1

Seizing Socialism:An analysis of the relationship of Nazism to Marxism

Byron L. Harmon

In contemporary political discourse guilt by association arguments are prominent. Political

groups associate or dissociate themselves or their opponents with historical figures as a means

of persuasion. This paper seeks to grapple with the ambiguous connection between Nazism

and Marxism. To answer this question, the world views and comparative policies will be

examined. Using primary sources, their stances on the following issues will be examined: race

struggle and class struggle, particularity and universality, particular social policies, democracy,

private property and antisemitism. The evidence indicates a nuanced answer, one that does not

accord Nazism with either extreme of similarity or dissimilarity to Marxism.

Key Words: Marxism, Nazism, democracy, race, class, struggle, internationalism,

antisemitism, policy, worldview, eternal, homogenization,

Table of Contents

Introduction 2Discussion of Answers 2Sources 2-3Worldview/metanarratives 3-6

Primacy of German Volk 5Lack of Particularity of Marxism 6

Internationalism and Nationalism 7-8Specific Social Policies 8-10Lebensraum 11-12Private Property 12

2

Democracy 13-14Eternity and the End of History 14-15Racial Homogeneity and Classlessness 15-16Antisemitism 17-18Conclusion 19Bibliography 20

“He who refuses to speak of socialism, who believes in socialism only in the Marxist

sense, or to whom the word “socialism” has an unpleasant ring, has not understood the deepest

meaning of nationalism.” (Hermann Goring, Nationalism and Socialism, 1933) From a

theoretical standpoint, the Nazis have long held an ambiguous and tenuous grasp on socialism.

This has resulted in many guilt-by-association accusations being leveled against Marxism and

the word “socialism” itself. The correlation of the two largely stems from the official name of

the Nazi party: National Socialist German Workers’ Party(NSDAP). That is, the addition of

the word socialist into their party name. Due to the contemporary use of this conflation and its

political consequences, it warrants investigation. The objective of this paper is to examine the

validity of the following assertion by Hermann Goring: “Our movement seized the concept of

socialism from the cowardly Marxists…” In other words, it will ascertain the degree to which

a connection between Marxist socialism and Nazism can be maintained.

In answer to this question there are a number of possible responses. Answers to this

question generally fit on a spectrum from a resounding and firm assertion of their correlation

to a categorical rejection of any relation. For example, from the right Glenn Beck asserts that

Nazism is the direct descendant of Marxism. Conversely, groups like Revolution Socialist

Youth and other contemporary neo-Marxist groups utterly deny any similarity. In order to

3

formulate a coherent answer this paper will make a systematic comparison of a number of

theoretical policy items along with examining the Nazi and Marxist worldviews.

To develop a comprehensive conclusion it will be appropriate to grapple with a number

of primary source documents. To elucidate Marxism this endeavor shall rely upon the

following texts: The Communist Manifesto, (Marx and Engels, 1848) Socialism: Utopian and

Scientific, (Engels, 1880) Critique of the Gotha Programme, (Marx, 1891) and Conspectus of

Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy (Marx, 1875.) These documents were chosen because they

provide a solid foundation for general Marxist principles and policies. Alternatively, the

subsequent texts will be drawn from in order to formulate the Nazi principles and policies:

Mein Kampf, (Hitler, 1923) Nationalism and Socialism (Hermann Goring, 1933) Emergency

Economic Program of the NSDAP, (Gregor Strasser, 1932) Not Empty Phrases, But Rather

Clarity, (Tießler, 1942) the Program of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party(1920)

Communism with the Mask Off, (Joseph Goebells, 1935) The Programme of the Party of

Hitler, and its general conceptions, (Feder, 1932) and, less substantially, Mass-Producing

Traditional Small Cities: Gottfried Feder’s Vision for a Greater Nazi Germany (Schenk and

Bromley, 2003.) These sources, while not exhaustive, are a strong foundation and

representative of the NSDAP’s policies and overarching worldview.

Nazism and Marxism both provide a metanarrative for history; a larger picture that

explains historical trends. It is prudent to begin with discussing their metanarratives, as much

of their other philosophy and policy stems from it. In the meantime, this section is dedicated to

elucidating the similarities and differences between their conflict based theories. Nazism is

characterized by racial struggle and a more humanist yet predestined notion of agency. In

4

contrast, Marxism at its surface appears to center around class struggle. However, if one looks

deeper it is apparent that the classes are a product of a period’s mode of production. This

suggests a notion of agency that is deterministic or rather universal in that any people in that

material situation would act that way.

