Many excellent articles have been written on this topic. I’ll provide my own brief version on this recurring issue as I’m tired of having to explain the same points over and over in debates. This note will be my resource to document the fact that Nazis are, indeed, Marxists and that both are antisemitic, racist and German Nationalist, a fact that both, the Nazis and Marxists are in denial about.
Neonazis (modern Nazis who perpetuate the Nazi ideology without any change, so just plain Nazis) are stuck on the belief that they are enemies of communism, that Hitler hated communism and would never, ever have agreed with Marx on anything. In the Nazi version of reality, Marx was Jewish, hence communism is Jewish and Nazis hate Jews, so Nazis cannot possibly be Marxists.
Modern Marxists, who are in denial about the utter, complete failure of their own ideology for over 100 years, pretend that they are enemies of the Nazis, that they are "anti-fascists" and Nazis obviously were fascists. They call Nazis "right-wing" and associate them with Capitalism.
Hitler and his party were 100% on the far left and so are all National Socialists!
Whoever calls them "right wing" is just trying to do one thing - create an imaginary distance between the Nazis and the rest of the Left.
"The Left" desgnates an ideology with a specific set of values and goals. It does not designate a point on an imaginary political “axis”. People hold an infinity of different ideas about philosophy and politics and they do not neatly line up on an axis from a “left” through a “center” to a “right”.
Based on the left-right concept, anyone not on the Left would have to be on the Right. So Royalists, Theocrats, Social Conservatives, Economic Conservatives, Classical Liberals, Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists would all be “on the right”, although very little to absolutely nothing connects them.
What would social conservatives, Islamic theocrats and Anarcho-Capitalists have in common?
So this classification would be meaningless.
How about simply saying that communists and Nazis are both “authoritarian” and that this is the connection? Again, that would mean they would have to be thrown in together with any authoritarian regime, ideologically, including the Saudi monarchy and the Aztec sun priests who sacrificed human beings. Again, that’s not a meaningful classification.
So the real question is: what ideological concepts inspired the Nazis?
That’s very easy, as we know all of the authors quoted by the major Nazi ideologues: all of them, without exception, were on the left, i.e. socialists and communists!
Hitler first joined the communist party before co-founding the NSDAP, the National Socialist German Workers Party, a nice communist name intended to attract like-minded individuals who were going to be the minds and hearts of his party. Hitler, Goebbels and the other Nazi dignitaries consistently expressed their love for Socialism and hatred of Capitalism:
The Nazis even engraved Hitler's love for Socialism in stone:
Most people who do not want to admit that the Nazis were authentic socialists point to dictatorships such as the German Democratic Republic (DDR) and claim that the name “doesn’t mean anything”, as such dictatorships wrongfully use terms such as “democratic”.
They forget that a dictatorship that is already established does not need to attract “members”. It can openly lie about its true nature for propaganda purposes.
But a brand new political party has to attract voters and donors. It's name should tell people what it is about. If they had wanted to attract conservatives and classical liberals, then why would they identify it as a socialist workers' party?
The 25 point party program incorporated a large number of principles from the Communist Manifesto:
There is no doubt about it - the Nazis wanted to attract working-class voters, not the middle or upper class. They were openly competing with the Socialist and Communist party.
Interestingly, they accepted any former communist party member, no questions asked, but not the members of the Socialist Party, whom Hitler decried as “bourgeois sellouts”. Sounds like he was a real “conservative”, right? (yes, yes, that was sarcasm ... 🙄)
In this statement, quoted by Hermann Rauschning, Hitler openly admits that they were very close to Bolshevism:
The Nazi leadership repeatedly expressed their hatred for a free society and a free economy. They hated Capitalism (although they had no clue what capitalism actually is), as did Mussolini.
Here are some very telling quotes from famous fascists and nazis about Socialism:
Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” was a communist propaganda book, though even dumber than Marx’s “Das Kapital”. A journalist from the LA Times read it in 1940 - to understand this new enemy. Here is his summary:
Another analysis by Alice Hamilton from 1933 in the Atlantic:
In 1922, the classical liberal economist Ludwig von Mises (who also happened to be Jewish) wrote a book about Socialism - “Gemeinwirtschaft” in German, simply “Socialism” in English - in which he described the future evolution of the USSR, which was just 4 years old when the book was published.
von Mises predicted the famines, the purges, the mass murders and the final collapse of the USSR, all based on the assumption that they would try to implement their Marxist program to the letter.
He also analyzed the Nazi policies and he did not find anything conservative about them. He did note the extreme similarity between the Nazis and the Bolsheviks:
Famous Socialists were full of praise for the Nazis. Among them George Bernard Shaw, the writer, who was a Fabian Socialist. Fabians were very close to Marxism.
