Fascism's Hidden Marxist Roots: Part Two – Nazism's Socialist Core and Broader Implications

Charles "Ghost" Coutts
2 hours ago
9 min read

(Opinion) Threads

Welcome back for Part Two, picking up right where we left off in Part One. If you missed it, go check that out first; we laid the groundwork on fascism's Marxist roots through Gentile and Mussolini. Remember, I'm just your guide here, highlighting patterns and facts so you can see for yourself. No dictating truths—just pointing to what's there. In this part, we'll shift to Nazism, proving its socialist foundations, Hitler's own admissions, and how racism sets it apart as a twisted variant—but still tied to Marxism's methodologies and domination goals. We'll use the same step-by-step process we did for fascism in Part One: Starting with a quick Marxism recap, introducing the key connections, showing the leader's socialist start, examining programs and tactics, and noting the repositioning. This shows we can basically swap "fascism" for "Nazism" in that process and land on the same Marxist connection—the addition of racism is the main tweak, making it a darker offshoot but not changing the leftist core.

Then, to broaden things out and give some contrast, we'll look at what really stands on the opposite side: Free market capitalism, the system that actually empowers people and lifts them, unlike these collectivist twists. We'll keep it casual, step-by-step, and factual, with plenty of room to explain so it all clicks. The key point here—after all this digging—is that Marxism rallies around people (class), fascism around the state, and Nazism around racism, but they all rally around collectivism and world domination. That makes them siblings, not different ideologies. One change in methodology doesn’t birth a new ideology; it’s just a tweak of Marxism, nothing more. That’s the thread tying it all together—see it, and the picture gets clear. Let’s dive in.

For informational and educational purposes only.

First, a quick recap on Marxism from Part One, since it's the foundation: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' big idea—conflict theory, where society progresses through clashes between haves and have-nots—drives history toward a classless world. Socialism is the stepping stone (state control to redistribute), leading to communism (utopia without classes or state). But as we saw, real-world tweaks turn these into tools for total power.

Now, applying the same lens to Nazism: At its heart, it's another Marxist tweak, born in post-World War I Germany amid economic ruin and resentment. The "bridge" figure isn't as clear-cut as Gentile, but the ideology draws heavily from Marxist conflict ideas—replacing class with race as the clash point. Hitler and early Nazis adapted socialism nationally, much like Gentile did for fascism. Scholars like Dinesh D'Souza in "The Big Lie" (2017) call Nazism "national socialism" as a direct evolution, blending Marxist anti-capitalism with racial pseudoscience. Without the race twist, it's hard to separate from Marxism's state-driven collectivism.

Let's talk Hitler himself—he's the living proof, just like Mussolini. Adolf Hitler didn't start as a "right-winger"; his early path echoes leftist roots. In 1919, he joined the German Workers' Party (DAP), a small socialist-leaning group frustrated with capitalism's failures after the war. By 1920, they renamed it the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) to attract workers with that "socialist" label. Hitler rose quickly, shaping it with anti-capitalist rants. In Mein Kampf (1925), he critiques Marxism but praises its mass mobilization tactics, calling it a "great force" he could adapt. D'Souza points out in his documentary "Death of a Nation" (2018) that Hitler's speeches targeted "Jewish capitalists," blending socialist economics with racism—tweaking Marxism's class and fascisms state enemy into a racial one. That is the tweak.

Early Nazi plans mirror fascist (and Marxist) ones: The 1920 25-Point Program demanded nationalization of big industries, profit-sharing for workers, abolition of "unearned" income like interest (hitting banks), land reform without compensation, and free education/health for the poor. These are straight socialist demands—echoing Marx's call to seize production means. Hitler said in a 1927 speech: "We are socialists... enemies of the capitalistic economic system." Once in power (1933), the regime didn't privatize; it nazified the economy—state control over prices, wages, and output via the Labor Front, banning independent unions like in fascist Italy or Soviet Russia. Private owners kept titles, but the state directed everything for "national good"—a tweak on Marxist state socialism.

