Is the AfD neo-Nazi?

[whichphilosophy]

Have you even read the 25 Points? They used the word "socialist" because at the time they picked a name for their party they were socialists. Then they spent the next fourteen years evolving away from socialism. Then they murdered the remaining prominent socialist Nazis on the Night of the Long Knives. Maybe you need to read more Nazi history.

I just did. What in this list do you think makes it socialist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program#The_25-point_Program_of_the_NSDAP

Here's the one's that are the most socialist:

All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
The first obligation of every citizen must be to productively work mentally or physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently, we demand:
Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

Haven't you pinpointed the wrong antonym, ie on what dichotomy national socialism is the opposite of? National socialism is the opposite of liberalism. More precisely, "social liberalism". I think that the "social" part of national socialism refers to the idea that the government has a paternal responsibility to take care of it's citizens. And because of that they also have very far reaching rights to infringe on the rights of those citizens. The term "social liberal" stems from this age as well.

In the end of the 19'th century socialism, communism, social Darwinism, democracy and nationalism were all movements exploding in popularity. The meaning of these words evolved rapidly, and drifted around a bit. Initially communism and socialism were synonyms. But during the 1880'ies they split due to irreconcilable differences. To the point when an anti-communist movement (NSDAP) called themselves socialists. Also, pay attention to the words they use. Goebels and Hitler attack the USSR for their "Bolshevism". Not "communism". These words have shifted in meaning over the 20'th century. Mostly due to the newspeak of the USSR and China.

The nazis main problem with the USSR was their perceived liberalism. Not economic liberalism. But social liberalism. The fact that the Soviet liberalism was mostly just talk, is another matter. We find the idea that the USSR was considered liberal today as absurd. But they lived in a different time.

They lived in a time when massive corporations just grew and grew and grew. Private companies that could compete with the wealth of national governments. That was a new thing, and people didn't quite know what to think about it, or what we should do about it. A lot of people thought it was wrong somehow. For a variety of reasons. The state nationalising private property was not seen as an inherently communist (modern word usage) thing. It was just a thing that governments could do.

Also worth noting is that in the super conservative world, ie world of mercantilism, governments nationalized private companies all the time. Back then it was associated with social conservatism.

Politics is sort of fused together with no clear demarcations between left right and centre. Communist societies have free enterprise and Right of centre/conservative societies have state run welfare.

National Socialism is a form of socialism polluted by concepts of racial purity, that would suit by post lobotomy politicians who run it on an authoritarian manner.

The binding factor of extremist states is to ensure how the individual best serves the state.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Politics is sort of fused together with no clear demarcations between left right and centre. Communist societies have free enterprise and Right of centre/conservative societies have state run welfare.

National Socialism is a form of socialism polluted by concepts of racial purity, that would suit by post lobotomy politicians who run it on an authoritarian manner.

The binding factor of extremist states is to ensure how the individual best serves the state.

If you learn the history of all these words it makes total sense. You've already demonstrated that you have trouble telling what the words mean from political spin and newspeak.

Nope, national socialism is exactly what it says on the tin.

Nazis are right. Communists are left. Republicans are right. Democrats are left. Crystal clear.

For example, social liberal political parties also think that the government has a responsibility to take care of and guide their citizens. But they are left. Because they are socially progressive.

Extremism is just to take any political -ism and take it to its logical extreme. I think extremism can be anything really. But for whatever reason the extremists who have taken power really really like power. it might have something to do with absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[ronburgundy]

The binding factor of extremist states is to ensure how the individual best serves the state.

It isn't limited to the individual serving the state. Nationalistic sentiments and xenophobic attitudes about threats to tradition and majority culture lead to oppressive anti-liberty authoritarianism. It can take the form of a majority group (not the "state" per se) trying to ensure that individuals outside that group are subservient to that groups values, interests, and traditions. That is precisely the seeds of racist/bigoted nationalism that defines the Trump phenomena and on the rise in the US. It revealed starkly in the kind of mindless intolerant nationalism epitomized by accusations of "anti-Americanism" against people merely taking a knee (not a sign of disrespect in any culture) to highlight murderous injustices by armed authorities. A handful of people were merely trying to highlight infractions by the government against the founding principles of this country. Only fascists would view that as "disrespecting" the country or those who fought for it. Yet our current president reacted to this disobedience by attacking these people, trying to fuel emotional nationalistic hatred toward them and demanding that they be punished and that those who could most immediately do so be punished if they didn't do so. When the players and their closest colleagues and employers challenged this attack, the president doubled down and was loudly supported by his followers and fellow authoritarian nationalists.

 

[Bomb#20]

I just did. What in this list do you think makes it socialist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program#The_25-point_Program_of_the_NSDAP

Here's the one's that are the most socialist:

All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
The first obligation of every citizen must be to productively work mentally or physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently, we demand:
Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

It seems you've answered your own question.

Haven't you pinpointed the wrong antonym, ie on what dichotomy national socialism is the opposite of?

Huh? I didn't pinpoint any antonym. The only opposite I pinpointed was that the actual history is the opposite of "They used the word 'socialist' because that was trendy."

But since you ask, the antonym of national socialism is international capitalism. The Nazis were opposed to both parts. This was a time when mainstream socialist parties were pushing internationalism: Workers of the world unite! The communist party song was "The Internationale". So a movement that was for German workers only was making it extra clear they were leaving out the international part of socialism.

National socialism is the opposite of liberalism. More precisely, "social liberalism".

No, "liberalism" was more precise than "social liberalism", since Naziism is also opposed to economic liberalism.

The nazis main problem with the USSR was their perceived liberalism.

