Nazi Party Platform

Source: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

I came across a reference to this material in an article discussing a WAPO fact check. The question at hand was whether the Nazi Party could be legitimately described as socialist. The writer felt that the party platform contained a number of decidedly socialist provisions (particularly planks 13, 14, and 17), but I was struck by the numerous intersections with contemporary left-wing dogmas in the U.S. One such intersection occurs in plank 23c:

“The publishing of [news]papers which are not conducive to the national welfare must be forbidden. We demand the legal prosecution of all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our national life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand.”

This plank of the Nazi political platform sounds to me just like the proposition that ideas can be dangerous to society; just like the proposition that censorship can be acceptable based on the public interest.

I bring this up to shame those who think like Nazis did.

44 thoughts on “Nazi Party Platform

  1. Among the party leadership were two well-known socialists, brothers if I recall, and early on they influenced greatly the direction of the party leading to many people joining. By the time of the Reichstag fire, one fled and the other was assassinated per orders of Adolph. So yes, in the early years there were socialist elements.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. The person on this forum who should be ashamed is you. Ashamed and chagrined for supporting the fascist con man that you do.

    Having the opinion that social media companies should not be compelled to provide a forum for lies is one thing, using the power of the government to attack, intimidate and threaten the “enemy of the people” is quite another. And that is what your strutting hero Trump did for his entire four years in office.

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/16/trumps-attacks-on-the-press-are-illegal-were-suing-221312/

    There are countless reports of the same despicable and illegal behavior . . .

    https://tinyurl.com/54vexr4v

    Liked by 1 person

    1. My focus is more the left-wing nuts who say things like, “The greatest threat to our democratic republican form of government is the calamitous spread of ‘alternative facts.'”

      Like

      1. So you want out government to spread ‘alternative facts’ (that is, lies) to the population? You think that this is good for a democratic republic? I would hope that the official government communications are as truthful as they can be.

        I also believe that the ‘freedom of press’ is to provide checks on the government ‘alternative facts”.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “So you want out government to spread ‘alternative facts’ (that is, lies) to the population?”

          Of course not. I don’t want fear of “alternative facts” to become an excuse for censorship.

          Like

      2. Uh, you are not being very civil today. First you say that those who think different from you are Nazis. Now you are calling me a “left-wing nut” because you do not agree with my view that LIES are damaging to democracy.

        But, hey, even though being called a “left-wing nut” should cause umbrage, it actually doesn’t coming as it does from someone who comes here every day to show one and all what a doofus he is. It is simply good for a laugh.

        And BTW, Nazis and “left-wing nuts” are at opposite ends of the political spectrum so you need to work on your uncivil vitriol a little harder. So you don’t seem to be such a doofus.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “Nazis and ‘left-wing nuts’ are at opposite ends of the political spectrum…”

          That’s funny!

          Like

          1. Drama queen?

            Uh, you are the one who chose to call most of the people here Nazis. That is pretty dramatic. But, from your “answer” it is clear that you cannot explain why the simple truth is “funny.”

            Here, learn something . . .
            Fascism is the extreme right end of the conventional political spectrum.
            Communism is at the extreme left end of the conventional political spectrum.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. The nerve of you, of all people, calling someone else uncivil. What hoot coming from the most uncivil, pompous, self absorbed mouth piece for far left wing extremism. Now that was a milk through the nose moment….

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Well, Bob and Calvin,

            You clearly have nothing of merit to say so you once again descend into the muck with personal attacks. Whatever you think of me, it remains uncivil to call people here “Nazis” or “left-wing nuts” and if you get a laugh out of my pointing it out – fine by me.

            As for my being a “mouth piece for far left extremism” that only shows how out of touch with America you people are. But, out of interest, I would enjoy seeing you quote something that I have written that would make you think that the charge is valid. But, heads up, denouncing the criminality, banality, dishonesty, stupidity and corruption of Donald Trump is NOT “far-left extremism.” It is a mainstream point of view shared by a majority including many decent Republicans and conservatives.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. I don’t know how you do it Bobrsmith……trying to discuss anything with a couple self licking ice cream cones is beyond logic.

            Like

          3. Self-licking icecream cones?

            I am sure that there is a really naughty school yard taunt in there somewhere, but you will have to explain it if you want it to land – it is empty words to me.