The tactics? Almost identical to fascism's, and thus Marxism's: One-party rule, propaganda (Goebbels' ministry like Mussolini's), secret police (Gestapo), youth indoctrination (Hitler Youth), leader cult ("Führer" principle). Both crushed opposition and used mass rallies for unity. Nazism's world domination—through wars for Lebensraum (living space)—paralleled fascist expansions and Marxist global revolution, just racialized. D'Souza argues this makes Nazism a "Marxist heresy," adapting class war to race war but keeping the leftist collectivist drive.

Racism is the big twist: Unlike Marxism's class conflict, fascism's national focus (state unity), Nazism made biology central—Aryans supreme, Jews the eternal foe. This led to eugenics laws (1933) and the Holocaust, adding unmatched horror. But even here, it's a Marxist tweak: Conflict theory applied to races, not classes. Without racism, Nazism looks exactly like national socialism—left-wing collectivism. If it walks like a duck... right!

And like fascism, Nazism got repositioned as "right-wing" post-war, emphasizing nationalism and anti-communism to distance it from leftist horrors. D'Souza calls this the "big lie"—a campaign to smear the right while hiding leftist ties. And it worked spectacularly!

Now, with fascism and Nazism both pegged as Marxist tweaks, let's broaden to what really opposes them: The true right-wing ideology, free market capitalism. This is the system that stands alone because it rejects the collectivist control at the heart of those left variants. But first, a quick note to clear up confusion—people often bash "capitalism" without getting the difference between types. "Capitalism" broadly means private ownership and profit-seeking, but it can go wrong with crony capitalism, where government meddles with favors, bailouts, or rules that protect big players and squash competition. That's the version that creates poverty by rigging the game—think lobbyists writing laws that hike prices for everyone else.

Free market capitalism, though, is the pure form: Private ownership with little to no government interference, letting people trade, innovate, and choose freely. This minimizes poverty by growing wealth for all through competition and opportunity. The stigma comes from mixing them up—folks see cronyism's greed and blame "capitalism," but that's not the free market; it's distorted, just another collectivist tweak where state and big biz team up. Mussolini himself said that fascism is the marriage of state and corporations. Sounds an awful lot like crony capitalism, does it not?

The proof? Free market capitalism lifts people like nothing else. World Bank stats show extreme poverty (under $2.15/day) dropped from 1.9 billion people (36% of the world) in 1990 to 659 million (8.5%) in 2019—mostly in market-opening countries like China (post-1978, poverty from 66% to less than 1%, lifting 800 million) and India (1991 reforms). Fraser Institute's Economic Freedom report (2024) makes it clear: The freest economies have average incomes over $50,000 per person and poverty rates around 2.7%, while the most repressed (often socialist-leaning) ones average $5,700 per person with 31.5% in poverty. The Heritage Index (2025) adds that freer markets mean longer, healthier lives—top countries like Singapore see life expectancy over 80 years and poverty under 1%, while bottom ones like Venezuela struggle with 80%+ poverty. Even the Cato Institute notes post-communist nations like Poland boomed, growing their GDP six times over since 1989 market reforms kicked in. The numbers do not lie.

The Impact of Crony Capitalism on Poverty (The real culprit)

Crony capitalism is a complex and often detrimental economic system that significantly contributes to the perpetuation of poverty. It distorts market dynamics through various means, particularly by implementing regulations that favor established firms while simultaneously raising prices for consumers and obstructing the entry of new startups. This creates an environment where innovation is stifled, competition is limited, and economic mobility is severely hindered. In regions characterized by high levels of cronyism, such as Argentina before its economic reforms, the consequences can be dire. There, poverty levels soared to an alarming 40% as a direct result of systemic corruption and the prioritization of political connections over merit-based economic practices. However, when reforms were introduced to promote freer market conditions, there was a notable decline in poverty levels, illustrating the potential of market-oriented policies to uplift the economically disadvantaged.

