@realryanchapman

A bunch of comments on this one asked why I didn't deal with categorizing the Nazis or Fascists as just plain 'socialists' over being nationalists or generic fascists. The reason why I didn't address that directly in this video is because I didn't see anyone commenting that on my last one. People either claimed that 'National Socialism isn't Fascism' or that we should just call them 'National Socialists.' I also dealt with the socialist label to some extent in my first video.

Calling the Nazis socialists (and not nationalists or fascists) seems to be getting popular, and I might make a video to address it. For now, I'll do it here. The claim has a little weight but ultimately doesn't work. First of all: the main ideological pillar of Nazism is nationalism. All Nazis were fervent nationalists, from the beginning to end of the movement. Nationalism was what drove their action and policy far more than any other ideology. Nazism was a direct result of German nationalism that had been developed since the late 18th century. Read Herder, Fichte, Arndt. They were the thinkers who set up a peculiar brand of nationalism in Germany. The Nazis carried that brand of nationalism to an extreme conclusion. What I just said is a point that is unanimously agreed upon by all scholarship I have ever read, and also confirmed by my own research. Understanding that will make far more sense out of the Nazis than any kind of attempt to connect them to socialism.

Getting into it anyway: If we're assigning a primary label to a movement, we're assigning it based on what drives them, and as I said, the Nazis were primarily motivated by nationalism, both in theory and in practice. Their nationalism drove their politics and overrode everything else. Hitler: 'For me and all true National Socialists there is but one doctrine: people and fatherland.' (at 26:34 in my longer fascism vid). You can find endless quotes of him saying that everything he does he does for Germany. That his goal for politics is to make Germany rise again and establish it as a great power. It was a goal, he said over and over, that he'd dedicate his life to, that he'd die for. It's not subtle.

Going further: the Nazis were obsessed with the idea of Germans coming together as a national unit (the 'German race') and winning a Darwinian battle against the other nations, Germany strong again and expanding its living space. For them, economic policy was whatever it needed to be to fulfill that goal. It could be a socialistic policy if they believed it was good for their nation. Or it could be capitalistic. Or they could act like socialists if it meant that it would help them get into power, but then perhaps at that point socialist policy would not be practical, and in that case they'd pursue something else. This is an important point that is often taken out of context. From the very earliest years of the Nazi party, Hitler told other Nazis not to listen to the platform. The platform is unimportant. The only important goal is getting power. Power for what? German national rejuvenation. They had to be flexible to reach that goal, which meant they could be found saying any number of things. This fooled very few in Germany (or in the world) at the time, but has since meant that people can take aspects of Nazi history, present them out of context, and make them seem like socialists. They never stuck to the platform for the sake of socialist ideology, but they were rigid about sticking to their nationalist goals. Their 'socialism' in other words was subservient to their nationalism.

There were some in the party that were further left and wanted to see a genuinely socialist angle for the sake of ideology in the party, and Hitler actively fought against those people. If they ever seemed to pose a threat to his power, he acted out against them. He either converted them (like in the case of Goebbels), or exiled, marginalized, or even eventually killed them. Hitler's take on the party was always far to the right. His views were so far right that as he gained popularity, he pushed German politics on the whole to the right. Again, this is not just a modern understanding. It was the dominant understanding in Germany and in the world at the time. When Hitler ran against Hindenburg, for example, in the presidential election in 1932, Hitler was understood as the right-wing candidate, and Hindenburg was understood as the left-wing candidate, who gained the support of the German left to prevent Hitler from winning. Hindenburg was an old-fashioned conservative from the military. Him being branded left-wing was considered an absurd shift in German politics, but that was how far right Hitler was.

They did lean into socialist language and spoke as socialists at times on the campaign trail, but that was cynically done when they believed they were speaking to audiences who would be won over by it (working class audiences). Hitler himself ideologically pivoted depending on the audience. As he put it, before he went before a crowd he asked 'what record must I use? The national? The social? Or the sentimental? Of course, I have them all in my suitcase.' (quoted in Toland's 'Hitler' biography). If you quote him or the Nazis out of context, they may appear to be socialists at times, but that's quite literally falling for cynical Nazi campaign tactics. If you understand what was happening in context it's obvious that the socialist angle was largely cynical, and certainly subordinate to nationalism. This was widely understood at the time (and still today). The Nazis, on the whole, were far-right nationalists, not left-wing socialists. Richard Evans in 'The Coming of the Third Reich' called the Nazi's socialism 'pseudo-socialism' and I think that's appropriate.

We could go further to answer who socialists are. Socialists are primarily concerned with egalitarianism. They want a more equal society. That's the distinguishing trait that motivates them. Inequality outrages them. Private property is typically seen as the cause of inequality, and centralizing the means of production was simply a popular method for socialists to achieve their goal of socioeconomic equality (for a while anyway). Now let's look at the Nazis. To put it mildly, they weren't egalitarians. The main principles they were overwhelmingly concerned with were nationalism, totalitarianism and, for the Nazis, racism (in a nationalist context). All three of those concepts are based in hierarchical thinking. Hitler also promoted a social Darwinian view when it came to labor - that hard work leads to success and should be appropriately rewarded (and also backed by private property). The Nazis, on the whole, were especially (even outrageously) inegalitarian. They claimed unequal human worth as a principle, and said that due to lesser worth, many in their society didn't even deserve to live (that included Jewish people and various other 'undesirables.' A point made explicit at 28:50 in my longer vid). In the very least they believed that many 'less valuable' Germans (like cripples) didn't deserve welfare. All of that makes calling the Nazis socialists - if you're trying to use the word meaningfully - misleading at best. Really just wrong.