In this excerpt from his memoirs General Leon Degrelle, former leader of the Belgian contingent of the Waffen-SS, describes how Adolf Hitler gained the enthusiastic support of the working people of Germany.
One of the first labor reforms to benefit the German workers was the establishment of annual paid vacation. The Socialist French Popular Front, in 1936, would make a show of having invented the concept of paid vacation, and stingily at that, only one week per year. But Adolf Hitler originated the idea, and two or three times as generously, from the first month of his coming to power in 1933.
Every factory employee from then on would have the legal right to a paid vacation. Until then, in Germany paid holidays where they applied at all did not exceed four or five days, and nearly half the younger workers had no leave entitlement at all. Hitler, on the other hand, favored the younger workers. Vacations were not handed out blindly, and the youngest workers were granted time off more generously. It was a humane action; a young person has more need of rest and fresh air for the development of his strength and vigor just coming into maturity. Basic vacation time was twelve days, and then from age 25 on it went up to 18 days. After ten years with the company, workers got 21 days, three times what the French socialists would grant the workers of their country in 1936.
…. The work day itself had been reduced to a tolerable norm of eight hours, since the forty-hour week as well, in Europe, was first initiated by Hitler. And beyond that legal limit, each additional hour had to be paid at a considerably increased rate. As another innovation, work breaks were made longer; two hours every day in order to let the worker relax and to make use of the playing fields that the large industries were required to provide.
… workers' rights to job security were non-existent. Hitler saw to it that those rights were strictly spelled out. The employer had to announce any dismissal four weeks in advance. The employee then had a period of up to two months in which to lodge a protest. The dismissal could also be annulled by the Honor of Work Tribunal. What was the Honor of Work Tribunal? Also called the Tribunal of Social Honor, it was the third of the three great elements or layers of protection and defense that were to the benefit of every German worker. The first was the Council of Trust. The second was the Labor Commission.
The Council of Trust was charged with attending to the establishment and the development of a real community spirit between management and labor. "In any business enterprise", the Reich law stated, "the employer and head of the enterprise, the employees and workers, personnel of the enterprise, shall work jointly towards the goal of the enterprise and the common good of the nation."
Neither would any longer be the victim of the other-not the worker facing the arbitrariness of the employer nor the employer facing the blackmail of strikes for political purposes. Article 35 of the Reich labor law stated that: "Every member of an Aryan enterprise community shall assume the responsibilities required by his position in the said common enterprise." In other words, at the head of the company or the enterprise would be a living, breathing executive in charge, not a moneybags with unconditional power. "The interest of the community may require that an incapable or unworthy employer be relieved of his duties"
The employer would no longer be inaccessible and all-powerful, authoritatively determining the conditions of hiring and firing his staff. He, too, would be subject to the workshop regulations, which he would have to respect, exactly as the least of his employees. The law conferred honor and responsibility on the employer only insofar as he merited it.
Every business enterprise of 20 or more persons was to have its "Council of Trust". The two to ten members of this council would be chosen from among the staff by the head of the enterprise. The ordinance of application of 10 March 1934 of the above law further stated: "The staff shall be called upon to decide for or against the established list in a secret vote, and all salaried employees, including apprentices of 21 years of age or older, will take part in the vote. Voting shall be done by putting a number before the names of the candidates in order of preference, or by striking out certain names.
In contrast to the business councils of the preceding régime, the Council of Trust was no longer an instrument of class, but one of teamwork of the classes, composed of delegates of the staff as well as the head of the enterprise. The one could no longer act without the other. Compelled to coordinate their interests, though formerly rivals, they would now cooperate to establish by mutual consent the regulations which were to determine working conditions.
The second agency that would ensure the orderly development of the new German social system was the institution of the "Workers' Commissioners". They would essentially be conciliators and arbitrators. When gears were grinding, they were the ones who would have to apply the grease. They would see to it that the Councils of trust were functioning harmoniously to ensure that regulations of a given business enterprise were being carried out to the letter.
To ensure still further the objectivity of their arbitration decisions, a third agency was superimposed on the Councils of Trust and the 13 Commissioners, the Tribunal of Social Honor.
Thus from 1933 on, the German worker had a system of justice at his disposal that was created especially for him and would adjudicate all grave infractions of the social duties based on the idea of the Aryan enterprise community. Examples of these violations of social honor are cases where the employer, abusing his power, displayed ill will towards his staff or impugned the honor of his subordinates, cases where staff members threatened work harmony by spiteful agitation; the publication by members of the Council of confidential information regarding the enterprise which they became cognizant of in the course of discharging their duties. Thirteen "Tribunes of Social Honor" were established, corresponding with the thirteen commissions.
