EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

Outside Oxford I believe. Suspect not for much longer, it's difficult to imagine May offering the bribe they presumably did to Nissan to a German company.

A wall costs too much money?

;)

are you suggesting the you know whozis were socialist?

Why weren't they?

because they were to socialism what the DPRK is to democracy.

In a way I'm quite happy about this because the current incarnation of the Mini is an utter travesty. Mind you, I can imagine the Leavewankers being DailyMailOutraged when the huns steal out motoring heritage.

I don't think that's a fair analogy, regardless of your definition of socialism.

Anyway, probably not the best for an extended discussion on the topic.

"So expect the prime minister’s visit to the White House on January 27th to be a study in awkwardness: the mother superior dropping in on the Playboy Mansion."

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21715652-leaving-european-union-means-country-has-less-not-more-control-over-its

I don't think that's a fair analogy, regardless of your definition of socialism.

The analogy was spot on. Having a word in your name does not make you that thing.

Anyway, probably not the best for an extended discussion on the topic.

I don't think an extended discussion is necessary. Nazis were/are not socialists.

Having a word in your name does not make you that thing.

Right, but when you embody parts of a concept it does then form part of your identity.

Just because it's an uncomfortable connection given your political persuasion, doesn't make it untrue.

Nazis were not socialists.

The NSDAP emerged from the DAP, a small Munich-based grouping of nationalists (complete with anti-semitist and other such tendencies) who supported some socialist-style policies but were at pains to stress that they were not Marxists. They were completely obscure until Hitler joined. There were leading Nazis, like Gregor Strasser, murdered in 1934, who were quite strongly socialist while being an anti-semite and racist, etc. (and whose murder was probably related to his political conflict with Hitler over this), and policies to that effect were in the NSDAP's manifesto for a long time. I don't remember when it was revised or whether it was quietly dropped, but German industrialists came to arrangements with Hitler as he got closer to power that ensured that of socialism not much, if anything, was left by 1933, or indeed enacted.

Still, it is an interesting lesson that we're seeing repeated to some extent in that the political spectrum allows for the existence of people who combine nationalist or racist with 'socialist' policies, or, at least, policies traditionally associated with the 'left'. (Whether they would do anything about them once in power is a rather different question--I think they use 'socialism' to tap into the strong discontent caused by inequality to deliver just the votes required to swing the balance, as we've seen with Trump or Brexit, while the main part of their electorate is made up of 'traditional' rightwingers.) One model that I've seen talked about recently is the 'horseshoe' model, in which the open end of the horseshoe represents the two extremist ends of the spectrum and the horsehoe's loop represents the 'centrist' aspect. I think that model doesn't go far enough--I think there's a continuum that closes the horseshoe. I've sometimes read about people who have moved from one kind of extremism to the other, without passing through centrist positions on the way, e.g. Marxists becoming Nazis and vice-versa.

In the UK there is a history of neo nazis and anti facists flitting from one side to the other.

Asides from the horse shoe / circle* I'd echo everything you said.

*I think the more you look at people's views on a range of policies the more you find they tend not to follow this traditional linear idea of political views. See Tories and farming subsidises, etc.

Right, but when you embody parts of a concept it does then form part of your identity.

Just because it's an uncomfortable connection given your political persuasion, doesn't make it untrue.

Alright, Hegel.

Returning to your rhetorical question ("Why weren't they?") in response to the claims that the Nazis were not socialists (which I take to mean your position is that they are), can I ask: What actually is your argument that demonstrates Nazis are socialists (or socialists are Nazis).

Of course, I wouldn't apply this model rigidly--it's about which party political programme people vote for, not their detailed political views. For many people, voting's a compromise of what they disagree with the least. :)

I think as Oliver points out ideology is usually a mixed bag and people often straddle (or crossover) different elements.

I definitely don't think socialists are Nazis. But I think it's disingenuous to deny the socialist influence on the Nazis. In particular, controlling the means of production, anticapitalism, and the less offensive parts of their social policy.

IMO there is a legitimate question as to what the Nazis actually believed in, but I don't think you should pretend parts of their policies didn't exist just because it's embarrassing that you might agree with them.

Definitely. With current events I'm just struck more then ever at how weak some of these structures are.... to the point that I question it totally.

TBF I have also tried to brush up on some of their weird as fuck alt right (and some extreme left) sites/posts. And the thing that strikes me is that many seem to use these lables as tribal identifiers, rather than really believing chapter and verse.

To clarify: As soon as the Nazis got closer to power, socialism went out of the window entirely, culminating in the 'Night of Long Knives', which essentially eliminated the 'socialist' element that was a hangover from the early days (and was never put into practice). Remember that they also savagely persecuted social democrats and communists not only for their resistance to racism and anti-semitism, but also for their socialism. It is, in any event, highly questionable whether the above isms are compatible with 'true' socialism--the International, etc., but of course contradictions between two political views have rarely stopped anyone from adopting both. :)

Responding to your post slightly out of order for the sake of clarity (at least, on my part in drafting the response).

I think as Oliver points out ideology is usually a mixed bag and people often straddle different elements.

Ideology is a mixed bag. This is why we construct rather robust definitions of political movements which incorporate the things which go into that mixed bag (liberal, conservative, socialist, naziscum). There is very often overlap (as you say, nationalisation could be a part of conservative, socialist, and Nazi ideologies). What is more, often we have to redefine these as they merge/converge/break apart (neo-conservative, neo-liberal, civic republican, green conservative). The key point is we have working definitions.

