Nazism as socialism: the debate nobody wants to have

Nancy as socialism: the debate nobody wants to have

In January 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany. A month later, on 28 February, the Reichstag Fire Decree abolished several articles of the Weimar Constitution, including Article 153, which guaranteed private property. That is the starting point of a thesis making the rounds on economic policy forums: national socialism was not capitalism in disguise, but a form of socialism. The argument, which goes back years and is still alive, holds that Hitler called himself a socialist, regarded Marxism as a false socialism, and that his economic project was incompatible with the free market. The official narrative, by contrast, insists on portraying him as a capitalist serving the business elite. Where does the truth lie?

Socialism according to Hitler: race instead of class

The central thesis is that Hitler hated both capitalism and Marxism, and saw in both parts of a single Jewish plan to dominate the world. His socialism, unlike the Marxist kind, did not divide society into classes but into races: an oppressor race (the Jewish one) and an oppressed race (the Aryan) that had to rise up. The revolutionary subject was not the proletariat but the Aryan race. This idea, defended in the material analysed, draws on texts such as Joseph Goebbels' piece in the magazine Der Angriff in 1928: "We are socialists because we see in it the union of all citizens." The Nancy party, moreover, was called the National Socialist German Workers' Party. The name was no accident.

The first economic measure: abolishing private property

The strongest argument put forward is the Reichstag Fire Decree, which eliminated Article 153 of the Weimar Constitution. According to this interpretation, Hitler used the fire to slip in the abolition of the right to private property under the pretext of maintaining public order. From then on, the Third Reich would have developed a command economy, with heavy public spending and rearmament, which could only be sustained through territorial expansion. The war, therefore, would not have been madness, but the logical consequence of a system that needed to plunder resources to avoid collapse.

Why did Hitler take Germany to war?

If Hitler had been a capitalist, they argue, he would have curbed rearmament and social spending to balance the budget. Instead, he kept borrowing until bankruptcy and chose to charge ahead. The official explanation —that he was insane— does not satisfy the critics. For them, the key lies in the theory of market contraction: Germany needed living space to be self-sufficient. It is never mentioned that other European countries without colonies, such as Norway or Sweden, prospered in the 19th century without any need for conquest. But Hitler was convinced that war was inevitable.

The debate over the nature of fascism

The discussion extends to Italian fascism and Francoism. Mussolini was a socialist before he was a fascist; Franco, by contrast, was a pragmatist who left the economy in the hands of technocrats. Some participants argue that fascism is 70% socialism plus a national character, while communism would be 100% socialism with an internationalist vocation. Others reject the idea that VOX is fascist, pointing out that its economic programme is the most liberal in parliament. The confusion of labels, they conclude, is the great problem of political language.

The leader's origins: from communist to national socialist

A little-known fact that gets rescued is that Hitler was a deputy in the Bavarian Soviet Republic in 1918-1919 and attended Kurt Eisner's funeral. There are signs that he went through a communist phase before turning to nationalism. His Jewish superior during the First World War, Hugo Gutmann, nominated him for the Iron Cross First Class. After the war, Hitler worked as an undercover agent infiltrating socialist organisations, and it was in that context that he came across the German Workers' Party (DAP), founded by members of the Thule Society. Historiography, they complain, ignores these connections because they are inconvenient.

Artificial intelligence ends up giving in too

In a curious twist, one participant recounts a debate with ChatGPT about the socialist character of nancy. The AI, he says, began by vehemently denying it, but after he insisted and presented the historical arguments, it ended up accepting the thesis. The conclusion he draws is ironic: "even an artificial intelligence is capable of ultimately listening to reason, but a bloody leftie never will." Beyond the anecdote, the episode reflects just how taboo the topic remains in public discourse.

---

The discussion is not closed. The question remains of whether nancy was a form of socialism or an unclassifiable ideology. What does seem clear is that the "far right" label applied to Hitler and Mussolini does not fit their economic programme. And that the official narrative, based on the leader's madness, fails to explain how a ruined country became a military power in barely six years. The debate remains open.