Hitler succinctly sums up his metanarrative when he declares “The world is not

intended for cowardly nations” (Hitler, Mein Kampf, p 123) More specifically: “if a nation

succumbs in its struggle for the rights of mankind, then it was probably found weighing too

lightly in the scales of destiny to justify its good fortune of being allowed to continue on this

mortal globe.” (p 123) It should be noted that in Mein Kampf Hitler uses race and nation

interchangeably. What this suggests is that the Nazi metanarrative of history centers around

race struggle, that is, each race playing out its “destiny” or “the goal of their existence assigned

to them by Providence.” (p 195) This attitude is reflected in other NSDAP writing and

propaganda. In a pamphlet titled “Not Empty Phrases, but Rather Clarity” the party declared

“The greatest task of each German, therefor, is to serve this community at all times and in

every way, giving his life for its greatness and its eternal life” (Walter Tießler) The concept of

racial struggle was also repeated in Joseph Goebbels’ speech (Communism with the Mask Off)

in 1935 wherein he stated:

“National Socialism absolutely places in the foreground of its programme a belief in

God and that transcendental idealism which has been destined by Nature to bring to

expression the racial soul of a nation. National Socialism would give the lead in a new

concept and shaping of European civilization. But the Bolsheviks carry on a campaign,

directed by the Jews, with the international underworld, against culture as such.”

5

This clearly demonstrates a worldview that is dominated by racial struggle; where smaller

historical events are placed into and understood through the larger story of race conflict. There

is a metanarrative of the German Volk, through the NSDAP, fulfilling its destiny.

Dichotomously, there is at the same time an undertone in the Nazi worldview emphasizing

personal initiative and the need to act. Perhaps one could sum it up dichotomously as “we need

to make our destiny happen.”

The corollary of the NSDAP worldview is the merited primacy of the German Volk

over other races, in particular the Jews, seen as a force for the destruction of civilization.

While this is alluded to in the above portion of Goebbels’ speech, Hitler states in no uncertain

terms “The German Reich, as a State, should include all Germans, not only with the task of

collecting from the people the most valuable stocks of racially primal elements and preserving

them, but also to lead them, gradually and safely, to a dominating position.” (Mein Kampf

p601) While it is common knowledge that the NSDAP concerned itself intensely with the

struggle against the Jews, it is also evident that they saw themselves in conflict with other

races. Beyond just conflict, it was a matter of dominating other races. It was “a might makes

right” reductio ad absurdum taken as truth.

Marx’s dialectical materialism shares little in common with Hitler’s race struggle.

Marx begins the Communist Manifesto proclaiming “The history of all hitherto existing

society is the history of class struggles.” He then goes on to lay out a number of historical

examples of class struggle and providing an explanation for the creation of the bourgeoisie. At

its surface it may seem that Marx is trying to fit historical events into a larger metanarrative of

class struggle. There is an underlying philosophy that informs his metanarrative of class

struggle, which is alluded to in the Manifesto when Marx and Engels discuss the origins of the

6

bourgeoisie “the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a

series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.” Marxism sees social

structures as being consequences of the means of production. Engels is even more explicit in

“Socialism: Utopian and Scientific” when he bluntly and clearly states:

“The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of

the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things

produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in

history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or

orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products

are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and

political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights

into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange.

They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics of each particular

epoch.”

In terms of an overarching metanarrative this means that economics precedes everything and

class struggle is a result from a particular mode of production. History progressing, for Marx,

is the contradictions of a mode of production working themselves out; thesis and antithesis.

Hence, dialectal materialism.

While much of Marx’s writing focuses upon his contemporary class struggles, his

underlying metanarrative lacks particularity. It presupposes that any people in a particular

economic mode of production will structure themselves into a similar social order. In contrast

to Hitler wanting to fulfill the destiny of the Germany Volk, Marxism sees history

7

deterministically. Hitler decries this difference claiming “By the categorical rejection of

personality and, with it, of the nation and its racial contents, it (Marxism) destroys the

elementary foundations of the entire human culture which depends on just these factors.”

