Finger Pointing 101- What is a Marxist? What is a Nazi?
In our current contentious climate, the words "Marxist" and "Nazi" are often used as expletives by some against anyone who disagrees with them. But what do they really mean?
Finger-pointing and name calling is a common activity in our society and within the current political environment. Because it is so easy to do, many point their finger and assign labels to others without giving much thought to the terms that they are using. Because of this, it is helpful in the interest of clarity to have a general understanding of some of the more common words that are most frequently thrown around as insults today. The basic point of this lesson can be summarized as follows: with just a little bit of knowledge, we can begin the process of eliminating longstanding historic confusion and the negative impacts of indoctrination.
Marxists and Nazis
Two of the most common labels used (as well as misused) in our current political culture are the words “Marxist” and “Nazi.” Typically, the term Marxist is often selected by some on the Right to label various individuals on the Left, while the term Nazi is commonly applied by some on the Left to label certain individuals on the Right. When these terms are used by individuals on each side of the political spectrum, both almost always carry negative connotations.
In many cases, these popular labels are frequently (and flagrantly) applied without a clear understanding of what each term specifically represents. While it is true that complications inevitably arise because the meaning of words often depends on how each person chooses to define them, this is not the case with the term Marxist or Nazi, as both have distinct meanings. Quite simply, a “Marxist” is a follower of the ideology of Karl Marx, while a “Nazi” is a follower of the ideas of Adolf Hitler and his unique political party, the National Socialists.
What is a Marxist?
The term “Marxist” is most often used to describe someone who is aligned with and supports communist ideology. While Karl Marx is generally considered as the father of communism, attempting to define the word “communism” can involve a somewhat complex (and sometimes futile) exercise. On the other hand, defining the term “Marxism” is much easier, as it only requires one to understand the ideas of a single individual (Marx himself). Because Marx’s thoughts were memorialized in writing, they are available to read, analyze, and critique.
More than anything else, Karl Marx is known for his prediction of class/group struggle between the working class and the owning class (with regards to the means of production). Another idea that Marx is known for: the belief that government would “wither away” after the means of production became collectively owned.
The most fundamental concept to Marx and his ideology, the “inevitable” struggle between workers and factory owners leading to the creation of a new society, has never materialized in practice. In countries where Marx’s ideology did take root, they were all non-industrialized societies and not the industrialized European countries that Marx was intentionally targeting. In addition, we know that in none of these countries did government eventually disappear. Based on these historical realities, Karl Marx’s ideology can be characterized as a failure.
Nevertheless, is it still possible for a Leftist to believe in some of the things that Marx professed (particularly in the sin of envy, which is defined as resentment or sadness at another’s good fortune and a desire to have it for oneself)? It is, but unless an individual has hopes that a communist society will be brought about as a result of the class struggle between workers and factory owners, or that government will eventually “wither away” after the implementation of Marx’s ideas, they should not be considered Marxists.
Despite the failures of Marxism, truth and reality have not stopped Leftists—being reluctant to give up on their earthly utopian dreams—to modify the failed teachings of Marx in an effort to “keep the dream alive.” Specifically, class/group struggle has been quietly changed over the years to now focus on race and gender (a significant modification to Marx’s ideas). But what results from this fundamental revision to the ideas of Karl Marx is not Marxism. It is its own unique ideology; one that necessarily should be assigned a new name (while some may choose to apply the term “woke,” it is too vague and overly broad to provide and acceptable alternative).
What is a Nazi?
The term “Nazi” has most often been used to describe a person who uses heavy-handed tactics to achieve political gain. While individuals from both sides engage in this type of behavior, fingers have historically been pointed almost exclusively at those on the Right. The term “fascist” is another term that can be used to describe the same or similar practice, although agreeing on a simple definition of this word can be quite difficult. On the other hand, defining a Nazi (which is a short-hand version of the term “National Socialist”) is much easier, as it only requires an understanding of the ideology of one man and his unique political party.
Since the word Nazi is shorthand for the term “National Socialist,” it is therefore correct that to be a Nazi one must also be a nationalist. But because nationalism has been practiced on both sides of the political spectrum (it actually began as a left-wing movement in France during the French Revolution and the French Revolutionary Wars), by itself adherence to nationalism does not specifically define a person as falling on either the right or the left. Because of this, the socialist half of the term “National Socialist” takes on much greater importance (WARNING: it is important to be conscious of the propaganda that exists on this issue, as there are many, including Google, who attempt to incorrectly label Hitler and the National Socialists as anti-socialists).