Comparison with Marxist Systems

In stark contrast, Marxist economic systems have historically made grand promises of equality and social justice, yet they always result in severe shortages and widespread poverty due to their totalitarian control over the economy. Venezuela serves as a contemporary example of this failure. Since the onset of its socialist slide in 1999, the nation has witnessed an unprecedented rise in poverty, with estimates indicating that by 2020, a staggering 96% of the population was living in poverty. The economic collapse was further exacerbated by a drastic 75% decline in GDP and astronomical inflation rates, peaking at an astonishing 1.3 million percent in 2018. This economic turmoil forced approximately 7 million Venezuelans to flee their homeland in search of better opportunities abroad, highlighting the dire consequences of a failed economic model.

Other Notable Examples

Cuba provides another illustrative case; reports indicate that around 88% of its population lives in extreme poverty, a testament to the failures of its socialist policies. Similarly, North Korea presents a grim picture, with about 60% of its citizens living in poverty, compounded by famines that have led to the deaths of millions. Historical examples from the USSR and Mao's China further reinforce the catastrophic outcomes associated with Marxist ideologies, where millions perished in famines resulting from poor economic planning and authoritarian governance.

The Fraser Institute's Findings

According to research conducted by the Fraser Institute, socialist economies tend to experience poverty rates that are six times higher than those found in capitalist systems. This stark statistic underscores the inherent inefficiencies and failures of centrally planned economies, which often prioritize ideological goals over the practical needs of their citizens.

Insights from Yaron Brook

In his enlightening lecture titled "Capitalism Cures Poverty," presented in 2025 and available on YouTube, Yaron Brook delves into the intricate relationship between economic systems and poverty levels. Utilizing a variety of charts and empirical data, Brook articulates how free markets inherently minimize poverty by fostering innovation, competition, and economic freedom. In contrast, he argues that crony capitalism and Marxist systems exacerbate poverty through their restrictive and corrupt practices.

In conclusion, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that while crony capitalism distorts market mechanisms and contributes to poverty, it is, in my mind, just another tweak to Marxist methodologies. Marxist systems are even more detrimental, promising equality but delivering widespread deprivation and suffering. The path to reducing poverty lies in embracing free market principles that empower individuals and encourage economic growth, innovation, and opportunity for all.

This all ties to collectivism—the mindset pushing Marxism: Group over individual, state deciding "common good." It contradicts US freedom—the Constitution protects our rights so we can pursue happiness our way. Collectivism says sacrifice for all; our system says voluntary wins. Marxism's collectivism kills incentive, breeding poverty; free markets reward effort, lifting everyone.

Common sense: If you use Marxist methods—like state control, anti-capitalism, total power—even with twists (nation/race), you're Marxist at core. That's the thread tying it all—see it, and the connections snap into place. Marxism rallies around people (class), fascism around the state, and Nazism around racism, but they all rally around collectivism and world domination. That makes them siblings, not different ideologies. One change in methodology doesn’t birth a new ideology; it’s just a tweak of Marxism, nothing more. Dig deeper; your choice. This exploration also provides validity to my belief that there are only two systems to choose from. Freedom, under Free Market Capitalism, or slavery under Marxism.

That's my perspective. Every ideology that leads to death, misery, and suffering can be traced back to the left, primarily through Marxism. This includes, to a significant extent, Crony Capitalism, which is the true source of poverty, not Free Market Capitalism. Crony Capitalism is a corrupt variant that misleads people into believing that the two are the same. This manipulation is similar to how historical figures like Giovanni Gentile have been obscured, causing many to conflate distinct concepts. We must remember that it is our responsibility to verify the truth of what we believe before adopting it. We have no one to blame for our ignorance but ourselves. The evidence is right in front of us; we just need to open our eyes and see it. Then comes the hard part: we must swallow our pride and accept it.

Something to think about, guys, until next time. ~Ghost