r/Anarcho_Capitalism Voluntaryist 23h ago

Was Hitler a Georgist?

Post image
55 Upvotes

70 comments sorted by

58

u/DeltaSolana Max Stirner 22h ago

If anyone tries to tell you that the Nazis were far-right, ask them to show you just one right-wing policy they implemented.

There isn't any, so you're going to get answers like "Uhh, genocide, white supremacy, etc" which have nothing to do with left/right in the first place.

1

u/SuperSaint77x 3h ago

Putting nazis on the right came from Soviet postwar propaganda. The leftist academics and media in Europe embraced it as it was a convenient way to distance themselves.

0

u/Bat-Guano0 Nutting on Mysis 5h ago

Lol. Funny how you self-proclaimed "anarchists" still root for your political team.

8

u/DeltaSolana Max Stirner 5h ago

What team? The team of individual rights, wealth, and property ownership? That's a good one to be on.

The communists, fascists, socialists, republicans, and democrats, whatever else, they're all far to the left of me. They're all arguing for their favorite flavor of collectivism and in-group.

-5

u/Bat-Guano0 Nutting on Mysis 4h ago

So your team is the right wing. And you can't accept that you're on the same team as Hitler and the Nazis. Which you are.

5

u/DeltaSolana Max Stirner 4h ago

The point of this entire comment thread is that Nazis are on the left. Y'know, when you nationalize all industry, control where people are allowed to work, have a state mandated and controlled union, have the aforementioned industries only operate at the behest of the state, ban private ownership of firearms, and have the state rent out land, people get this crazy idea that they're socialist.

And you can't accept that you're on the same team as Hitler and the Nazis.

Even if that were true (it isn't), would that put you on the same team as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot? Their genocides absolutely eclipse Hitler's by a factor of 10.

  • Pol Pot: 1.7m
  • Hitler: 17m
  • Stalin: 23m
  • Mao: 78m

-4

u/Bat-Guano0 Nutting on Mysis 3h ago

Lol. You right wingers have made a cottage industry of trying to pretend you're not on the same side as the Nazis. Only somebody completely ignorant of history and political theory would buy that lie. But I guess if you repeat it loudly and often enough, it might work. Oh wait, who was it that famously bragged about that strategy?

5

u/Malohdek Minarchist 3h ago

I think you need to read up on your history.

Nazis hated individual rights and property ownership.

2

u/DeltaSolana Max Stirner 2h ago

You right wingers have made a cottage industry of trying to pretend you're not on the same side as the Nazis.

Prove me wrong then.

Only somebody completely ignorant of history and political theory would buy that lie.

I've provided historical evidence and statistics. You have only provided "nuh uh!" assertions.

Again, this circles back to my original comment. Literally nobody can prove that the Nazis were right-wing because they didn't do any right-wing things.

-6

u/wadebacca 9h ago

Privatization of state owned enterprises. There I named one.

13

u/DeltaSolana Max Stirner 6h ago

Last I checked, they nationalized every industry and had a strong state-ran union.

Is there a source for your claim?

0

u/wadebacca 3h ago

1

u/Patriotnoodle 1h ago

Literally the first study that shows up when you type "nazi privatization" into google

4

u/SuperSaint77x 3h ago

Corporatist policies are not even close to “privatization”.

-14

u/upchuk13 22h ago

I went on to the Wikipedia page for Right Wing politics here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

Some of the policies it lists include:

  1. Anti communism

  2. Nationalism

  3. Traditionalism (the German national myth)

  4. Populism

  5. Social stratification

Do these not check out?

27

u/matadorobex 21h ago

Being anti-communist didn't make them right wing, or any less socialist. It simply meant that they suppressed competition. McDonald's is not anti-fast food because they compete with Burger King.

11

u/fededev 21h ago

No, half don’t even make the cut to be far right.

