The Nazi economy: state socialism under another name

National socialism was socialist in practice: the uncomfortable thesis

It seems paradoxical: the regime that has done the most damage to the brand of socialism ran an economy on a program any interventionist would sign today. Price and wage controls, massive industrial planning, nationalizations, confiscation of great fortunes, control of foreign trade. Swap out a few words and the blueprint fits a socialist who wants to win the economy back for the people against the elites. The question is no small one: was filing Hitler under the far right the greatest ideological deception of the twentieth century?

A look at the party's 25-point program reinforces that reading: state participation in large companies, nationalization, a heavily interventionist economy, control of the financial system and redistribution of profits. It is true that private property did not disappear; the regime coexisted with capitalism, but under a state straitjacket that had nothing to do with market liberalism. There are arguments to support the claim that, in practice, national socialism was socialist.

The left-right yardstick does not measure totalitarianism well

Another line of analysis holds that the dichotomy is false. Once a system breaks with the rule of law, the tonalidad of the uniform no longer matters: what remains is a totalitarianism with social concerns but no democracy. Mixing the classic categories with regimes like this only confuses things. The national socialist dictatorship had a racial core and an aggressive nationalism incompatible with egalitarian socialism, even if it shared the same economic tools.

From fascism to national syndicalism: cut from the same cloth

The confusion grows with the Iberian heirs. Spanish national syndicalism was nothing more than a translation of the word 'fascio', which in Italian means 'union'. Mussolini's party was officially called the National Fascist Party, and the Spanish version was given a Catholic veneer after the Duce clashed with the Church. The social origins, though, were different: in Italy it drew on syndicalism, while in Spain it was driven by the elites. Even so, the economic DNA was the same.

And then there is the detail that says more than a thousand speeches: in July 1934, Hitler executed the leadership of the 'socialist' wing of his own party. Could there still have been any doubt about which of the two halves of national socialism was the dispensable adjective?