(Mein Kampf 441) While his conclusion is dubious at best, it is true that Marxism, largely

speaking, does not take personality into account. Additionally, while Marx certainly advocated

for the industrial proletariat in conflict with the bourgeoisie, it was not due to a natural

characteristic of the members of that class, rather the proletariat offered a class of people who

did not own property and who produced things socially in juxtaposition to the bourgeoisie.

Anyone who found themselves in that economic circumstance would develop with the traits of

the proletariat. Hitler’s theory of race struggle does essentialize each race; positing that each

race has an inherent character, some superior to others.

As a consequence of their different worldviews both Nazism and Marxism are lead to

certain interpretations of nationalism and internationalism. This section will be dedicated to

comparing and contrasting their views in this regard. Marxism is unmistakably internationalist;

it is so blatant that at the end of the Communist Manifesto they declare “The proletarians have

nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries,

Unite!” Marxist internationalism is derived fairly directly from Dialectical Materialism. It saw

states as being a product of bourgeois invention, an ideology of the ruling class. The

bourgeoisie was seen as an international class that oppressed the proletariat internationally, but

used nationalism and democracy to coopt power for itself. In this framework proletarians of

different countries were seen to have more in common with each other than the bourgeoisie

that controlled their economic lives. Additionally it was widely accepted that a Marxist

revolution had to be on a large enough scale, beyond just a single nation.

8

In contrast the NSDAP rejected Marxist internationalism. For example, Herman

Goring claimed “Nationalism and Socialism stood opposed: the bourgeoisie supported

nationalism, the Marxists socialism. The bourgeoisie fell into a barren hyper-patriotism, lost in

pacifistic cowardice. On the other side, a Marxist layer of the people, a Marxist class, wanted

nothing to do with the Reich or a people.” (Hermann Goring, Nationalism and Socialism,

1933) This demonstrates how the NSDAP borrowed different ideas and in this process saw the

Marxist internationalism as opposed to the bourgeois nationalism that they wanted to

appropriate. They saw Marxist socialism as disinterested with the German race or any race at

all and had no intention of adopting this aspect of it. This rejection is similarly reflected in

Hitler’s Mein Kampf when he recalls “I rather liked the activity of Social Democracy. The fact

that it finally endeavored to raise the standard of living of the working class… But what

disgusted me most was its hostile attitude towards the fight for the preservation of the German

nationality, its pitiful courtship of the Slav ‘comrades,’…” (p 51) Because of its metanarrative

that centered around race struggle and the fulfillment of the German race’s place in history the

NSDAP was firmly nationalist.

The Nazi philosophy, chimerical in nature, claimed that it had “seized the concept of

socialism from the cowardly Marxists.” (Hermann Goring, Nationalism and Socialism, 1933)

This section is dedicated to examining the commonalities in this regard. Loosely speaking,

Socialism for Marx was a period in which the bourgeois-proletariat dialectic was harnessed as

a means for shaping society by communists guiding the proletariat. In the Communist

Manifesto Marx provides a list of general policies:

“1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 

9

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with

State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the

State. 

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the

bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in

accordance with a common plan. 

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for

agriculture. 

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all

the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the

populace over the country. 

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory

labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production”

Marx’s “Critique of the Gotha Programme” also offers a number of additional policies. These

include “that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health

services, etc. … funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-

called official poor relief today… the individual producer receives back from society -- after

the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. ” Essentializing Marxist

socialism in this way is problematic. By asserting that socialism is simply a list of economic

policies you miss the larger point of socialism. For Marx the democratic nature of the state as

10

“the proletariat organised as the ruling class” (Communist Manifesto) is essential. Because the

NSDAP phrased their adoption of socialism in this light it will be prudent to address socialism

in terms of basic economic policies and return to the question of democracy and end goals

later.

The NSDAP had a significant number of policies that echoed Marx’s general policy.