So why do people believe the Nazis were socialist? They did implement many economic policies that we relate with socialism. But they implemented those policies for reasons that little to do with commitment to socialist ideology, and everything to do with commitment to nationalist ideology. Others point to the largely superficial connections the Nazis had to socialism, like the word 'Socialist' in their party name. Again, that came from their early years when socialists were more prominent in the party, and also was part of their effort to win over more of the electorate. Saying they're socialists simply because they have the word 'socialist' in their name is akin to saying North Korea is democratic simply because they have the word 'democratic' in their country's name. It's absurd if you're knowledgeable about the subject. The Nazis openly framed socialists and communists as their natural enemies and held a general attitude of murderousness towards them.

In short: the people who call the Nazis socialists - and not nationalists/fascists - have not discovered a deeper, more penetrating understanding of Nazism. It's the opposite. They're being fooled by the Nazi's veneer of socialism. Their 'socialism' was superficial and subordinate to their nationalism/fascism. As you spend time with Nazism, the thinness of that veneer becomes more and more obvious, which is why people at the time who lived with Nazism weren’t tricked by it, and professional historians and academics are also not tricked by it. To me, hearing that the Nazis were socialists and/or leftists is similar to hearing the claim that the '69 moon landing was faked. It's interesting to consider why people think that, but if you spend time learning the subject outside of solely consuming media bent to sell that one angle it falls apart.

If you want to relate fascism to socialism and point to similarities in some tactics and economic policies, and maybe even call the Nazis economically socialistic in a loose sense (roughly referring to some of their economic policies, even though others conflicted with it), without putting much weight on that word, then that works to some extent, but overall, they weren't socialists. They were nationalists and fascists who sometimes used socialist policy and terminology for those purposes.

- Ryan

@Sykoze

“The short answer is they were fascist, and the longer answer is a more qualified answer still saying that they were fascist” made me laugh way harder than it should have, considering it’s a just basic statement of fact.
Good show.

@Sigrdrifaz

Italian racism was more ethereal,  they thought the sprit of Italy was unique. That it was the same sprit as Rome, Mussolini uses titles and imagery of Rome. As such, it was destined to rule over others. They also had concentration camps in former Yugoslavia, the difference was they didn't kill them, they were closer to re-eduction camps to turn them into Italians.

@vraisairs9201

Isn’t it sort of a false dichotomy putting communism, capitalism, and fascism all on the same level? Two are economic systems and one is more of a social order and by labeling them as three distinctly separate ideas, it puts across the idea that fascism is an economic system in and of itself

@jonathanvilario5402

Just call Italian fascism "fascismo" and be done with it. If idiots want to act like we're not talking about what is the accepted generalization, then use the Italian language itself, and call it by the language they identified themselves as. That way we don't need to waste time arguing with spelling and wording.

@nathanhastings8293

I love the commentary because there is source material that we can check for ourselves. These videos are a great public service and leave me wanting to know more. Keep up the great work.

@metalgod542

I know history as a whole tends to bore the average person and political history and videos of the roots of politics terms don't "excite" the masses, but by God you do an excellent job at it Ryan. You definitely deserve more credit than you receive and more subscribers than you have.

@beatgreens9530

Thank you Ryan! I can’t believe you only have 100,000 subscribers! You are deepening my understanding of the topics you discuss and i hope you never get tired of making these videos!

@randylplampin1326

I know for fact that Hitler created a twenty-five point list of subjects and attitudes that defined what he thought Nazism was. And Hitler was absolutely adamant about his list.

@foundationsmedicalinformat2420

The way you structure your points, properly explain terms before hand, and address potential logical fallacies in real time is so satisfying to watch. 

I especially like that it lets you dive into these otherwise dicey topics with confidence given the care that you put into your framing and the specificity of your language. 

Bravo 👏🏼

@123100ozzy

The best definition of fascism will always be mussolini's: All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. That has always been the goal and the achievement of fascism (Both versions).

@MarkoPareigis

I watched your first vid on the subject of fascism a while ago and learned a lot. This follow-up has further clarified many things to me. Many thanks for creating such great content!

@Conorkc86

Ryan you have a gift for taking complex topics, explaining them clearly and concisely. Love your videos!

@devrusso

There's nothing anywhere saying that "fascism" is different than "Fascism". You come up with this by yourself lol.

@RayRay-yt5pe

Bro: I love the way you form your arguments. I'm taking notes.

@rogerlouie1

Gotta say, my mind was slightly changed. I have a degree in this kind of stuff and even I had a slight misconception. I appreciate your vids. You are a gold mine. You magically walk the neutral line on controversial topics while remaining unbiased. This is definitely one of my goals - keep to the facts and to ensure I highlight the facts fairly (because you can hyperfocus on a set of facts to spin a bias).