I definitely don't think socialists are Nazis.

(edit - misread): But you do think nazis were socialists?

IMO there is a legitimate question as to what the Nazis actually believed in, but I don't think you should pretend parts of their policies don't exist just because it's embarrassing that you might agree with them.

I didn't do this. I'm not sure anyone in this thread did.

But I think it's disingenuous to deny the socialist influence on the Nazis. In particular, controlling the means of production, anticapitalism, and the less offensive parts of their social policy.

This is the key point I assumed you wanted to make from the start: that the Nazis shared some political policies with socialists. However, all you're doing is picking on particular areas of potential shared policy to try to draw an equivalency. I am certain I could do the same with major political parties today and the Nazis. That does not make them akin. In fact, there's a logical fallacy for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

In conclusion: Nazis are not socialists.

I definitely don't think socialists are Nazis.
Then why did you ask why there were not?

Sorry I read that as you interpreting me as saying socialists are Nazis - which would be quite extreme, when I was making the point the other way around.

My original issue was following a response to comment about what happens when you mix nationalists and socialists... and then using the analogy of N. Korea's relationship to democracy which I think is a dishonest.

@Oliver Schick I think out the window is too strong when you look at some of their social policies (and a very small number of economic ones). But they were clearly flexible on many "beliefs".

Equally, it is hard to know whether they wouldn't have brought more of the economic aims back had they survived longer.

Equally, it is hard to know whether they wouldn't have brought more of the economic aims back had they survived longer.

I'm guessing by this you mean after 1945. You should look into the Night of the Long Knives to put things into a context. Yes, there was a 'red-brown' element to Nazism, but it was only one strand. As has been said, however, calling yourself something isn't the same thing as actually being something. The conclusions of the Nazi project ran, in numerous ways, counter to the aims of the Enlightenment- seeking a return to the world before 1798. Regardless of what they called themselves, what they were trying to achieve ran (and runs) counter to any definition of socialism. August Bebel described the anti-semitism that was a component of it as 'socialism of the fools'- you can't seek to liberate a section of the working class at the expense of another.

The nationalism plus socialism thing was drunken glibness. But I see strong parallels between Volksgemeinschaft idea that the Nazis appropriated and the way that the Marxist concept of proletariat was mobilised to create an in-group identity. The fact that both of these appeal to an inchoate sense of community solidarity is what means that they're often competing with each other for the same hearts and minds, in my opinion, and why there's a certain amount of cross-pollination of ideas.

^ "you can't seek to liberate a section of the working class at the expense of another"

Indeed. I do wonder what working class means this day btw. I find the term a bit old school and not helpful sometimes.

The way the UK is going people in median and averages incomes for their region are also feeling the pinch.

But they may be uni educated and not in traditional unionised professions and therefore not identify with the term.

hitler's treatment of the trade unions shortly after he came to power certainly makes me question anyones insistence that the NAZI party were remotely socialist.

@Oliver Schick I think out the window is too strong when you look at some of their social policies (and a very small number of economic ones).

If you could say which ones you're thinking of it would probably be better to discuss the specifics. However, generally, the Nazis were quite happy at first to let some already ongoing policies run and claim credit for them, e.g. motorway-building--ironically, the first German motorway, in all but name, had actually been opened by none other than Konrad Adenauer, when he was mayor of Cologne, not by Hitler as propaganda then claimed. There were also other economic stimulus policies being pursued (Germany having been hit very hard by the Great Depression, of course), but none of them had anything to do with the Nazis--as has often been said, had Germany just had a little more time before the German nationalist parties caved in, the Nazis would have disappeared again. When the Nazis had got their wish to control virtually all areas of government and started to implement 'their' policies, they managed to wreck the fledgling German recovery within a few years.

But they were clearly flexible on many "beliefs".

Well, yes, as mentioned about 'socialism', but the cornerstones of Nazi ideology were set in stone in "Mein Kampf", having been formed in Hitler's muddled mind much earlier, partly through his rubbish reading. (Some of what you see on the Internet these days seems very strongly reminiscent of some of his sources.) He was famously inflexible on these.

Equally, it is hard to know whether they wouldn't have brought more of the economic aims back had they survived longer.

Well, of course a massive amount of analysis has been devoted to questions like this, and it's impossible to read it all. My own personal view is that this is very strongly bound up with Hitler's personality, who as a political hasardeur was essentially on a self-destructive course that could only fail. The war was, from the Nazis' perspective, inevitable, because of the nonsensical and inhuman "Blut und Boden" ideology and its implications, and much of Germany's economic efforts in the late 30s were concentrated around the production of armaments, which weakened the country immensely. Food was rationed early on, I think 1938 or 1939, certainly before the outbreak of war, all in order to prepare the war, which was in the works years before it actually started. Nothing that the Nazis' did was aimed at bringing about socialist outcomes, and, discounting untruthful propaganda, I'm certain that nothing that they said in these times can be construed as 'socialist'. Whether or not they might have brought 'socialism' back had they not become embroiled in a world war they couldn't win is a moot point. Hitler mainly relied on Germany's large industrial powers in preparing the war, and there's no reason to think that this reliance would have changed had there been a Nazi Germany after the war. As I said, it's a moot point, as total collapse was inevitable after 1942 at the latest.

GCSE Modern History thread.