then sold or awarded to businessmen who supported the Nazis and satisifed their ethnic and racial policies. Military production and even film production remained in the hands of private industries whilst serving the Nazi government, and many private companies flourished during the Nazi period. The Nazis never interfered with the profits made by such large German firms as Krupp, Siemens AG, and IG Farben. Efforts were made to coordinate business's actions with the needs of the state, particularly with regard to rearmament, and the Nazis established some state owned concerns such as Volkswagen. But these were functions of the new German expansionism rather than an implementation of socialist measures. Germany had moved to a war economy, and similar measures occurred in the western democracies during the First World War, and again once the Second World War had begun.

The Nazis engaged in an extensive public works program including the construction of the Autobahn system. As with the expropriation of rail lines, however, the Autobahn system was created with the purpose of facilitating military transport, and government investment in transport systems is common in almost all nations. Similarly, all political movements that have formed governments have used economic intervention of some form or another. The suggestion that economic intervention is left-wing ignores the tradition of intervention practiced by monarchies and oligarchies in Europe before the eighteenth century, and the intervention, including protectionism, subsidies and anti-trade union laws, practiced by right-wing parties in government in Europe and North America during the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Since the fall of the Nazi regime, many theorists have argued that there are similarities between the government of Nazi Germany and that of Stalin's Soviet Union. In most cases, this has not taken the form of arguing that the Nazis were socialist, but arguing that both Nazism and Stalinism are forms of totalitarianism. This view was advanced most famously by Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism. However, most socialists argue that Stalin's system was not a truly socialist one, since it did not meet certain requirements that they see as essential for socialism - requirements such as a functional democracy, for example.

Jay.Mac said...

I've found that the best way to respond to your comment is to copy it here and to respond to each point raised. My replies are in italics.

Because Nazism is an abbreviation for "National Socialism", and Nazi leaders sometimes described their ideology as a form of socialism, some people believe that Nazism was a form of socialism, or that there are similarities between Nazism and socialism. It has also been argued that the Nazi use of economic intervention, including central planning and some limited public ownership, is indicative of socialism.

So just because it's called socialism, its leaders describe it as socialism, and it has key elements of socialism to it, it's NOT socialism?

Nazi leaders were opposed to the Marxist idea of class conflict and opposed the idea that capitalism should be abolished and that workers should control the means of production. For those who consider class conflict and the abolition of capitalism as essential components of socialist progress, these factors alone are sufficient to categorize "National Socialism" as non-socialist.

Class conflict is not a central tenant of socialism. The earliest modern socialists did not think in terms of class struggle "but argued that the wealthy should join with the poor in building a new society". The idea of class struggle is a Marxist one- and while Marxism is a type of socialism, it is not the sole type of this political philosophy. The National Socialists had their focus on race rather than state first, meaning that the state was merely a means for them to advance the cause of their race. The key element is that they were a collectivist group- the needs of the race were placed to the forefront.

"National Socialism, became the successful challengers to Communism because they were able to both appeal to the establishment as a bulwark against Bolshevism and appeal to the working class base, particularly the growing underclass of unemployed and unemployable and growingly impoverished middle class elements who were becoming declassed (the lumpenproletariat). The Nazis' use of pro-labor rhetoric appealed to those disaffected with capitalism by promoting the limiting of profits, the abolishing of rents and the increasing of social benefits (only for Germans) while simultaneously presenting a political and economic model that divested "Soviet socialism" of elements which were dangerous to capitalism, such as the concept of class struggle, "the dictatorship of the proletariat" or worker control of the means of production."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Note too that Hitler's first contact with what would become the Nazi Party was when he was sent to investigate the left-wing and suspected revolutionary German Worker's Party. Hitler liked their ideas so much he joined them.

