12 July 2021 | OPINION

Every time someone dares to ponder this question a tidal wave of unhappy socialists hit back online. Accusations fly of stupidity and a lack of understanding. Some imply dark motives, such as Nazi apologists. This constant flare-up intrigued me – ‘The lady doth protest too much, methinks’.

I remember feeling quite shocked when I found out that the word ‘Nazi’ stood for ‘national socialiss’. The word is a portmanteau, meaning it was created by the joining of two other words.

Nazis were members of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. They saw themselves as socialists. Hitler always referred to himself as a socialist. The word ‘socialist’ was placed in his party’s name, alongside the word ‘workers’ – it all feels a bit socialistic to me.

But it must be conceded that Hitler was not a trustworthy man. It would not surprise anyone if he used ‘socialism’ to further his evil ends. Forget for the moment that the first political party Hitler tried to join was the German Socialist Party and that he co-founded the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Let us start by defining what ‘socialism’ is. Socialism is an economic and political system where the community, or the state, owns the general means of production for the benefit of the people.

Followers of a Welshman, Robert Owen, began calling themselves socialists in 1841. Owen is seen as a founder of the Co-operative Movement in Britain. He said that workers should own the companies they worked for and share the profits among themselves.

To most people, Karl Marx is the modern father of socialism. His name is synonymous with a particular vein of socialism – Marxism. His basic idea was the world is split into the ‘workers’ and the ‘richer capitalists’, who exploit the ‘workers’.  The proletariat versus the bourgeoisie. He thought that when the ‘workers’ realised their exploitation, they would revolt and take over ownership of production. He believed that the ‘workers’, when in power, would not exploit others. His ultimate aim was communism, which he defined as a stateless, classless society with free enterprise.

On 24 February 1920, Hitler publicly proclaimed a 25-point programme for the German Workers’ Party. A few weeks later, the party changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party – aka the Nazi Party. Throughout the 1920s, others sought to change the 25-point programme. Hitler suppressed every instance of programmatic change.

This plan is worth reading to see what Hitler was ultimately aiming to achieve. I split the 25 points into two groups so I could assess the level of socialistic influence. Socialist-themed = 14 points. Nationalist-themed = 11 points. The majority of points are clearly socialist in nature. Hitler wanted to expand old-age welfare, break the ‘slavery’ of rent, nationalise businesses, create profit-sharing and reform land ownership. These are all socialist aims.

Hitler berated capitalism. He referred to it as ‘democratic warmongers and their Jewish-capitalist backers’. He believed that his war against the UK was fundamentally a battle against capitalism. The German ‘welfare state’ against the ‘plutocratic-capitalist Britain’. He even linked the war with anti-colonialism and the Arab struggle against Britain in Palestine.

‘Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxists have stolen the term and confused its meaning… We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national.’ – Adolf Hitler, 1923

I think it is becoming clear that Hitler, and therefore the Nazi Party, were socialists. The only difference is the Nazis stated very clearly that they wanted a type of socialism that only benefitted the German state and people. Therefore, they created an openly racist form of socialism. Some would argue that all forms of socialism tend towards nationalism and racism – just look at what the Chinese are doing to the Uyghurs… the Jewish experience in the USSR…. the genocide in Cambodia, where ethnic and religious minorities were systematically targeted. All of this would be familiar to a Nazi. Socialist countries surprise me, for they have fortress borders –not very international of them. Unless, of course, it is to prevent their own citizens from wandering off.

Finally, I have seen many tweets explaining that Hitler could not have been a socialist, for he murdered socialists. This is completely correct. Hitler killed many people. He was an equal-opportunities psychopath. It did not matter what race, colour or creed you were. If he did not like you, then you died. He did not like internationalist socialism – he considered it an enemy. He did not like communism – ‘Bolshevik-plutocratic world conspirators and their Jewish wire-pullers’. He did not like competition.