            You want discussion but do not even try to provide an example of the “far left extremism” that you are whining about. Instead, another – all be it enigmatic – bit of namecalling.

            Liked by 1 person

      3. If by alternative facts you mean that Trump did not lose and actually had more votes, then yes, democracy is at risk from alternative facts.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. RE: “That does not surprise anyone.”

            If you can explain, why don’ t you? You have said that “democracy is at risk from alternative facts,” but I say that is a Nazi way of thinking. The burden is on you to explain how “alternative facts” place democracy at riskt.

            Like

          2. “The burden is on you to explain how “alternative facts” place democracy at risk.”

            Two examples come to mind. Communists did not set the Reichstag Fire but that LIE lead to a dictator consolidating his power. Trump was not cheated out of a legitimate election victory but that Big LIE lead to an attempt to overthrow our republican form of government.

            Any government built on a foundation of LIES will ultimately fail.

            Liked by 1 person

      1. If press censorship is your metric for Socialism, all but a handful of countries in world history are Socialist.

        If the content of party platforms is your metric for what the party is actually about, most parties are Socialist.

        Nancy is correctly referring to the Strassers. There were a significant number of “Beefsteak N@zis” (red on the inside, brown [shirts] on the outside) in the beginning. When building a party and a mass movement, it is helpful to promise economic relief to struggling young men (see point 2 above). All of the Beefsteaks were killed during the Night of the Long Knives (Gregor Strasser included). Socialists and Communists were among the first sent to camps. Unions were outlawed in favor of cartels and large conglomerates. Etc., etc., etc., Odd things for a left-wing/Socialist party to do.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. RE: “Odd things for a left-wing/Socialist party to do.”

        That depends on one’s assumptions. For example, I assume that left-wing/Socialist political movements have a natural tendency to evolve into totalitarian regimes. That is, I don’t assume that left-wing/Socialist ideologies are inherently benevolent or beneficial.

        More generally, my concern is the use of abstractions like “national welfare” to justify abhorrent behaviors like censorship.

        Like

        1. “I assume that left-wing/Socialist political movements have a natural tendency to evolve into totalitarian regimes.” Again, a useless metric. History is full of examples of both left and right-wing movements turning totalitarian. To the extent there is a distinction between the two, it is often the express intent of right-wing movements to eliminate democracy and become totalitarian.

          But you weren’t talking about general tendencies, you were talking about one specific political movement. One that was, and continues to be, unambiguously right-wing. Arguing otherwise suggests either you are ignorant of history and the development of modern politics, or you assume the rest of us are.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. RE: “One that was, and continues to be, unambiguously right-wing.”

          Calling the Nazis a right-wing political party is to play at rhetorical games. You and at least one other poster have already acknowledged the influence of left-wing/Socialist ideology on the 1920 political platform. If you want to pretend that a left-wing movement turned into a right-wing one, that’s fine, but it is irrelevant to the observation I make in the original post. That being that contemporary leftists often sound like Nazis, particularly when justifications for censorship are given.

          Like

          1. What I’m saying was the overtures to left-wing politics were disingenuous. Just like they are when Democrats and Republicans do it in this country. Once they got in power, they did the opposite of left-wing politics. Ask any of the guys at Charlottesville or in At0mw@ffen if they think they’re left or right wing.

            Regarding censorship specifically, it is usually directed against the left because it is the left that wants to upend institutional power. For that reason, I and most modern leftists I read are for full freedom of speech and press, full stop. If you’re confusing the American Democratic party (center-right) for Socialists again, we can have that discussion. Again.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. RE: “What I’m saying was the overtures to left-wing politics were disingenuous.”

            I don’t agree. My post is based on documentary evidence.

            RE: “Regarding censorship specifically, it is usually directed against the left because it is the left that wants to upend institutional power.”

            I see little reason to believe that censorship is usually directed at the left. My guess would be that your assertion confuses criticism of leftist ideas with censorship.

            Like

        3. “ For example, I assume that left-wing/Socialist political movements have a natural tendency to evolve into totalitarian regimes.”

          The important thing to remember is why such regimes evolved in the first place.