The following is a loose list of official NSDAP economic policies that they might have

considered to have been seized from the cowardly Marxists. From the “Emergency Economic

Program of the NSDAP” (Elsewhere, EEP) we glean a support for a worker’s “Right to a job”

a strong roll of the state in the economy characterized as “Economic prosperity will be

achieved only through a generous program of job creation, which will also restructure the

economy. Only the state is in a position to accomplish such a task.” (Sec. B. Method of

creating jobs, EEP) Sec. C “Land Reclamation” of the EEP calls for a number of projects that

would increase the amount of land available for cultivation. Under sec H. Administative and

tax measures they advocate increased taxes for high income earners. Sec. K “Industry” directly

calls for nationalization of monopolies and supervision of stock companies. Sec. M “Social

Questions” reinforces the right to work, the NSDAP’s commitment to social insurance and

care of the elderly. Additionally, Sec. M also calls for labor service wherein everyone is

obliged at some point in their late youth to “take a shovel in hand to serve the nation through

his labor.” The similarities between Marx’s general policies and the NSDAP’s are further

reinforced when we consider certain points of their 25 point program. More concretely, from

this document we can glean the policies of “the state shall above all undertake to ensure that

every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood… The first

duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work

11

that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all…the nationalization of

all trusts… profit sharing in large industries… possible for every capable and industrious

German to obtain higher education...The curricula of all educational establishments shall be

adapted to practical life… providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile

labor…” (Program of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party) Viewing this list in

comparison to the above Marxist list reveals a surprising number of similarities. If one

excludes minor Marxist policies regarding inheritance and the nationalization of transportation

and communication, which had already taken place in Germany, the Nazis’ political theory

parrots nearly all of the general Marxist policies.

While not bearing the same resemblance as their other “socialist” policies, Lebensraum

merits discussion by itself. Lebensraum appears similar to Marx’s proposed policy of

“Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the

distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the

country.” Lebensraum is very prevalent in NSDAP policy documents. Settlement of the east in

order to redistribute the population and allow for its future growth appears in their 25 point

party program, Mien Kampf, the EEP, and a number of speeches. More concretely, the idea

also spawned a number of theoretical works regarding its implementation. Gottfried Feder

wrote an expansive text proposing the construction of planned cities, 20,000 in population

each, across the east. Tilman A. Schenk and Ray Bromley, note how “it contains an

extraordinary mix of ideas that demonstrate how tightly urban planning and design can be

interwoven with the central political, social, and strategic concerns of the era.” (Mass-

Producing Traditional Small Cities: Gottfried Feder's Vision for a Greater Nazi Germany) The

exact details of the work are not relevant to the purposes of this paper, what is of importance is

12

the focus on social engineering; the planned redistribution of populations in accordance with

the Nazi worldview of race-struggle. While it places a greater emphasis upon rural community

and the reproduction of the German race and consequently differs from Marx’s notion of

redistributing the population in order to diminish the distinction between town and country,

there is a resemblance in both ideologies openness toward social engineering and the

redistribution of populations. However, it should be pointed out that the intent of both policies

was similar, the homogeneity of society. The Nazis on the one hand wanted to exterminate the

eastern Slavic population and replace it with what they considered their own superior race.

Marxism, similarly, wished to homogenize the population in terms of class distinctions.

Despite all of these apparent similarities, there are a number of Nazi policies that

conflicted with Marxist socialism. First and foremost the NSDAP defended private property

rights. In a document titled “The Programme of the Party of Hitler, the NSDAP its General

Conceptions” the Gottfried Freder states “National Socialism recognises private ownership as

a principle, and places it under State protection.”(p 14) Feder continues, “The spirit of the

whole Programme proves clearly that Nation Socialism, being a convinced and consistent

opponent of Marxism, utterly rejects its ruinous central doctrine of general confiscation, and

considers a permanent agricultural class to be the best and surest foundation for national

State.” (p 14) While this seems to be referring to only the seizure of agricultural property, it is

again reinforced when he reaffirms “National Socialism recognizes private property as a

pri(text missing) And protects it by law.” (p 30) This instance however is in conjunction with

Feder also claiming “The healthy combination of all forms of business, small (and) large, in

every domain of economic life, including agriculture shall be encouraged.”(p 30) Similarly,

when discussing how National Socialism differs from Bolshevism, Joseph Goebbels states

13

“National Socialism sees in all these things—in property, in personal values and in nation and

race and the principles of idealism—these forces which carry on every human civilisation and

fundamentally determine its worth.” (Communism with the Mask Off, 1935) The rejection of

private property is a fundamental element of Marxist socialism. The evidence clearly indicates

that the NSDAP supported property rights.