@kylelacey1212

I like the idea of the political triangle, with three points, Individuality, Equality, Tradition. Each of these has been embodied in most of the political structures of civilized time. 
Individuality, capstones with Capitalism most often. Equality, capstones with Socialism, and Tradition with Nationalism. There's an ism for them all. Of course each has their more extreme branches, such as Corporatism, Communism and Fascism, which take their respective ideals to the absolute limit and ironically enough all end up with the same result: totalitarian and authoritarian rule. Ideally, the best run governments tend to fall much closer to the center. People will call Trump a fascist or Justin Trudeau a communist, but neither could be further from the truth. Sure, both men have said some stupid things but their platforms are no where near the fringes that their political opponents would tend to suggest. Unfortunately, that tends to significantly muddy the waters until even the most center position gets tossed an extremist label because at that point it's no longer about accuracy it's about slander and ad hominem.

@greggalbraith2842

Ryan, I must say that I appreciate your willingness to illustrate and explain details in such a cogent and nuanced manner.  I suspect that I also feel a bit of the pain you must endure when people want to be overly simplistic in their perception of how society's tendencies and actions manifest.  I wish your use of details regarding similarities and differences in order to impart knowledge was contagious.  If it was, the fear-induced insanity our world currently exhibits might be successfully blunted!

@CriticallyAlive

This whole dissection against his original idea “the short answer is they were fascist, the long answer is a more qualified way still saying they were fascist” really confuses me, genuinely. Fascism as a word literally did not exist prior to Mussolini’s Italy, and came about as a descriptor by conservative intellectuals of the time to describe the revolutionary ideal of ultra nationalism. The idea of exactly what’s being discussed here, to a certain degree, of the blood of the country trumping all else. While yes, genocide is certainly not a requirement of fascism, meaning the holocaust wasn’t by any means inevitable, not being a requirement is not therefore a disqualifier. The fact that the holocaust happened does not therefore exclude nazi germany from being fascist. It simply states that they took fascism to an extreme next step. Although a very legitimate argument can be made as to the inevitability of genocide in fascist states, as the purposes of fascism from a state perspective are to garner a cultish crowd thinking population based on spiritual connectivity of a very specific group of people(Italians by blood or Germans by blood however broadly they defined that or Russians by blood et cetera) and the only logical conclusion of human groups in that setting is the exclusion of all “others”. Genocide isn’t the only form of exclusion obviously, but if you start for even a second using words like glory or destined, and romanticizing things like war and the bonds shared over shed blood, and so on, you very very easily step into expansionist mindsets that were so popular in Nazi Germany at the time and it becomes quite clear that the only way to obtain this great nation worthy of this nationalistic worship is to get rid of the “other” permanently. That makes the holocaust a natural conclusion OF German fascism, and most certainly not an excluding factor thereof. Again, this word was quite literally invented to describe both(and all, let’s not forget about Spain) of these Nationalistic movements in Europe in the 1930’s. Why are we reinventing the wheel here?

I would also like to add in relation to the comment about Mao and Stalin, why is it so clear that they are not fascist? I agree that nationalism and totalitarianism are both a part of those states but why does that so clearly not equal fascism? I would argue, based on the definitions in the video above and many others, that they most absolutely are, and again for all the reasons stated in the video above and others. You are right in that there are clear differences between the states, just as their are clear differences between Italian Fascism and German fascism but if you give it a wee bit of thought not only does that make sense but it’s a requirement of fascist ideology. Fascism by definition requires ultra-nationalism(though I agree you can have nationalism without fascism). Every country, every culture is different by nature of, well, history. So therefore, every country, every cultures version of ultra nationalism will and must therefore look and act differently. Otherwise it isn’t nationalism so much as cultural appropriation of someone else’s nationalism. If Stalins Russia looked exactly like nazi germany, would they be Russian or German? And how would they have convinced the Russian people of their uniqueness as a prerequisite to successful fascism(I am assuming that the Leninist revolution and eventual Stalinist takeover were a “successful” fascist movement). The point is, of course these systems look and act a bit different. They literally have to, they’re appealing to different cultures, but I ask why, by every definition of fascism we have, does that exclude one culture from fascism where it includes another?

Lastly, I don’t wholly agree with this video or his other but I do think them greatly researched and incredibly informative starting points to the complex history of the early 20th century. I also want to include, because I already see it coming, that I do NOT by any means ascribe to the overuse of fascism as a descriptor for almost anything nowadays that disagrees with certain people politically, but this comment string is erring in the wrong direction and reinventing the wheel. I would also point out, especially in relation to my comments on Mao and Stalin, that while I absolutely do not consider them communists by any real definition(neither am I a communist), I also truly believe we in the west aren’t by any real measure capitalist either(nor am I a capitalist), so hopefully keeping some consistency there but if not, well, it’s my honest opinion so change my mind if you’ve got the chaps. Hopefully somebody gets somethin outa this rant lol

@deanleaving2815

Really fantastic video. Love the commitment to clarity in communication. Very helpful.