Correctly identifying a person as a “Nazi” thus requires a two-step process:
Is the individual at issue a nationalist? (as Hitler definitely was);
Is the person also a socialist? (as Hitler also was, but is a fact that many are unaware of or have chosen to ignore).
If the answer to both questions is yes, then the label of “Nazi” is potentially appropriate. However, as a result of applying this approach, one will find that the term is unlikely to apply to hardly anyone on either the Right or the Left, as it is uncommon to find a person in present day society who believes strongly in both nationalism and socialism (as the Nazis did). For the sake of clarity and the avoidance of confusion, it is therefore a good practice to avoid use of the term “Nazi,” and instead make use of the full (non-abbreviated) term “National Socialist.” In doing so, it will serve to remind potential finger-pointers and name callers that a person who is a “Nazi” must be both a nationalist and a socialist.
From the above it can be seen that loose applications of the term “Nazi,” while frequently used by many on the Left today to label certain persons on the Right, are utterly inappropriate. For example, the label has historically been incorrectly applied to individuals who may be nationalists (i.e., some Republicans and some conservatives), but are definitely not socialists (as an example, President Trump may very well meet the modern definition of a nationalist, but has never espoused anything even remotely close to socialism—even in earlier years when he identified himself as a Democrat). To illustrate the point, if we were to apply this same loose form of logic in the other direction (i.e., to those on the Left), it would then be just as appropriate to label a person who is a socialist, but who is not necessarily a nationalist, as a “Nazi.” In other words, anyone who identifies as a “Democratic Socialist”—AOC or Bernie Sanders for example—could be considered as Nazi under this mindset simply because they satisfy one-half of the definition of a National Socialist (i.e., the socialist half in this case). This is, of course, ridiculous.
But isn’t it possible for a Republican or a conservative to be someone who uses heavy-handed tactics to achieve political gain? Clearly the answer is yes. But can that same persons be a Nazi (or be like a Nazi)? Probably not. Unless they are also a socialist, the answer should be a clear “no.” Although there are a number of former socialists in the Republican/conservative camp, it is well known that there are very few Republicans (if any) who are true fans of socialism and who support the idea of all-powerful big government. This makes it virtually impossible that any Republican or conservative could ever be considered to be a “Nazi.”
Only a Starting Point
Keeping things simple is the key to true understanding, while complexity often serves to enhance (sometimes intentionally) the opportunity for confusion and wrong actions. If the general public at large were to become better acquainted with history and the relevant background information, it is possible that the labels of “Marxist” and “Nazi” would begin to experience a significant decline in use.
But this by itself will not be enough, and is merely a starting point for some—particularly those who reside in academia—are well aware of the above truths (i.e., that Marxism in practice has been proven to be a failed ideology, and that the Nazis practiced a unique form of socialism) and choose to ignore historic reality for their own personal reasons. The next (and probably more difficult) step will require addressing this longstanding historic indoctrination. Once basic education and clearly defined definitions takes root, a significant cultural attitude shift will ultimately be needed in order to finish the job.
Photo Credits- Getty images, Blaze Media and Wikimedia.
The Everyman Commentary
I hear "Nazi" used often by the left and have known for decades that it was always used wrongly by them because that ideology is heavy on socialism. It is even in the name.
However, over the past half century I do not often hear the term "Marxist" used by the right - usually they use "communist" to describe the left. You are correct that "communist" is a bit of a vague term. Partly because the leftist elites has done a lot to make it appear more benign - if not good - while it is anything but that.
Unfortunately I think "communist" has to be vague because it is not a true ideology, but a scam. The elites pushing it are all for enriching themselves while preaching for everyone else to give up everything to the government to become a classless society. But that is a lie because they want everyone to sacrifice everything to the government class which, unfortunately for the rest of us, means themselves.
There are important commonalities between Marxist and National Socialist, though
also some historical and ideological differences. Both are Socialist, i.e., both are SAC = statist, authoritarian, collectivist. In the early 1920s in Italy, and throughout the 1920s in Germany, both struggled to win over the same lower class and lower middle class constituencies. National Socialist won in both nations though in Italy the label was Italian Fascist.
As J. Antonio Juarez has explained elsewhere, the Nazis always were, as they claimed, socialist. During the Battle of Stalingrad in late 1942, Stalin suddenly changed the designation of the enemy from Nazi or National Socialist to Fascist to draw the distinction between the USSR (Soviet Socialist) and German National Socialist. Soviet and international communist propaganda from 1945 onwards successfully created the false concept in the West that Nazis were not socialist. Even in economics the Nazi were mostly socialist for their war economy. For middle size and large companies, a Nazi was put in charge to ensure socialist racialist ideology. Private property was subordinated to racialist socialism.