this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
227 points (83.7% liked)
Progressive Politics
3522 readers
552 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Even this framing sanewashes the Nazis.
The actual Nazi party delivered none of this while gutting government services and selling services (like the post office) off to the lowest bidder.
The term "privatization" was coined in order to describe what the Nazis were doing in Germany
No, this is false. The Nazis were fighting for benefits for their in-group. They did not get the benefits, of course.
Turns out when you're willing to throw others under the bus, leadership will gladly do the same for you.
Why do you think they called themselves National Socialists
What are the mechanics of the Nazis "fighting" for benefits, and not getting them? They literally had complete control.
Because it was a good rhetorical strategy to gain power?
Does it matter that their first acts once they gained power was to kill actual socialists and communists?
Does it matter that working conditions worsened for German people even before the first shots of WW2 were fired, as they ramped up productions to prepare the war machine?
I'm sorry, it's just historically inaccurate to describe the actions of the Nazi party as even potentially beneficial to the German people.
We see this in fascist movements today as well. Even under "white supremacy" there's no advocacy for anything that would actually benefit white people, it's just grievance politics against out groups.
The Nazis built a tremendous amount of infrastructure. Mostly from stolen wealth from the out-group. Their problem was that to continue this they needed to keep stealing and that didn't go very well.
That seems entirely unrelated to anything that I'm saying.
Maybe, if they were extremely disingenuous, one could make the argument that the Autobahn, which is still in use today, Materially improves people's lives, and that this refutes my point that the nazis didn't advocate for the material interests of the German people. Maybe.
But it was also not necessarily built for that. (War production benefits from internal infrastructure as well)
But that doesn't impact the overall character of what I'm saying.
Look, liberals are wrong to support a genocide abroad, full stop. Liberal (and conservative, of course) politicians should face trial at the Hague for war crimes committed.
You (or here, BadEmpanada) don't need to lie about the Nazis to make that comparison.
The end goal of Nazi Germany was to improve the lives of the in-group at the expense of the out group. In America the spoils of imperialism also don't end up in the hands of the peasants. But the peasants will support it as long as the government will give them some treats in exchange.
You should look up what the inspiration was for Nazi Germany.
You're not informed on anything on the subject but you sure like to berate others as if you are. It's hard to discuss with someone who foundationally doesn't understand nor wants to understand the subject. A waste of time indeed.