In addition to defending property rights, Nazism maintains a very different

interpretation of democracy compared to Marxism. Ostensibly, Hitler as the fuhrer would

embody the will of the German people, who would affirm his rule with occasional plebiscites.

Hitler refers to this as “Germanic Democracy” which he defines as (Mien Kampf p 117):

“The free choice of a leader with the latter’s obligation to take over full all

responsibility for what he does or does not do. There will be no voting by a majority on

single questions, but only the decision of the individual…”

Hitler, significantly later, when returning to the idea of Germanic democracy states “It is one

of the primary tasks of the movement to make this the determining principle, not only within

its own ranks but also for the entire state.” (p 479) This ideology was oft repeated and appears

in numerous party publications including a pamphlet titled “Not Empty Phrase, but Rather

Clarity” in which its author, Walter Tießler, appealed “If one translates the term ‘democracy’

literally, it means the ‘rule of the people.’ That is nowhere in the world so realized as it is in

Germany.” This was mostly, if not completely, ideology, as Hitler never achieved a

democratic majority and used his power to imprison political dissidents.

Marx in stark contrast advocated strongly for the extension of democracy. That is, he

states in the Communist Manifesto that “the first step in the revolution by the working class is

14

to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.” In other

words, workers are supposed to organize politically and use their sheer strength of numbers to

get what they want democratically. There is, however, some ambiguity that arises. In the

Critique of the Gotha Program Marx asserts “the state can be nothing but the revolutionary

dictatorship of the proletariat.” This is ambiguous because he offers little in way of an

explanation. If we are to give an optimistic reading of Marx we might read it to mean that the

proletariat as a class would seize power and use it in a dictatorial fashion to revolutionize

society. For better or worse, Marx remains largely non-prescriptive about what socialist or

communist society would look like. This is largely a consequence of his dialectical materialist

worldview in which the prevailing philosophy and the organization of society would result

from the new mode of production created by the ruling proletariat. Furthermore, there is the

Conspectus of Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy in which, in reply to Bakunin scoffing at the

idea that “The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be

member of the government?”, Marx notes “Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the

self-government of the commune.” Similarly Marx conflates the proletariat and the state

together when he affirms that “The proletariat will use its political supremacy to…. Centralize

all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e, of the proletariat organized as the

ruling class…” (Communist Manifesto) In other words, Marxism is a near absolute affirmation

of democracy extended across society.

Just like their surface level similarity in regards to democracy, Marxism and Nazism

also share a superficially similar view of the future that differs fundamentally at its core. More

specifically Nazism saw its actions as laying the foundation for the future of “Eternal

Germany” and Marxism saw the potential revolution as ending history. Both groups saw their

15

social changes as fundamentally changing the trajectory of history. As mentioned before,

Hitler saw the goal of the state was to put the German people in a dominating position. This is

exemplified by “Today we have the Führer as the great model toward whom each individual

German people’s comrade can strive and imitate. For eternity, however, the Führer gave the

German people a worldview able to guide all of its actions.” (Not Empty Phrases, but Rather

Clarity) They saw themselves as building a racial society that would be eternal in nature. The

phrases “eternal life” and “eternal Germany” recur frequently. Marxism sees “the history of all

hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Consequently, with the goal of

removing class distinctions, there would no longer be classes to struggle against one another.

By end of history, Marxism simply wishes to assert that class struggle would no longer define

or drive history once classes had been erased. That means that history as we know it would

end, predicated upon class struggle, but would continue in some other form. While the two

views are similar because both postulate a turning point in history after which history would be

fundamentally changed, it is important to note the significant differences. Nazism does not

present the same “end of history;” for Nazism the drive of race struggle would continue to

shape events. Additionally, Marxism is marked by a sense of dynamism in contrast to the

omnipresence of eternality in Nazism.

While it has been briefly touched on, the similarities and dissimilarities between

Marxist classlessness and Nazi racial homogenization merit discussion. At their face these two

notions appear similar in that they advocate for creating societies of similar individuals. There

are, however, a number of key differences. The Nazis clearly and unequivocally state “Only a

member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German

blood, without consideration of creed.” (The program of the NSDAP) This ethos is similarly

16

reflected in their policy regarding the settlement of the east. This policy is exemplified by

(Mein Kampf p609):

“…increasing the racially most valuable nucleus of the people and its very fertility, so

that finally the entire nationality may share the blessing of a high-bred racial treasure.