          Most, if not all, we’re plutocracies or forms of dictatorial power that concentrated wealth and power among a few at the expense of the masses. Then a revolution of some sort hands power to populists long enough to set up another dictatorship with forced re-distribution of land and wealth until corruption sets in like Quik-crete.

          Are there any nations that had a broad based middle class with decent and effective social safety nets and affordable, accessible healthcare and education that experienced a revolution or even attempted one?

          Closest I have seen was ours. And that took several years of demagoguery and perceived victim hood to attempt an autogolpe to cement a dictatorial regime in a second term. In other words, the “revolution” was by the oligarchs through incessant lies convincing a minority that they were victims. When, in fact, they were prosperous.

          Ironic that the shining light on the hill would dim among all the Industrial and Western cultures.

          Complacency is failures crazy uncle in the attic that almost ruined us.

          IMHO

          Liked by 1 person

          1. RE: “The important thing to remember is why such regimes evolved in the first place.”

            I don’t find your explanation compelling. Instead, I believe that left-wing/Socialist movements tend to become totalitarian because impractical political theories can only be sustained by brute force once they prove to be unworkable.

            More fundamentally, I do not believe that capitalists exploit labor. In fact, I cannot imagine how such an exploitation could even occur.

            Like

          2. “ More fundamentally, I do not believe that capitalists exploit labor. In fact, I cannot imagine how such an exploitation could even occur.”

            Go to a lettuce farm in California. Or meat processing plants. Anywhere that hires undocumented, compliant labor to increase profits.

            We should have at a minimum labor protections provided by a guest worker program. But illegals are so much easier to deal with because they have little recourse. Long hours, low pay, hazardous conditions are the norm if workers are not authorized.

            Ever wonder why we keep avoiding an immigration reform or keeping Dreamers hanging by their fingernails? Follow the money.

            Sort of an artificial “free market” for labor based on “legalities” forcing an underground economy.

            Not unlike moving clothing manufacturers overseas into Third World sweatshops, even de facto slavery, and then using that to keep our own labor costs down.

            Any negotiation that does not begin with a level playing field is a shell game. Unions used to be the best way to keep the pea from leaving the table. But money and power has decimated that to the detriment of labor.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. “More fundamentally, I do not believe that capitalists exploit labor. In fact, I cannot imagine how such an exploitation could even occur.”

            You do not have to imagine. History is replete with egregious examples. And you do not have to go back in history. It happens every day in the lives of vast numbers of people.

            Maybe you cannot imagine how because you spent your working life in the cozy world of government spending. The real world is very different.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. We are dancing around the euphemism of “alternative facts”. The more accurate word is “lies”.

    “Alternative facts” was a phrase invented by a senior Trump staffer, if I recall correctly, to bolster the lie that Trump had a bigger crowd size than reality showed.

    There is no such thing as alternative facts. Disputed facts, facts called into question, verifiable facts, etc., perhaps, but alternative facts is nothing more than a scam to seemingly give an air of authenticity to lies without any support.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. We played along with the euphemism to make a point. Alternative facts are LIES. You can hang pretty names on them all you want. You can make them sound official. You can put lipstick on them and call them your lover, for all I care. The point is lies is lies. Regardless of the pretty name hung on them And THAT’S the truth.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. RE: “We are dancing around the euphemism of “alternative facts”. The more accurate word is ‘lies'”

      Fair enough. The question, then, is: How much tolerance should we have for “lies” in public discourse?

      My position is that “lies” don’t justify censorship.

      Like

      1. “My position is that “lies” don’t justify censorship.”

        Doesn’t that depend on the lies being told? Trump was not banned for his countless silly and obvious lies about his genius or accomplishments or wealth but for spreading lies that provoke division, anger and violence.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Lies that can lead the simple-minded to dangerous outcomes should NOT be tolerated. Lies to the American people about their health and safety should NOT be tolerated.

        What lies do you believe are OK in the general discourse? I would surmise that ANY lie that you favor is just fine, while you ignore the truth behind some of those lies.

        And THAT is dangerous in itself. -IMO

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Gathering a crowd to assault a jail where an accused is held in order to lynch the person because of a false accusation is a lie we already censor. Incitement to violence I believe is the phrase.

        Let’s put that on a grand scale, like the build up to and including the call to assault the Capitol and “take back the country”.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s