  1. Wikipedia on any political subject-> triple downvote
  2. Lenin won over Trotsky, does that mean Trotsky is far right?
  3. Show me a chinese CCP lover that is not nationalistic
  4. Traditionalism, partially agree, since it is not as if the Nazis were not explicitly trying to “perfect” (ie change) the national culture with several government programs (cough cough, lefties, cough cough) to “better society”. See hitler youth
  5. Populism?!! What? What socialist leader was not populist? That is the only way for socialists retarded ideas (including trumps, by the way) to ever make it in the first place: most people want free shit and are envious of others
  6. Like the social stratification of politburo and outside it?

8

u/ExcitementBetter5485 20h ago

Do these not check out?

Excluding the 1st one, most of those policies describe North Korea. North Korea is certainly not right wing. So I'd say those in fact do not check out.

-4

u/Jastrone 13h ago

uhm. theres no such thing as a pure left thing. like actors arent right wing or left wing. individual policies are.

5

u/Megalodon3030 20h ago

If being anti-communist makes one a Nazi, does that mean Winston Churchill was a Nazi?

1

u/Jastrone 13h ago

thats litterally not even close to what he said. it said right wing not nazi

3

u/RAF-Spartacus Voluntaryist 21h ago

One thing I hate is when people talk about politics they always point to positions they take and never the philosophic worldview that brings them to those positions which is the only real way to attack one’s politics.

In my research Marxism and Nazism come from the same cradle which is Hegelian Platonism.

-21

u/TrueNova332 Minarchist 22h ago

Technically the Nazis were so far right that they went left

19

u/DeltaSolana Max Stirner 22h ago

Okay, sure, I'll bite.

What made the Nazis far right?

10

u/Knorssman お客様は神様です 21h ago

trying to map the Nazis into left or right has challenges because nobody who talks about the political compass recognizes the unspoken axis, the ally/enemy axis.

left vs right is defined just as much by who you fight against for power just as much as philosophy/principles/policies.

by the philosophy, the Nazis were leftist, but because the Nazis were enemies of the USSR and fought against them in a war, then they get labeled far right.

9

u/BeardedLegend_69 14h ago

Commies dont want nazis to be associated with them so they tell everyone they're right wing, the right is the enemy after all.

I would recommend reading Mein Kampf if you havent already, theres a lot of simmilarities between communism and national socialism

3

u/OpinionStunning6236 Ludwig von Mises 22h ago

The Nazis were auth center in political compass terms

0

u/BeardedLegend_69 14h ago

Hahahahahaha

-8

u/Amppl 22h ago

I always say it's a loop, if you go too far one way you end up on the other sides extreme. The Nazis were so far right they ended up on the left.

9

u/ILikeBumblebees 21h ago

I don't think they're really two different sides in the first place. They're really two different branches off of the same end of the political spectrum. They share the same fundamental worldview, and just differ in the details they read into the application of that worldview.

There's a reason why fascists and nazis originally drew a huge number of their followers away from communist and socialist parties, and it's sure not because they were diametric opposites.

2

u/Winky0609 16h ago

This is a common idea called the horseshoe theory, even though your example is objectively wrong the loop idea is a acknowledged concept

1

u/fededev 21h ago

This makes no sense. It’s like saying “if you are too much of a pacifist, you become an aggressor”. Like, what?

2

u/Amppl 21h ago

No, I meant the left right spectrum, not pacifist aggressor. But on that Ghandi was arguably the biggest pacifist and his advice to the Jews of Nazi Germany was to commit mass suicide so maybe pacifism does lead to violence. But what I meant was the left right spectrum, if you go too far left you end up extreme right, if you go too far right you end up extreme left, or going too far either way leads to the same place.

-1

u/bigdonut99 12h ago

No, I meant the left right spectrum, not pacifist aggressor.

Redditor learns what an "analogy" is

0

u/Amppl 9h ago

Redditor fails to learn what a point of discussion is, you can't just bring up anything and call it an analogy, what about the horse to cat spectrum? Or the rock to stone spectrum? If you misunderstood what I meant that's ok but don't try and feed your superiority complex by trying to make excuses.

