Critic socialist politics and economic theory in the US — on the upsurge within the left wing of the Democratic party — have a particular gun they love to pull out.
[Alabama Rep. Mo] Brooks went on, saying, “In that vein, I quote from another socialist who mastered big lie propaganda to a maximum, and deadly, effect.” And then, after reading a long quote about how “broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature,” Brooks got to his big conclusion:
“Who is this big lie master? That quote was in 1925 by a member of Germany’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party—that’s right, Germany’s socialist party—more commonly known as the Nazis. The author was socialist Adolf Hitler, in his book Mein Kampf.”
Yeah! Hitler was a socialist, thus socialists are like Hitler!
It’s rubbish logic (Hitler was an Austrian, thus Austrians are like Hitler; Hitler was a national leader, thus national leaders are like Hitler; Hitler was a war veteran, thus war veterans are like Hitler; etc.). Worse than that, it’s nonsense: Hitler was not a “socialist” as the word is used today, and not even as the word was seriously used 90 years ago. Hitler considered socialists (like the actual “German Socialist Party”) both as rivals and as philosophically opposed to his own beliefs — and, as he rose to power, brutally suppressed them.
Bear in mind that in the 1930s, party / faction / gang labels like “worker” and “labor” and “socialism” were way cool, regardless of actual economic theory and politics. A reaction against the Great Depression, class warfare from above, and the German national trauma from WWI, any number of groups adopted those names to gain popular support, just as they bandied about “patriotic” and “national” in the same way.
Beyond that, the article below goes through the origin of that German party’s name, some very specific German history that led to Hitler and the party he eventually took over, and precisely what Hitler thought about “socialism” as it was actually advocated in 1920s-30s Germany. It’s worthwhile reading that I won’t repeat here, except that (to vastly simplify) Hitler was looking to bind up all of the right society (productive “Aryans”) under a fascist regime, with himself as the leader, and with full support of (and profit to) the industrialist and military leadership and wealthy and nobility. In his own words:
Socialism is the science of dealing with the common wealth. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic… We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.
Not quite a “Green New Deal,” or Medicare-for-All.
Instead, his “national socialism” allowed Hitler to rise to power with the full support of the “right kind” of people, alongside industrialists and corporations and the rich and powerful — the latter of whom were full partners with the Nazi apparatus, supporting his war effort as well as assisting in and enabling Hitler’s death camps, to which were sent Jews, but also a variety “Others” — Romany, gays, mentally disabled, and, yes, political opponents like union organizers and socialists.
As the article author notes:
Nazism aligned itself with industrialists and corporations that would ultimately utilize Nazi slave laborers and patent the chemicals used in Nazi death camps to kill millions of men, women, and children. The word “socialist” doesn’t change that, just as the word “Democratic” does not make the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — North Korea — a democracy.
Or a republic, for that matter.
One can argue for or against socialism as a whole (bearing in mind the broad array of arrangements and theory that fall under that label), or even better about specific proposed policies that strike one as “socialist”. But if you’re going to do so, do it without non sequitur references to “National Socialism” in Germany in the 20s and 30s, if you’re looking to actually have the discussion and not merely throw around smears.
Do you want to know more? Adolf Hitler was not a socialist – Vox