The way towards this is above all that the State does not leave the settlement of

newly won land to chance, but that it subjects it to special norms… Thus frontier

colonies can gradually be formed whose inhabitant are exclusively bearers of the

highest racial purity…as in them there lies the germ for the ultimate great future

development of their own people, even of mankind.”

This suggests that Nazism advocates the active homogenization of the population by the state

because of the perceived superiority of the German people. Marxism, in contrast, emphasizes

the disintegration of classes as a side effect of the proletarian seizure of power, rather than as a

direct state policy. This is outline by Marx in the Communist Manifesto:

“If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of

circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself

the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production,

then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the

existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have

abolished its own supremacy as a class.”

While this classlessness would also lead to a type of homogenization, it is of a distinctly

different character. Principally, it lacks a racial nature. And, the intent is diametrically

different; Marx states that “In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class

17

antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the

condition for the free development of all” (Communist Manifesto) In other words, the intent is

liberation and ending of class oppression. The intent behind the Nazi homogenization of the

population was a means to furthering race struggle and assuring the “dominating position” of

the German Volk.

Finally, it is prudent to examine antisemitism. The Nazis were brazenly and flagrantly

antisemitic. This is reflected in nearly every document produced by the NSDAP, their

countless speeches, and the nightmarish policies of the 3rd Reich. It is sufficient to assert that it

is self-evident. What is less evident is antisemitism’s place in Marxism. To be clear Marx was

an anti-Semite, this is clearly evidenced when he wrote “Lets us look for the secret of the Jew

not in his religion but rather for the secret of the religion in the actual Jew. What is the secular

basis for Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly cult of the Jew?

Bargaining. What is his worldly god? Money. Very well! Emancipation from bargaining and

money, and thus from practical and real Judaism would be the self-emancipation of our era.”

(On the Jewish Question, p 243) It should be noted that in the same text Marx claims “The

social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.” (p 248) This

suggests that Marx did not advocate for their murder but a type of assimilation into society.

Additionally, one ought to consider that (Maxist View of Race and Culture,p 117):

“Nineteenth-century genetics was predominantly "Lamarckian," that is, based on the

assumption that organisms actively adapt to their environments by acquiring

characteristics (both physical and behavioral) that over a period of time become

inherited… Given the assumption that acquired characters are heritable, it follows that

poor environments, whether natural or cultural, are almost inexorably bound to be

18

reflected biologically. "Backward” peoples, whatever the original reason for their

failure to develop, must after centuries of living in deprived environments become

biologically degenerate.”

Many worldviews were affected by the science of the time. British liberalism contemporary

with Marx mandated a number of policies in India that were based upon similar Lamarckian

ideas.(An Appeal to the Brahmins and Rajputs of Aauadh) However, that does not mean that

the Lamarckian conception of evolution nor notions of Punjabi or Rajput martial prowess are

inherent to Liberalism. Consequently, I submit that there ought to be made a distinction

between the thoughts of Marx and Marxism. In other words, a distinction between views that

Marx held, particulars of an individual and a time, and that which is essential to the

worldview. This point is reiterated by Jack Jacobs when he states “there was a rainbow of

perspectives within the socialist world on the Jewish question (as there was on virtually every

other question of theory and practice). Socialists were neither naturally inclined toward anti-

Semitism, nor immune from anti-Semitic sentiments…” (On Socialists and The Jewish

Question After Marx, p 3) While this refers to the broader idea of socialism than the particular

of Marxism, the point is hammered home by Engels, the co-author of the Communist

Manifesto, when he declared “anti-Semitism betokens a retarded culture, which is why it is

found only in Prussia and Austria, and in Russia too… we are far too deeply indebted to the

Jews… Many of our best people are Jews.” (On Anti-Semitism) We must conclude that,

though Marx was antisemitic, antisemitism was not inherent to Marxism.

Bearing this in mind, it is significant to note that Hitler and the Nazis often conflated

Marxism with the Jews. Hitler asserts “I took all the Social Democratic pamphlets I could get

hold of and traced the names of their authors: they all were Jews.” (Mein Kampf, p 80) and

19

continues later “While thoroughly studying the Marxist doctrines and by looking at the Jewish

people’s activity with calm clarity, Destiny itself gave me the answer. The Jewish doctrine of

Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle in nature…” (Mein Kampf, p 83) This combination

of Marxism with the Jews suggests a degree of distancing from Marxism by the Nazis.

