__________
#28 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-07-13 10:07 AM
For example while they claimed they were going eliminate private property they never did especially for the elite Germans.
Yeah, read the Mises.org link about that - it explains why they "never did" that, and "total control" didn't mean "total ownership" as communism/Marxism demanded - their socialism was different from Marxism. And even in Soviet Union they "never eliminated private property, especially for the elite Russians." And shortly after the Great Revolution of 1917, they had to institute "New Economic Policy / NEP," which went well beyond even National Socialism in allowing private property and commerce to save the communist economy from ruin.
www.britannica.com (brief)
en.wikipedia.org
Same in Cuba, and other "socialist/Marxist" countries where the elites enjoyed privileges of dachas and private investments and accumulated great wealth.
Hitler didn't make the mistake of abolishing significantly more efficient large private industrial enterprises (again, see reasons in mises.org link and elsewhere) - which allowed rapid rebuilding of the Wehrmacht economy - but he did, for example, force Ferdinand Porsche to create Volkswagen ("People's car") for the masses, etc. etc.
What most fans of "socialism" are trying to imply is that, on one hand, "socialism" can have many forms other than failed "communism" and be "good, benevolent" - yet in another breath they insist that only Marxist "socialism" (Marx himself didn't distinguish between "socialism" and "communism") was the only and true one, and there can be no other (like German National Socialism) which we all know has definitely not been the case.
Even in Soviet Union there were several different socialist groups. the largest of which were Bolsheviks (far-left faction of the original Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party [RSDLP]) led by Lenin, Stalin, Dzerzhinsky et al(eventual, and the only winners) and more bourgeois-socialist Mensheviks, led by Trotsky, Axelrod, Dan, Martov et al., which were eventually outlawed and subjugated or eliminated.
Historians generally agree that Nazism was a distinct ideology separate from traditional socialism
Mo, historians, like Hitler and Goebbels, generally agree that Nazism is different from Marxism ("traditional"?? socialism) - which would be correct.
Like I said, unless you think that "traditional socialism / Marxism" (i.e., "total government ownership of means of production" and total elimination of private property / enterprises) is the only form of "socialism" then it's difficult to explain the existence of [and attachment to] "other/benevolent forms(?)" of "socialism."
... but their core ideology was centered on race, nationalism, and state power...
Yes, and as my posts and links show, none of these exclude "socialism" - after all, the core of socialism is state power and "patriotism"
Repeat: Communism requires "total ownership of means of production"; fascism imposes "total control over means of production" - but both are socialist totalitarian regimes (government 'uber alles' / above individual rights).
Who better to learn this from than the chief propagandist of ideology?
It is well known now that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime frequently used deception and propaganda to mask their true intentions and advance their agenda.
Yes, so do/did every other socialist/communist country - that's why need for total control/ownership of the media. In USSR "samizdat" (underground press) was prosecuted, and typewriters issued only to "good communists."
__________
