yes they can be. most of this is just who 'owns' the capital. Does the individual own it? Does the state own it? Does the state allow an individual to own it and they dictate what happens? When the argument should be about how monopiles (either state controlled or people controlled) are typically bad for everyone except the monopoly (and whoever owns it). One thing the socialists did very well was to hide the fact that fascism is a form of socialism like communism is too. If you read the nazi manifesto there are many aspects that are spot on socialist. Even the word 'nazi' is short for national socialist. The word is bandied around lot when people want to end an argument or make their opponent look bad. Without any thought what those people stood for.

I agree with your assesment 100%, People are just really simple minded and don't want to be grouped in or compared to nazis in any way share or form. Just look at all the emotional arguments presented in this thread alone by people who presumably identify presumably with more left leaning socialist values.

Einstein didn't have the 20th century as reference.

> Also, why do the Nazis have "Socialist" in their moniker if they were fascist? Can a society/political movement be socialist and fascist simultaneously?

They're both high authoritarian societies. Nazis were just for murder along geographic and racial boundaries rather than class boundaries.

How would you characterize that basis of reference?

No, that is wrong. Read a history book and learn the correct answer. Your random guesses are just stupid.

You could let us know what you think is the correct answer? That's always an option, right...?

Yes it was a racial socialism as opposed to class socialism.

> Can a society/political movement be socialist and fascist simultaneously?

Sure, nothing really excludes one from the other I think. You can take all of Europe now, give them a superiority complex, and you’d have a fantastic facist socialist republic.

Not that I don't think they are in fact superior in terms of like "Yeah I'd take Euro cit over whatever I have now", but doesn't Europe already low-key believe that anyway or is that simply the American hegemony talking?

> Fascism rejects assertions that violence is inherently negative or pointless, instead viewing imperialism, political violence, and war as means to national rejuvenation.

Even though they have a long history of it, Europe still has a ways to go to get back there :P

I was referring more to the European (although maybe its more French aha) exceptionalism or superiority complex.

Cool take tho

Socialists want to pool resources to support the wider group. Fascists want uniform cultural norms throughout society. There's nothing contradictory about the two beliefs, but in our time people who subscribe to one rarely subscribe to the other.

I think my fair counterpoin to that is I never hear anything socialist sounding from modern-day Fascists (except maybe for the rich), as much as they are generally nationalists, they don't seem to have much care for their fellow countrymen...

You describe nationalism. Communism is the extreme left of socialism.

China is a communist state but wants and enforces uniform ciltural norms. The most oppressive regimes of today are communist regimes.

> Also, why do the Nazis have "Socialist" in their moniker if they were fascist?

Because a fundamental principle underlying fascism is that words don’t have any inherent or collective meaning, beyond how they’re used in the moment by “the strong” to dominate “the weak.” It’s an irrational ideology.

>> Also, why do the Nazis have "Socialist" in their moniker if they were fascist?

Why did East Germany call itself the "German Democratic Republic"?

To set an example for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

What is the deal with this schtick, legit? Why does NK of all hellholes call itself democratic for any other reason than the presumption that everyone is cool with their Great Leaders in perpetutity?

Because democracy is a key part of Marx/socialist thought. The whole idea is that collective ownership of capital would mean it would be democratically managed by the working class, for the interests of the working class, rather than for the interests of someone else. You can quibble about that if you want but it's a big part of socialist thought anyways. It's only in the modern period that democracy has become synonymous with the western capitalist system.

So to what extent is democracy MORE a socialist thought with regard to its respect and enforcement of socialism than is the Western Capitalism system to which its become more Modernly and Popularly associated?

Likewise why did it build a "Antifaschistischer Schutzwall" ("Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart").

Maybe they were being faschetious

The Nazi party was one of many on-the-fringe parties formed in Germany's post-WWI chaos, and it initially combined socialist and nationalist ideas. The opportunity of funding from big business lured it rightwards, and the nationalism, as it often does, turned towards racialism and antisemitism. From late 1919, Hitler was a significant player in driving that move.

It was because Hitler hated the Communist movement and wanted to set his party apart from the Communists.

The best way to capture that opposition was to get the Socialists on his side so that's what he went for by calling his party Socialist and setting them in direct opposition to the Communists.

Thanks! This makes the most sense to me

Actually Hitler objected to the socialist moniker. It was inserted into the name (to intentionally appeal to uninformed leftist workers) by the executive committee (the proposal was put forth by Rudolf Jung).

(Why Hitler?: The Genesis of the Nazi Reich, Mitcham, 1996)

> Also, why do the Nazis have "Socialist" in their moniker if they were fascist

I can't tell if you're being serious

They should have been, like, Nazifah or sumfing

What.

wat