There's also this quote from Hitler - "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/

As for the control over the means of production, noted economist Ludwig von Mises called Nazi Germany as a socialist state-

"What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State."
http://www.mises.org/story/1937


Nazi leaders made statements describing their views as socialist, while at the same time opposing the idea of class conflict espoused by the Social Democrats (SPD) and Communists (KPD). Established socialist movements did not view the Nazis as socialists and argued that the Nazis were thinly disguised reactionaries. Historians such as Ian Kershaw also note the links between the Nazis and the German political and economic establishment and the significance of the Night of the Long Knives in which Hitler purged what were at the time seen as "leftist" elements in the Nazi Party and how this was done at the urging of the military and conservatives.

Once again, class conflict is not a defining feature of socialism. Kershaw also notes that
“Hitler's Nazis were one of numerous nationalist and increasingly fascistic groups that existed in Germany and contended for leadership of the anti-Communist movement and, eventually, of the German state. Further, they assert that fascism and its German variant, National Socialism, became the successful challengers to Communism because they were able to both appeal to the establishment as a bulwark against Bolshevism and appeal to the working class base, particularly the growing underclass of unemployed and unemployable and growingly impoverished middle class elements who were becoming declassed (the lumpenproletariat). The Nazis' use of pro-labor rhetoric appealed to those disaffected with capitalism by promoting the limiting of profits, the abolishing of rents and the increasing of social benefits (only for Germans) while simultaneously presenting a political and economic model that divested "Soviet socialism" of elements which were dangerous to capitalism, such as the concept of class struggle, "the dictatorship of the proletariat" or worker control of the means of production.”


Many of the traditional center and right political parties of the Weimar Republic accused the Nazis of being socialists citing planks in the Nazis' party program which called for nationalization of trusts and other socialist measures. However, the German National People's Party (DNVP), the most important party on the mainstream right, usually treated the Nazis as a respected potential member of coalition cabinet.

So, the Nazi Party most definitely had socialist policies but they still entered into coalitions with parties on the right? That does not somehow erase their socialist policies. It doesn’t make them less socialist; it merely means that at some points they made strategic alliances with groups whose goals somehow intersected with their own.

The Nazis came to power through an alliance with some conservative factions, though also experienced opposition from some others. Franz von Papen, a conservative former German Chancellor and former member of the Catholic Centre Party supported Hitler for the position of Chancellor. Events during the Papen chancellorship led to the Enabling Act which gave the Nazis dictatorial powers, passed with the support of conservative and centrist deputies in the Reichstag, over the opposition of Social Democrats and Communists. Other conservatives opposed Hitler, notably Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher, who attempted to construct a center-right led "cross front" that united anti-Hitler factions on the right and center-left in the Reichstag. Schleicher, having been forced from the Chancellorship by Papen, was assassinated by the Nazis on the Night of the Long Knives.

Yes, the Nazis did come to power in cahoots with the conservative German National People’s Party. The DNVP and the Nazis had something in common- opposition to the Weimar constitution. They also shared hardline nationalism and the DNVP’s cooperation with the Nazi Party was reluctant. Remember that in this period no party had any sort of clear majority and coalitions were common in an effort to get to power. This cooperation with the Nazis also led to some DNVP members leaving the party and forming their own group, the Conservative People’s Party. Those members of the DNVP who did support Hitler quickly found that there was no reward for doing so- Hitler either excluded them from power or forced them to resign. After that they had two choices- join the Nazi Party or leave politics.

As for Papen, his support for the Nazis was merely to try and gather support for his own stint as Chancellor. It failed when the Nazis won greater wins in two elections and he was forced to resign. His successor as Chancellor, von Schleicher, tried to “establish a broad coalition government by gaining the support of both Nazi and Social Democratic trade unionists”. Papen’s support for the Nazis came about because of their usefulness as a coalition partner- Papen lured the Nazis to his block by promising Hitler the position of Chancellor while he took the role of Vice-Chancellor. Papen’s aim was to then marginalise the Nazis on the cabinet and reclaim power for himself. It didn’t quite work out that way. When Papen saw his own ambitions stymied he tried to oust Hitler with the aid of conservative groups. In any event, political coalitions do not mean that they shared similar political goals or ideals- in pre-war Germany it was all about how best to ally oneself to get into a position of power.

