Comments on: Socialists have a long history of denying that other socialists are socialists

By: Grymalkin

Grymalkin — Thu, 02 Jul 2026 03:36:28 +0000

Rudolf Jung (b.1882 – d.1945) was the first principal theoretician of National Socialism, a Sudeten-German trade-unionist and railway engineer who joined the Austro-Hungarian German Workers’ Party (later German National Socialist Workers’ Party, DNSAP) in 1909 and was heavily responsible for both building up the early successes of the movement and for establishing close links in the post-WWI era with emerging National Socialist parties in other German-speaking areas (primarily the NSDAP, the DNSAP’s ‘bruderpartei’ which later eclipsed it and took over leadership of the inter-state NS movement). In 1919 Jung wrote and published the first theoretical treatment of of the NS ideological worldview: ‘Der nationale Sozialismus: Seine Grundlagen, sein Werdegang, und seine Ziele’. The book was expanded and revised in two subsequent editions, the 1922 edition being the most interesting, since it was a treatment of the NS worldview written when Hitler was still one leader among many, rather than the dominating force of the movement. Jung in his book is quite clear in positioning National Socialism as a branch of the socialist movement, as were most National Socialists (even most Hiterlians). From his book’s conclusion:

“The Marxists constantly maintain that there is only one form of socialism, the Marxist, and that everything else is mere fraud and deception. Since, however, there are multiple Marxist tendencies, each of which denies the right of the others to be socialist, it has been difficult for them to uphold this claim. Indeed, socialism has always existed, both before Marxism and alongside it. It was understood to mean – and does mean – endeavours aimed at making the life and work of the individual serviceable to the whole, at making him the bearer of the collective will. In turn, the community takes on the responsibility of administering to the needs of the individual, of supporting him morally, spiritually, and economically. This can occur either out of purely materialistic considerations; as a consequence of the precepts of Christian charity; or, finally, on völkisch grounds. Depending on the circumstances, one is dealing here either with Judeo-Marxist, Christian, or National Socialism.”

By: Bruce

Bruce — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 15:46:27 +0000

Ludendorf’s WWI ‘War Communism’ and Marxist-Leninism rhyme.

By: Bob Sykes

Bob Sykes — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 14:07:38 +0000

There is no question that National Socialism is s form of socialism. Just ask G. B. Shaw or Time.

One of the differences among socialisms is how they treat the national issue. Marxists are doctrine internationalists, and they used to maintain that the only distinguishing characteristic among people that really counts is economic class. That position seems to have been abandoned during WW I, because the proletariat turned out to be nationalists.

Fascism and Naziism valorate the nation (or more narrowly the race for Nazis) in place of the proletariat. That position got Mussolini kicked out of the Italian Socialist Party, which was, and still is, doctrinaire Marxist.

Every European country, except the USSR, had a strong national/socialist or fascist party during the 1930’s and 1940’s. These parties facilitated the German occupation of western and middle Europe, and they provide both willing occupation governments and armies to the German. There were European divisions fighting alongside the Wehrmacht during Operation Barbarossa, and there was even a French divisions defending Berlin at the end.

These facts are just too embarrassing to modern Europeans, and so they deny their grandparents were nazis or fascists. But they were.

The current EU is socialist, and it is a reminder that all forms of socialism are inherently top-down authoritarian (and physically violent), and some are totalitarian.