because they fell for the propaganda. > even aside from the fact that other conservative and liberal parties actually voted for full powers to hitler in 1933, his regime was characterized by massive interventions to help out private business. and the social darwinism championed by the nazis, counting the unproductive as mere wasteful expense, obeyed the logic of judging human life by the yardstick of profit. > anti-communists faced the challenge of gaining access to socialist strongholds and convincing as many working-class voters as possible. so, they had to present their policies as agreeing with the interests of the working class. the trick was to benefit from the popularity of socialism, which was widely seen as the force of the future, but at the same time to distance themselves as much as possible from its substance. > the nazis placed great emphasis on private property and free competition. > by the term socialism they didnt mean anything that we would even remotely recognize as socialist, but rather their policy of intervening in the free market for the benefit of the capitalists. by the term marxism, on the other hand, they meant social democracy and the protection of basic workers rights. > when did intellectuals actually start writing books accusing the nazis of having pursued socialist economic policies? when did they start accusing the nazis of having assisted the masses at the expense of the bourgeoisie? exactly at the time that politicians tried to impose neoliberal reforms on the labor market.   rmany-national-socialism-hypercapti alism-social-darwinism-liberalism
Australia