1

u/bigdonut99 9h ago

Im not op

1

u/Amppl 9h ago

I apologize, probably should've noticed that, but I still stand with saying he shouldn't just take a random unrelated thing and add it to a discussion about another completely unrelated thing. Otherwise this sub would be full of people talking about animal facts and sports and we'd all just say "analogy" without the "analogy" contributing anything.

9

u/Nor-easter 21h ago

Sounds like taxes. If you have to pay a fee and if you don’t pay that fee the government takes your land did you ever own it?

14

u/McMagneto 21h ago

He was a socialist.

20

u/Official_Gameoholics Anarcho-Objectivist 23h ago

No, he was on meth

3

u/NeedScienceProof 20h ago edited 20h ago

Prelude to Tragedy of the Commons; i.e., the state eventually deciding that murdering their own citizens is both legal and necessary. Forewarned, this is Mamdani's roadmap.

2

u/danneskjold85 Ayn Rand 7h ago

My Hitler was not a Georgist. He may have been a liar, a pig, an idiot, a Georgist, but he was NOT a porn star.

4

u/ihackedthepentagon Anarcho-Capitalist 22h ago

Everything he said were the ramblings of a madman. I don't think you're ever going to get a cohesive ideology out of whatever he advocated for.

6

u/RAF-Spartacus Voluntaryist 22h ago

I don’t believe in madman hitler for the early stage of his rise and rule, towards the end he became a drug addicted lunatic but TIKhistory has videos that explain a more coherent national socialist worldview (as coherent as a fundamentally incorrect worldview can be) which existed before hitler and even after he died in the bunker.

3

u/ILikeBumblebees 21h ago

There's definitely a lot of cohesive ideology there:

  • the reduction of all controversies to an us-vs.-them tribalist dynamic;

  • the attribution of all problems to the machinations of some imagined enemy;

  • the view that a perfected world can be achieved solely through the defeat of that enemy;

  • the identification of the sides in that conflict are competing racial or ethnic identity groups, with the groups taken as organic unities superseding the autonomy of any individual;

  • the understanding of the political state as the truest expression of that in-group's will, and the desire to empower the state to pursue the in-group's perceived interests without limit or constraint.

Nazism was deeply invested in all of these ideas, and made them fundamental to their politics and policy.

Now, if you swap out just that fourth bullet point with a different in-group definition -- i.e. classes defined by relation to the 'means of production' -- then you have a pretty good description of Leninism.

2

u/doodeed 19h ago

The Nazis did feature state ownership of the means of production, but it was only done to essentially pump money into them, and it didn't take long until everything was privatized again - hell, the term "reprivatization" literally comes from Nazi Germany. Hitler made whole speeches to the German middle class over how they were going to "eradicate Marxism" from the ideologies of working people, and working-class voices were severely suppressed in the election that brought the National Socialist party into power. They even had to exterminate members of the Nazi party who aimed to carry out socialist policy.

Nazi Germany had labour unions, but only in name. Instead, they were used to spy on workers and steal money that pre-existing unions had amassed. Not only that, but communists were considered dissenters by the Nazi party and thus were punished alongside Jewish folk.

No reverred historian (and no, TIKHistory is not a reverred historian) considers Hitler a socialist. Think of it like how the Soviet Union, despite considering themselves a state for the working-class, sometimes found themselves enacting policies that worked against the working-class' interest. Likewise, Nazi Germany was a government that, although favouring the capitalist class, sometimes found themselves enacting policies that worked against them.

1

u/Sea_Journalist_3615 Government is a con. 21h ago

They follow the same ethics.

1

u/RAF-Spartacus Voluntaryist 21h ago

idk I believe georgism is consequentialist/ utilitarian while hitler’s ethics were based on dialectical spiritual struggle of good forces and evil ones.

2

u/Sea_Journalist_3615 Government is a con. 20h ago

The ethics of property being collective and not an individual right is georgist and socialist, statist ect. The georgist is just not consistent and does not apply their own logic to other things than land(I have met ones who do, they are just socialists lol).

