[Ixa]

Did Hitler betray the original tenets of National Socialism as formulated by the Strasser brothers ?

Otto Strasser accused Hitler of trying to "strangle the social revolution" by "collaborating with the bourgeois parties".

Gregor Strasser said this about capitalism: "The Capitalist system with its exploitation of those who are economically weak, with its robbery of the workers' labour power, with its unethical way of appraising human beings by the number of things and the amount of money he possesses, instead of by their internal value and their achievements, must be replaced by a new and just economic system, in a word by German Socialism."

The Left wing of the national socialist movement was eventually liquidated.

I do not wish for it to be inferred that, just because I express no strong animosity towards the Strasser brothers, I therefore sympathise with National Socialist ideology; nothing could be further from the truth. The 'Guild system' of political representation of which the Strasser brothers were in favour is entirely opposed to my way of thinking, for one thing. As I see it National Socialism was simply a rivival of what Marx criticised as petty-bourgeois socialism in the Communist Manifesto, and I agree his analysis. I only maintain that Hitler hihacked National Socialism, and also that National Socialism in its original form was not fascistic but a form of petty-bourgeois socialism.

[Attila The Nun]

While Hitler might have purged socialism from the National Socialist ideology, he could have never gotten far with it in the party. He needed Big Business support, and throughout the Party's history they were dependant on the Middle class, who was frightened by the Communists and Social Democrats, so appearingg as another socialist party would scare away it's most crucial voters.

Plus, how could he fight the "marxist threat" while being socialist himself?

[Ixa]

*ignores T.N. for reasons communicated to him in another thread *

[jaakko]

I think Ix is basically right. National socialism was originally an "anti-capitalist", national chauvinist, petty bourgeois radical movement. The petty bourgeois "anti-capitalism" was not consistently socialist, and was more anti-monopoly than actually anti-capitalist. "Socialism" was just a vaguely defined word which marked these attitudes.

As Ix said, it was a petty bourgeois party/movement. As such it couldn't have risen from the marginal of politics without being 'hijacked' or adopted by the monopoly bourgeoisie. The German capitalist class needed such a party. It was convenient for them that the Hitlerites, while collaborating closely with the big capitalists, retained some of the petty bourgeois socialist appearance and form of the party/movement. That was necessary for this de facto capitalist project to have the necessary mass basis, which was found among the petty bourgeoisie on one hand and the lumpen elements of society on the other. The petty bourgeoisie was attracted by NSDAP's national chauvinism, anti-communism, anti-labour movement attitudes aswell as verbal 'anti-monopolism'. The lumpen elements (petty criminals, hooligans, alienated long-term unemployed etc.) were attracted by the culture of violence, sense of security provided by collective activities, aswell as by empty promises of "socialism" (the meaning of which would vary according to audience).

So in short, between NSDAP and the German monopoly bourgeoisie it was clear that "socialism" was just rhetoric, the petty bourgeoisie was given the impression that "socialism" meant anti-monopolist measures, and the rest was given the impression that "socialism" could mean whatever they happened to wish for.

To summarize my answer to the topic question; National Socialism was 'hijacked' by the monopoly bourgeoisie with Hitler as its main agent.

[Attila The Nun]

*ignores T.N. for reasons communicated to him in another thread *

What? I pretty much explained why Hitler got rid of the socialist elements of his party. Besides, Hitler was leader of the National Socialists with complete support by the Strassers since it was a fringe Bavarian party.

[Ixa]

. . .with complete support by the Strassers since it was a fringe Bavarian party.

[Attila The Nun]

The Strassers were not kicked out by their disloyalty to Hitler. Otto was kicked of the party because of his socialist policies (with the support of Gregor) and Gregor was kicked out after the slump in votes in 1933, criticizing Hitler for not joining the cabinet except as chancellor (and by this time Gregor's ideology was so similiar to Hitler's it would be impossible to kick him out for socialist tendancies).

Not only that, but Hitler's policies changed over time. When he started he was indeed more socialist than what he ended up being. It was adaptation.

[Ixa]

That doesn't contradict a thing I said.

[Attila The Nun]

I was countering your scoff at my saying that the Strassers did not fully support Hitler. Also it explains how Hitler did not hijack the National Socialist movement, rather he took control entirely with the support of the Party members.

[Ixa]

Now you are contradicting yourself.

[Attila The Nun]

Ixabert, I'm not trying to say that Hitler did not purge the socialists from the National Socialist movement, I am trying to say that it was necassary for the rise of the party, and it was welcomed by most within the party.

[Ombrageux]

The national socialists were just a bunch of working class and so-called lumpenproletariat douche-bags, xenophobes and vague-as-shit socialists until Hitler turned them into a radical nationalist party.

It didn't mean anything of substance prior to that apart from the prejudices and aspirations of a bunch of drinking buddies.

[Ixa]

It didn't mean anything of substance

Being pro-capitalist at one point (objectively) and genuinely anti-capitalist at another point is something of definite substance.

[Attila The Nun]

Nazi policy changed with it's needs. In order to acquire funds, Hitler needed to reassure them tht they would fight marxism. Same for middle class voters, who were extremely anti-marxist.

Also, part of the Nazi movement was destroying class.

[Ixa]

Once again, nothing you said contradicts a thing I said. I could have used every 'point' you made in my original post to support my own argument. Please do work on your reading comprehension.

[Attila The Nun]

I'm not trying to disprove you. But the socialist Nazi Party could hardly go anywhere

[Monkeydust]

I think the answer has to be that he did.

Hitler never really implemented many of the more "socialist" of the original 25 points of the Party Programme. He actually changed the terms of - or "clarified" - point 17 to rid it of its socialist character.

He also marginalized, and later killed, many of the Socialist faction of the Party, including the Strasser brothers, Rohm, and the SA. And his general policy at least up until the war seems to have favoured business over the workers in most respects.

But, and their has to be a "but", it's important to remember that this was not due to some commitment of Hitler's to capitalism over socialism, but rather for pragmatic, short-term reasons.