The presiding judge was not a fanatic; he was a career judge who rose above disputes. Meanwhile the enterprise involved was not left out of the proceedings; the judge was seconded by two assistant judges, one representing the management, another a member of the Council of Trust.
This was only the end of 1933, and already the first effects could be felt. The factories and shops large and small were reformed or transformed in conformity with the strictest standards of cleanliness and hygiene; the interior areas, so often dilapidated, opened to light; playing fields constructed; rest areas made available where one could converse at one's ease and relax during rest periods; employee cafeterias; proper dressing rooms.
With time, that is to say in three years, those achievements would take on dimensions never before imagined; more than 2,000 factories refitted and beautified; 23,000 work premises modernized; 800 buildings designed exclusively for meetings; 1,200 playing fields; 13,000 sanitary facilities with running water; 17,000 cafeterias. Eight hundred departmental inspectors and 17,300 local inspectors would foster and closely and continuously supervise these renovations and installations.
The large industrial establishments moreover had been given the obligation of preparing areas not only suitable for sports activities of all minds, but provided with swimming pools as well. Germany had come a long way from the sinks for washing one's face and the dead tired workers, grown old before their time, crammed into squalid courtyards during work breaks.
That this transformation of the working class smacked of authoritarianism? That's exactly right. But the German people were sick and tired of socialism and anarchy. To feel commanded didn't bother them a bit. In fact, people have always liked having a strong man guide them. One thing for certain is that the turn of mind of the working class, which was still almost two-thirds non-National Socialist in 1933, had completely changed.
Hitler could already go into factories-something no man of the so-called Right before him would have risked doing-and hold forth to the mob of workers, tens of thousands of them at a time, as in the Siemens works. "In contrast to the von Papens and other country gentlemen," he might tell them, "In my youth I was a worker like you. And in my heart of hearts, I have remained what I was then." In the course of his twelve years in power, no incident ever occurred at any factory Adolf Hitler ever visited. When Hitler was among the people, he was at home, and he was received like the member of the family who had been most successful.
This is also confirmed by this American article from 1935:
"A Socialist Workers' Government has achieved a workers revolution in Germany without resorting to, tho in some respects it approximates, Communism. Adolf Hitler has done it by wiping out all class privileges and class distinction, but the economics foundation of property rights and private capital has been left almost intact - for the present time."
"The Third Reich, under Hitler, has wiped out corporate trade-unionism by forcing all workers to join one great government union, the National Socialist Union of Employers and Workers..."
The Nazis were antisemitic, racist and nationalist. Those were “right wing” values, right?
Well no, not unless Marx and Engels were “right wing”, for those concepts were fully present in their writings, too!
Socialists throughout Europe allied with the Nazis. Stalin and Hitler were initially allies and Stalin called Hitler his “socialist brother”. They used the same symbols and the same propaganda ... until they fought each other for total domination. This was a common occurrence among communists.
Which was commonly what Bolsheviks had been doing among each other. The fact that they were fighting for power does not imply any kind of ideological disagreement. Just as Shia and Sunni Muslims both follow the same Quran, yet see each other as heretics and deadly enemies.
There is much more evidence for Marx's hatred of Jews:
Nazis and Communists used the same symbols, the same propaganda, the same brainwashing and they were all genocidal psychopaths. And while the Germans were very vocal about their German supremacy, the Bolsheviks were just as racist and Russian supremacists, they settled Russians throughout the USSR to displace the local peoples, but they were more discreet about it. They still attempted to exterminate several minorities and murdered more than 30 million civilians.
Hitler and Stalin allied as best friends, followers of the exact same ideology, after all:
Their conflict, later on, was not rooted in ideological differences, but in the fact that Socialists are always back-stabbers who will stop at nothing to get to the top of the hierarchy, for socialism is always based on a very strict hierarchy. Only the left have glorified leaders.
In the post-war years, all the former Nazis who went back into politics joined the Socialist Party - no exceptions:
Another trait shared by Nazis and Marxists is that both are or were allied with Muslims. Read the excellent introduction to the book about François Genoud, referenced in the appendix, which outlines in how many ways Nazis, Communists and Muslim terrorists collaborated since the post-war years.
In conclusion, it is strictly impossible to deny that Nazis were hardcore socialists and even communists, in theory and practice.
Nazism is Socialism
Hitler and Mussolini: History’s Dirty Little Secret
HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST
Hitler, ce socialiste…
François Genoud, The life of a Swiss banker and fascist anti-Imperialist