Um, the Nazis' main problem with the USSR was that it was geometrically an obstacle to their dreams of Drang nach Osten and Lebensraum for the "Aryan Race". Liberalism, whether social or economic, was way down the list.

The thing to keep in mind about the relation between Nazism and socialism is that deep down, Hitler himself didn't give a rat's ass about economics. What he cared about was race. So he tended to surround himself with people who shared his racial views and then go along with whatever economic views his associates were pushing. When he joined a racist socialist movement, he became a socialist. When the movement recruited enough mercantilists, he became a mercantilist.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Haven't you pinpointed the wrong antonym, ie on what dichotomy national socialism is the opposite of?

Huh? I didn't pinpoint any antonym. The only opposite I pinpointed was that the actual history is the opposite of "They used the word 'socialist' because that was trendy."

When you use a word you always mean the opposite of the antonym. It's sometimes helpful to consider the antonym of what you are saying, because it can help you understand when you've used the wrong word, or understood a word wrongly.

But since you ask, the antonym of national socialism is international capitalism. The Nazis were opposed to both parts. This was a time when mainstream socialist parties were pushing internationalism: Workers of the world unite! The communist party song was "The Internationale". So a movement that was for German workers only was making it extra clear they were leaving out the international part of socialism.

You're all over the map now, mixing concepts. Nazis had no problems with capitalism. What they didn't like was the "international" part. Because they thought it was just a tool for international networks of Jewish bankers to control the world. Nazis were actually quite split over USSR. The Rosenberg wing thought the USSR and Bolshevism was part of the Jewish conspiracy. The Röhm/SA wing though that Nazi Germany stood closer to the USSR than the west. That whole wing was purged during the Night of the long knives. Which incidentally is the wing Göbels belonged to. But he switched sides. He was a true blue communist initially. Hitler himself was an anglofile and quite late held onto dreams of being alies with England against France and the USSR.

National socialism is the opposite of liberalism. More precisely, "social liberalism".

No, "liberalism" was more precise than "social liberalism", since Naziism is also opposed to economic liberalism.

I think you're just wrong. Nazi policy and propaganda was very much pro small businesses. They were also for large businesses to as long as they weren't perceived as Jew owned.

This was a time when the general belief was that efficiency was created by having really big companies. Regardless of who ran it. The idea that incentives might be important hadn't really penetrated how economists thought about the economy.

The thing to keep in mind about the relation between Nazism and socialism is that deep down, Hitler himself didn't give a rat's ass about economics. What he cared about was race. So he tended to surround himself with people who shared his racial views and then go along with whatever economic views his associates were pushing. When he joined a racist socialist movement, he became a socialist. When the movement recruited enough mercantilists, he became a mercantilist.

I think this isn't just Hitler. It was characteristic of the entire movement. Or populist political parties in general. Populist parties are really good at being against stuff. But when they need to be for something, they're fresh out of ideas. Populist parties and politicians getting into power is the worst thing that can happen. Always a disaster. Because they never have any plan for what to do. They are inherently an opposition party.

They would just say whatever they thought they needed to say to get power. So they said they were socialist.

 

[Bomb#20]

But since you ask, the antonym of national socialism is international capitalism. The Nazis were opposed to both parts. This was a time when mainstream socialist parties were pushing internationalism: Workers of the world unite! The communist party song was "The Internationale". So a movement that was for German workers only was making it extra clear they were leaving out the international part of socialism.

You're all over the map now, mixing concepts. Nazis had no problems with capitalism. What they didn't like was the "international" part. Because they thought it was just a tool for international networks of Jewish bankers to control the world. Nazis were actually quite split over USSR. The Rosenberg wing thought the USSR and Bolshevism was part of the Jewish conspiracy. The Röhm/SA wing though that Nazi Germany stood closer to the USSR than the west. That whole wing was purged during the Night of the long knives. Which incidentally is the wing Göbels belonged to. But he switched sides. He was a true blue communist initially. Hitler himself was an anglofile and quite late held onto dreams of being alies with England against France and the USSR.

I'm not all over the map; you're all over the timeline. You're anachronistically reading what you know the Nazis later became into their origins. Nazis had no problems with capitalism after 1934 (if you gloss over the whole anti-free-trade/pro-government-managed-cartels aspect). But the 1920 Nazis had a big problem with capitalism.

National socialism is the opposite of liberalism. More precisely, "social liberalism".

No, "liberalism" was more precise than "social liberalism", since Naziism is also opposed to economic liberalism.

I think you're just wrong. Nazi policy and propaganda was very much pro small businesses. They were also for large businesses to as long as they weren't perceived as Jew owned.

This was a time when the general belief was that efficiency was created by having really big companies. Regardless of who ran it. The idea that incentives might be important hadn't really penetrated how economists thought about the economy.

I think you don't quite grasp what economic liberalism is -- there's more to it than being pro-business. And incentives had certainly penetrated Anglo-American economists' minds by then -- the neoclassical revolution of the late 1800s basically amounts to working out the mathematics of incentive. But perhaps it hadn't yet penetrated German economic thought.

I think this isn't just Hitler. It was characteristic of the entire movement. Or populist political parties in general. Populist parties are really good at being against stuff. But when they need to be for something, they're fresh out of ideas.

In the early 20s they were full of ideas. Mostly the same ideas other workers' party were pushing, watered down enough to make them non-threatening to people the members didn't hate and were hoping to recruit.

They would just say whatever they thought they needed to say to get power. So they said they were socialist.

You say that as though they didn't mean it, that they didn't think of themselves as socialist. That's an implausible anachronism.