The Enabling Act was passed with a fear of communism rampant in Germany- don’t forget that the Reichstag fire was blamed on a Dutch communist. The Communist party in Germany would have been opposed to the Enabling Act- under the previous Reichstag Fire Decree, Hitler had been given the power to raid their offices and arrest some of their officials.


When the Nazis were still an opposition party some leaders, particularly Gregor Strasser, espoused anti-big business stances and advocated the idea of the Nazis as a workers' party. In spite of this, most workers continued to vote for the SPD or the KPD as late as the March 1933 elections held shortly after Hitler's appointment as chancellor.

Ideologically, fascism and Nazism reject the most important aspects of Marxist theory. For instance, Hitler did not exalt the working class over the capitalist class as Marx prescribed. In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote 'the suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists... We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims. ' Hitler despised Karl Marx as a Jew and condemned communism and Marxism as a Judeo-Bolshevist conspiracy pledging to block its rise in Germany arguing that the nation's downfall was due to Marxism and its Jewish influence. These actions prompted some prominent conservatives and capitalists to fund and support the Nazis because they saw them as a bulwark against Bolshevism.

I’ve never argued that the Nazis agreed with Marxism or any of Karl Marx’s theories- Marxism is not the be all and end all of socialism- there are different strains of that ideology.

There were ideological shades of opinion within the Nazi Party, particularly prior to their seizure of power in 1933, but a central tenet of the party was always the leadership principle or Fuhrerprinzip. The Nazi Party did not have party congresses in which policy was deliberated upon and concessions made to different factions. What mattered most was what the leader, Adolf Hitler, thought and decreed. Those who held opinions which were at variance with Hitler's either learned to keep quiet or were purged, particularly after 1933. Although this is in some respects comparable to the behavior of certain Communist dictatorships such as that of Stalin in the Soviet Union or Mao Zedong in China, it also presents a strong contrast to the collective leadership exercised in other Communist parties, more so to the more democratic organization of most European socialist parties.

Totalitarianism is not at odds with a socialist state or socialist policy- and as you yourself have provided examples of leftist dictatorships which support this. The fact that some socialists prefer collective leaderships does nothing to imply that the National Socialists were not, in fact, socialists.

In power, the Nazis jettisoned practically all of the socialistic aspects of their program, and worked with big business, frequently at the expense of both small business and the working classes. Gregor Strasser was murdered, as was Ernst Rohm while Otto Strasser was purged from the party. Independent trade unions were outlawed, as were strikes. In place of the unions, the Nazis created the Deutsche Arbeitsfront. The Nazis took other symbolic steps to co-opt the working classes' support, such as the introduction of May Day as a national holiday in 1933. These were described by socialists as superficial moves designed to win the allegiance of workers rather than grant them any material concessions at the expense of capital.

Perhaps they were superficial attempts to win worker support, but the Nazis also set up the Strength Through Joy movement (Kraft durch Freude) which was one of the Third Reich’s largest groups- it was a massive state-controlled group which provided previously middle-class leisure activities to the masses. Volkswagon emerged from this outfit, along with a special saving scheme which would have allowed workers to afford a car.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraft_durch_Freude

Hitler’s socialism, remember, was not Marxist in flavour- his “social entity” was not the working class, it was the German race.


Industries and trusts were not nationalised, with the exception of private rail lines (nationalised in the late 1930s to meet military contingencies). The only private holdings that were expropriated were those belonging to Jews. These holdings were then sold or awarded to businessmen who supported the Nazis and satisfied their ethnic and racial policies. Military production and even film production remained in the hands of private industries whilst serving the Nazi government, and many private companies flourished during the Nazi period. The Nazis never interfered with the profits made by such large German firms as Krupp, Siemens AG, and IG Farben. Efforts were made to coordinate business's actions with the needs of the state, particularly with regard to rearmament, and the Nazis established some state owned concerns such as Volkswagen. But these were functions of the new German expansionism rather than an implementation of socialist measures. Germany had moved to a war economy, and similar measures occurred in the western democracies during the First World War, and again once the Second World War had begun.