Socialism comes out of revolution. When revolutions are over, the purge begins. If we want to talk about who has murdered other socialists, then we must start with Lenin, Stalin and Mao. To reach the top of any socialist state requires a level of brutality not within most people.

Northern Ireland has a history of Protestants and Catholics killing each other. Both groups claim they are Christian. Sunnis and Shiites are both Muslim sects and they kill each other. Many ideologies split and follow different paths, yet claim affiliation to the same ideology. The Nazis followed their own version of socialism.

Basic socialism has always been practised in a historical sense. It was our way of life when we lived in small tribes. We shared things, for we were all related and pulled together to survive. I believe this innate sense of socialism is programmed into our DNA. This is why the idea of socialism will not die. But there is a big difference between co-operating in a small tribe and running a nation state. Even after the atrocities of the 20th century, the idea reverberates and remains popular. Can we fight our DNA?

This is not an academic paper. I am not a historian. I wrote this essay for my own benefit and for the pursuit of knowledge. This is a complicated topic that could take a lifetime to unpack and analyse. But from where I am standing, in the broad use of the term ‘socialist’, the Nazis were socialists.

The political divide should not be viewed as a left/right spectrum – for this makes no sense – but instead as a statism versus individual liberty spectrum. On this line, you will find the Nazis sat comfortably alongside all other socialists.

Nick Buckley MBE has spent 2 decades working across the country to improve the lives of residents and young people. He spent a decade working for Manchester Council in the Crime & Disorder Team. He took redundancy and set up a charity called Mancunian Way to stop young people getting involved in crime. He also runs several homeless projects. Mancunian Way is a multi-award-winning charity, and he was awarded an MBE in 2019 for this work. He has recently become a contact for GB News as an expert on social issues. In 2021, he stood for Reform UK as the Mayoral candidate for Greater Manchester. To be part of his journey, join his community on LOCALS for access to unpublished articles, drafts and early viewing of articles and videos.

3 COMMENTS

  1. Not sure that tribal societies were genuinely socialists, in fact one suspects the complete opposite and that they were distinctly hierarchical, based on strength, intelligence and leadership abilities. Looking at many other primates we usually see a dominant figure (usually male) leading the group. Most likely early human tribes were similar. So not sure that socialism is in our DNA.

    However, utopianism is a strong human characteristic, in the past the expected or hoped for utopia was in the after life, in an atheist socialist world the only place for utopia is in the here and now. However, there is no possibility for utopia in the real world, change is the only constant in the universe and change denies a perfected state, which is why utopian are always dystopian, they deny the reality of nature, flux. Socialism is at odds with the forces of nature, in other words it is in denial of reality and is therefore unreal.

    National Socialism was what it said it was, nationalistic and socialist. Similarly Mussolini, the socialist revolutionary who developed a unique Italian statist approach, was always of the left.

    The main differences in European socialist totalitarianism are that National Socialism favoured race, Italian fascism the state and Soviet socialism the Party. What binds them is ideological certainty and a complete disregard for the well being of their people, who were just pawns to be use, murdered and abused in ushering in their respective brand of socialism.

  2. Brilliant article and well said. Nick, you will find that as you and many others keep knocking, the door of truth will eventually swing open, and all your efforts will be rewarded and shared among many. Thank you for being a kind, generous and precious human being

  3. And Scottish National Party are socialists too, plus a lot more. Main thing is the threat they pose to the rule of law, as described in this book: “The Justice Factory: Can the Rule of Law Survive in 21st Century Scotland?” (Ian Mitchell, 2020) The Foreword was written by Lord Hope of Craighead, ex-Deputy President of the UK Supreme Court and the Professor of Public Law who is author “Constitutional Law of Scotland” wrote the Introduction to Part II. It is not a party political argument, and has been endorsed by both Ian (“Stone of Destiny”) Hamilton QC and Adam Tomkins, the Tory ex-MSP who is also Professor of Constitutional law in the University of Glasgow.
    ⁠Details here on Amazon (UK). https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1981993401?ref_=pe_3052080_397514860

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here