In return to the starting question: examining the validity of Hermann Goring’s assertion

that Nazism “seized the concept of socialism from the cowardly Marxists” significant amounts

of evidence has been presented. The conclusion that we may draw does not fit neatly on either

end of the spectrum. Nazism was not the direct descendant of Marxism. Conversely, neither

does it lack any similarity. The answer must be nuanced and particular. In regards to

worldview, and specifically the differences between race struggle and class struggle that is

resultant from the mode of production, the two are very dissimilar. Furthermore, the two differ

in terms of the key issues of private property, the role and affirmation of democracy, and

internationalism. In contrast it is also evident that Nazism has a number of particular policies

in common with Marxism. Bearing in mind that Marx sees socialism as a transitional stage

between capitalism and communism it is not clear that the Nazis seized socialism from.

Though, it can be said that they certainly latched onto something from Marxism.

20

Bibliography

Engels, Frederick. "On Anti-Semitism." On Anti-Semitism by Frederick Engels April 19 1890. Marxists.org, 1890. Web. 08 May 2012. <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/04/19.htm>.

Engels, Fredrick. "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific." Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Marxists.org, 1993. Web. 08 May 2012. <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm>.

Feder, Gottfried. The Programme of the N.S.D.A.P.: And Its General Conceptions. Trans. E. T. S. Dugdale. Munich: Frz. Eher Nachf., 1932. Print.

Goebells, Joseph. "Communism with the Mask Off." Goebbels on Communism with the Mask Off. Calvin College, 1935. Web. 08 May 2012. <http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb58.htm>.

Goring, Hermann. "Hermann Goering Speech." Nationalism and Socialism. Calvin College, 1933. Web. 08 May 2012. <http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goering1.htm>.

Hitler, Adolf. "Mein Kampf." Wise. Willamette University, 1941. Web. 8 May 2012. <http://wise.willamette.edu/access/content/group/POLI-388W-01-12_SP/MeinKampf1939.pdf>.

Jacobs, Jack. On Socialists and "the Jewish Question" after Marx. USA: New York UP, 1992. Print.

Ley, Robert. "The Program of the NSDAP." The Avalon Project : Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression Volume IV - Document No. 1708-PS. Yale Law School, 1920. Web. 08 May 2012. <http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/1708-ps.asp>.

Marx, Karl. "Conspectus of BakuninâsStatism and Anarchy." �� Conspectus of Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy. Marxists.org, 1875. Web. 08 May 2012. <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm>.

Marx, Karl. "Critique of the Gotha Programme - Foreword." Critique of the Gotha Programme - Foreword. Marxists.org, 1891. Web. 08 May 2012. <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/foreword.htm>.

Marx, Karl. "Manifesto of the Communist Party." Communist Manifesto (Chapter 1). Marxists.org, 1848. Web. 08 May 2012. <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm>.

Paul, Diane. ""In the Interests of Civilization": Marxist Views of Race and Culture in the Nineteenth Century." Journal of the History of Ideas 42.1 (1981): 115-38. Print.

Schenk, Tilman A., and Ray Bromley. "Mass-Producing Traditional Small Cities:Gottfried Feder's Vision for a Greater Nazi Germany." Journal of Planning History 2.2 (2003): 107-39. Http://www.sagepublications.com. Sage Publications, May 2003. Web. 8 May 2012. <http://jph.sagepub.com/content/2/2/107>.

Strasser, Gregor. "NSDAP Economic Program (1932)." Emergency Economic Program of the NSDAP. Calvin College, 1932. Web. 08 May 2012. <http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/sofortprogramm.htm>.

21

Tießler, Walter. "Not Empty Phrases, but Rather Clarity." Not Empty Phrases, but Rather Clarity. Calvin College, 1942. Web. 08 May 2012. <http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/tiessler3.htm>.

Unknown. "An Appeal to the Brahmins and Rajputs of Aauadh." An Appeal to the Brahmins and Rajputs of Aauadh. Imperial War Museums, 2011. Web. 08 May 2012. <http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/31124>.