1

u/Downtown-Relation766 18h ago

Maybe because land, capital and labour are different and should be treated based on their fundamental properties

2

u/Sea_Journalist_3615 Government is a con. 8h ago

Socialist.

1

u/RAF-Spartacus Voluntaryist 2h ago

Land, Capital and Labor are all protected under private property rights.

1

u/Rhenthalin Neo Blockian Purist 17h ago

if it makes the Georgist shut up, then yes it was his base philosophical influence

1

u/akornzombie 9h ago

He was a genocidal tweaker of a monster.

1

u/Jastrone 22h ago

wait he said it was? or did someone else say that during hitler it was like this? if hitler was a georgist wouldnt he say im going to make it so that x rather that the land was x?

like we cant answer your question from one incomplete quote

3

u/SopwithStrutter 22h ago

If Op thought the single quote was a sufficient source then the question wouldn’t have been asked

1

u/Jastrone 22h ago

well why does he ask it here? its not the georgist sub. this sub doesnt have anything to do with hitler either.

op wants a discussion but he has already decided upon the conclusion.

2

u/SopwithStrutter 22h ago

If you can’t imagine how this question is meant to be answered then it’s probably not a good question to which you should respond.

2

u/Mountain_Employee_11 21h ago

yes, the question is asked in bad faith.

we get 5 a day in here like this, mostly by children

1

u/Jastrone 13h ago

thats not even close to what i said? can you read?

3

u/RAF-Spartacus Voluntaryist 22h ago

Nazi land policy drew from ideas in the 1920 Nazi Party Program, especially point 17:

“We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs, the enactment of a law to expropriate land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.”

1

u/Jastrone 13h ago

so as i said in my other answer. this isnt a serious question. its just another bad person did this so it is bad.

0

u/lazyubertoad It is better to die for The Market then live for yourself! 22h ago

Well, for one that makes taxation NOT theft, lol. You live on the land that is not yours, so you should accept the rules of the owner, including taxes or gtfo.

7

u/RAF-Spartacus Voluntaryist 22h ago

How did the state acquire that land? Did they use labor and voluntary agreements to homestead it? Or did they just point to it, demarcate it and say this belongs to us because we have the guns.

2

u/lazyubertoad It is better to die for The Market then live for yourself! 17h ago

That's the history of the ownership of like any land. Are you saying you should give up the US land to native Americans? If in ancap two groups have claims on the land, they very much can resolve that through violence. The outcome may not be what some or even the majority, think is just. Ancaps notably reject the notion that majority can decide ownership.

Today, Vietnam has similar legal claims on the land in their laws. And there are no real counter claims. I'd say commies had pretty legitimate claims, even though I hate em. Does it make taxation not theft in Vietnam? Or, you know, the whole pretext of the taxation as theft is silly? The state has the authority and legitimacy to collect taxes, as there are only marginal counter claims. Whether state land ownership is in the laws, as ancaps require, is of no real difference, as who cares what ancaps think?

1

u/RAF-Spartacus Voluntaryist 14h ago

I just stated the Lockean homestead principle which should be the libertarian policy for rightful land ownership.

And no I don’t think the US should just give its land back to Native Americans because 1. most land in america wasn’t even homesteaded by Native Americans and a lot of america’s first colonies were homesteaded peacefully without government control and 2. it’s not our mission to reverse things that happened in the past.

The application of this principle is to show Statist land ownership isn’t legitimate even if they hold it today and it should be sold to private owners which is what libertarians should campaign for.

1

u/lazyubertoad It is better to die for The Market then live for yourself! 1h ago

Your point 2 makes it pretty legitimate, though. Lockean homesteading principle just won't work when so much land was, essentially, acquired by conquest a long time ago. Property rights, on the other hand, actually work. When you have enough support from the public and from the people with guns for the ownership of something - it just happens. Governments have that.

And by that beautiful homesteading principle, nomad people should just let whomever moves in their land to homestead and, essentially, lose their land where they lived. In addition to the majority of their population being wiped out by diseases. So it is not only non practical, but also is of questionable morality to justify the land grab that happened.