As von Mises has already argued, the National Socialists controlled big business, while letting them retain ownership. Businesses continued to function – and their actions fed the needs of the state. The key phrase you used was “serving the Nazi government”.

Read this-

“Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property -- so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.

If "ownership" means the right to determine the use and disposal of material goods, then Nazism endowed the state with every real prerogative of ownership. What the individual retained was merely a formal deed, a content-less deed, which conferred no rights on its holder. Under communism, there is collective ownership of property DEJURE. Under Nazism, there is the same collective ownership DE FACTO.

During the Hitler years -- in order to finance the party's programs, including the war expenditures -- every social group in Germany was mercilessly exploited and drained. White-collar salaries and the earnings of small businessmen were deliberately held down by government controls, freezes, taxes. Big business was bled by taxes and "special contributions" of every kind, and strangled by the bureaucracy. At the same time the income of the farmers was held down, and there was a desperate flight to the cities -- where the middle class, especially the small tradesmen, were soon in desperate straits, and where the workers were forced to labor at low wages for increasingly longer hours (up to 60 or more per week).

But the Nazis defended their policies, and the country did not rebel; it accepted the Nazi argument. Selfish individuals may be unhappy, the Nazis said, but what we have established in Germany is the ideal system, SOCIALISM. In its Nazi usage this term is not restricted to a theory of economics; it is to be understood in a fundamental sense. "Socialism" for the Nazis denotes the principle of collectivism as such and its corollary, statism -- in every field of human action, including but not limited to economics.

"To be a socialist", says Goebbels, "is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole."”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/704277/posts


The Nazis engaged in an extensive public works program including the construction of the Autobahn system. As with the expropriation of rail lines, however, the Autobahn system was created with the purpose of facilitating military transport, and government investment in transport systems is common in almost all nations. Similarly, all political movements that have formed governments have used economic intervention of some form or another. The suggestion that economic intervention is left-wing ignores the tradition of intervention practiced by monarchies and oligarchies in Europe before the eighteenth century, and the intervention, including protectionism, subsidies and anti-trade union laws, practiced by right-wing parties in government in Europe and North America during the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Hitler’s public works scheme was vast- on a scale of FDR’s own program in the US.

“However, there is no doubt that work was created. The Nazis introduced public work schemes for men who worked in the National Labour Service (Reichsarbeitsdienst or RAD). Their work would have included digging ditches on farms to assist irrigation, building the new autobahns, planting new forests etc. The men of the RAD wore a military style uniform, lived in camps near to where they were working and received only what we would term pocket money. However, compared to the lack of success of the Weimar government and the chronic misery of 1931 to 1932, these men felt that at least the Nazi government was making the effort to improve their lot.

To ‘protect’ those in work, the German Labour Front was set up. This was lead by Robert Ley. The GLF took the role of trade unions which had been banned. To an extent, the GLF did this. Ley ordered that workers could not be sacked on the spot but he also ordered that a worker could not leave his job without the government’s permission. Only government labour exchanges could arrange for a new job if someone did leave his employment.”
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazis_and_the_german_economy.htm

“The major reason is that the 1930s were the period when capitalist countries were abandoning the philosophy of the free market and adopting the same socialist and interventionist economic policies that Hitler and his fellow socialists embraced.

One of the best examples was Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, which in large part mirrored the economic policies that Hitler was implementing to get Germany out of the Depression. That’s why it’s not a coincidence that the photograph of the man with the pointy helmet on the U.S. Social Security Administration’s website is not Thomas Jefferson but rather Otto von Bismarck, the “iron chancellor” of Germany. Social Security, which the Roosevelt administration enacted in the 1930s, had originated with Bismarck, who himself had gotten the idea from German socialists in the late 1800s. Social Security was also a key part of Hitler’s economic program.

Thus, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that Hitler, as a National Socialist, also embraced such other governmental measures as public (i.e., government) schooling, national health care, public works, national service, a national youth corps, conscription, government spending to achieve “full employment,” government-business partnerships, wage and price controls, government regulation of private businesses, national highways, financial subsidies to private businesses, and a strong military-industrial complex to combat communism and terrorism.”
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0310j.asp

“The autobahn scheme actually originated with the Weimar Republic so the military explanation for them does not hold water and the scheme was co-opted by Hitler; 100,000 people were employed and the national infrastructure was improved. Furthermore, the autobahns were not militarily significant- road transport could not compete with rail.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahns

“A new study of Nazi make-work programs of the 1930s by Dan P. Silverman ("Hitler's Economy," 1998) shows that Hitler's government pursued a program of "public investment" even more far reaching than the U.S. New Deal. This government imagined itself as the employer of every citizen, the planner of every production decision, and the redistributor of every accumulated pocket of wealth in society. From the Nazi point of view, full glory came during the war when they took over the economy completely, Soviet-style.

Whatever you want to call a violent movement that idealizes Hitler's socialist Third Reich, "right-wing" doesn't cut it.”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20281



Since the fall of the Nazi regime, many theorists have argued that there are similarities between the government of Nazi Germany and that of Stalin's Soviet Union. In most cases, this has not taken the form of arguing that the Nazis were socialist, but arguing that both Nazism and Stalinism are forms of totalitarianism. This view was advanced most famously by Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism. However, most socialists argue that Stalin's system was not a truly socialist one, since it did not meet certain requirements that they see as essential for socialism - requirements such as a functional democracy, for example.

Stalin’s regime may not be viewed as “truly” socialist by “some” socialists, but I suspect that has more to do with distancing themselves from such an unattractive regime than with any comment on the politics or economy in question.

Try this from Time Magazine, which picked Adolf Hitler as Man of the Year for 1938-

“The "socialist" part of National Socialism might be scoffed at by hard-&-fast Marxists, but the Nazi movement nevertheless had a mass basis. The 1,500 miles of magnificent highways built, schemes for cheap cars and simple workers' benefits, grandiose plans for rebuilding German cities made Germans burst with pride. Germans might eat many substitute foods or wear ersatz clothes but they did eat.
-
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 other 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 food- stuffs 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.”
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauMemorial/TimeCover.html

It seems to me that the label right wing is attached to Nazis merely because of their racism and totalitarianism- as if these are somehow right wing features. I’ll say it once more- why should the Nazis be described as right wing because they were racist or totalitarian? Was the Soviet Union, Communist China or Castro’s Cuba right wing because they were totalitarian? I have yet to see a single example of any actual right wing policies held by the National Socialist German Worker's Party.

Anonymous said...

If we believe every muslim is a terrorist and every convert is a Nazi...then we have excuses to keep on fighting buying weapons and make some guys reacher...

But for all those who have been getting biased info and still are willing to give peace a chance, I will recommend u a fast to read info about Islam...

http://www.muslimworld.co.uk/10minutes/

and if u want to go further and even understand the reasons of Bush...u can also read this site wrote by american citizens

http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/terrorism/concealing_the_truth.htm

Americans..wake up and stop giving away ur taxes !!!

Jay.Mac said...

You might be better served actually reading what the Koran has to say- if you browqse my site to you'll find numerous references to it. Or you could always try this site-

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.html

Click on the cruelty and violence section for example- and then you could actually listen to what the Muslim terrorists themselves have to say about why they are doing what they're doing.

And I understand the reasons for Bush's policy of fighting terrorism and liberating millions and millions of people from despotism.

Americans should stop giving away their taxes- primarily to the majority Muslim nations who wish them nothing but ill but who are happy to keep taking Amercian dollars in return for nothing.

BTW, I've never said every Muslim is a terrorist or every convert a Nazi- but the terrorist organistions most active in the world right now happen to be Muslim organisations. And the post was originally about a single Nazi convert to Islam. It's also worth noting that an American Nazi organisation has publically declared that they want to support Al Qaeda.