The Complicated History Behind Musk’s ‘Hitler Was A Socialist’ Claim

This morning Elon Musk posted on 𝕏 that “Hitler was a socialist, therefore all socialists are Hitler.” Senator Mike Lee amplified the substance of the claim with a sharper formulation, namely that fascism and Nazism are not the opposite of socialism, as the modern left would have you believe, but are themselves socialism. Musk reposted Lee. The reaction from the drive-by media and even Grok was prompt and uniform. Fascism, we were told, belongs to the right. Socialism belongs to the left. To suggest otherwise is to deny what every serious historian supposedly knows.

That reaction is wrong, or at least far too confident. The question is contested both empirically and definitionally, and serious thinkers including Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, A. James Gregor, Zeev Sternhell, Sheldon Richman, and Jonah Goldberg have argued the opposite of the prevailing classroom story. The case for Senator Lee is not a tweet. It is a careful, structured argument grounded in primary texts and institutional history. Let me walk through it patiently.

Begin with the definitional question, because most of this debate collapses under definitional pressure. If by socialism one means the abolition of private title, the establishment of worker councils, and an internationalist class emancipation, then fascism and Nazism are not socialism. Both regimes denied historical materialism, ridiculed proletarian internationalism, and crushed independent labor unions. That much is true. But this narrow reading is not how socialists themselves have always defined the term, and it is not how the most serious 20th century critics of socialism, namely the Austrian School, defined it either. Hayek made the point bluntly in “The Road to Serfdom.” The decisive feature of socialism is not the legal title to firms but the central direction of economic life by political authority. Mises went further. A regime in which owners retain nominal title but the state fixes prices, wages, capital allocation, foreign exchange, output mix, and labor placement is, in Mises’s terminology, the German pattern of socialism, distinguished from the Russian pattern only by the bookkeeping. On that test, the Third Reich qualifies. So does Mussolini’s Italy.

Consider the genealogy first. Benito Mussolini was not a confused convert from the right. He was, before the First World War, the editor of Avanti!, the official newspaper of the Italian Socialist Party, and a member of its national directorate. His break with the party in 1914 was over the war, not over economics. He retained the Marxist analytical scaffolding and substituted the nation for the class as the unit of solidarity. Giovanni Gentile, the philosophical architect of fascism and Mussolini’s coauthor on “The Doctrine of Fascism,” stated the matter without coyness. “Fascism,” he wrote, “is a form of socialism, in fact, it is its most viable form.” That is not a critic’s accusation. It is the founder’s self-description.

The early documentary record matches the genealogy. The 1919 “Fascist Manifesto,” the founding political program of the movement, demanded the eight-hour day, a minimum wage, worker representation on industry commissions, the systemization of railways and transport, the nationalization of arms factories, a strong progressive levy on capital, the seizure of church property, and confiscation of war contract profits. That is not the platform of a chamber of commerce. The 1927 Charter of Labour, the doctrinal core of fascist political economy, defined work as a social duty, recognized only state-controlled unions, treated corporations as state organs, and authorized state intervention in production by, in its own words, control, encouragement, or direct management. The “Verona Manifesto” of 1943 went further still, calling for parastatal management, factory co-management by workers and technicians, profit sharing, expropriation of badly managed land, and a national minimum wage.

Germany’s record is, if anything, more vivid. The 1920 program of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, on which Hitler campaigned and which the party never formally repudiated, demanded state-guaranteed employment, a general duty to work, abolition of unearned income, confiscation of war profits, nationalization of trusts, profit sharing in large industries, expanded pensions, communalization of department stores, and expropriation of land for public utility without compensation. Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary that he was “a German communist” in spirit and that the bourgeoisie deserved destruction. Gregor Strasser and his brother Otto, who led the party’s left wing for years, were not embarrassed about the word socialist in the party’s name. They thought it described the program. Hitler himself, in a speech in May 1927, declared, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” A reader who insists that all of these men were merely posturing is owed an explanation of why the posture was so consistent across so many years and so many speakers.

The institutional record is the strongest part of the case, and it is the part most often skipped. In Italy, the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction, established in 1933, became by 1939 the largest state-owned industrial holding outside the Soviet Union. The Bank of Italy’s own historical surveys note that the IRI eventually held 100% of the iron, steel, and coal extraction industries, 90% of naval industry, 80% of locomotive production, and over 40% of all Italian shareholders’ capital. Italian peacetime corporatism was not laissez-faire with a flag on top. It was a regime of state credit, mandatory labor courts, single recognized unions, public works on an unprecedented scale, mandatory hiring through registered channels, and an expansive welfare apparatus covering accident insurance, maternity assistance, sickness coverage, unemployment insurance, and youth endowment. Mussolini compared it favorably with Roosevelt’s New Deal and called it the realization of socialism’s economic aims through the ethical state.

In Germany, the Four Year Plan of 1936 placed the entire economy on a war footing under Hermann Goering, with Hitler’s accompanying memorandum tying autarky and production priorities to a fixed political timetable. The Reichswerke Hermann Göring was a vast state enterprise that absorbed expropriated and conquered assets. The Hereditary Farm Law and the Reich Food Estate subjected agriculture to coordinated state regulation. Independent trade unions were abolished in May 1933 and replaced by the Deutsche Arbeitsfront, a state-organized monopoly labor body that incorporated workers through Strength Through Joy leisure programs, vacation subsidies, public health initiatives, and welfare allotments. The historian Götz Aly has documented in detail how the Nazi state functioned as a redistributive welfare apparatus for ethnic Germans, financed by plunder of Jews and conquered peoples. Robert Ley, the head of the DAF, told German workers in 1939 that the Reich had given the world an example of a socialist order, opposing work to money bags. Industrial firms remained nominally private, but managers operated under licensing, rationing, foreign-exchange controls, procurement priorities, capped profits, and restricted dividends. Hayek’s test is satisfied. Mises’s test is satisfied. The fact that legal title remained on paper is precisely the point.

What about the obvious objection that fascism rejected class struggle and was savagely hostile to the actual socialist parties of Europe? That objection is true and important, and it is the strongest argument on the other side. But it does not establish that fascism was capitalist or right-wing in any economically meaningful sense. It establishes that fascism was a rival socialism. The Strasserite phenomenon of the Beefsteak Nazi, brown on the outside and red on the inside, was numerous enough to be a recognized term of art in Weimar Germany, and Communist Party members migrated by the thousands directly into the SA after 1933. Both movements recruited from the same pools of disaffected workers, both used mass rallies and revolutionary aesthetics, and both denounced finance capitalism, department stores, and the bourgeoisie. The deep structure that A.) James Gregor identified is collectivism, namely the conviction that the individual exists for the group, that dissent is treason, and that the state organizes all of social life. Whether the favored collective is the proletariat, the nation, or the race is a secondary matter. The rejection of individual rights, market exchange, and limited government is shared.

This is what Senator Lee meant, and what Musk meant, and what serious scholars have argued for nearly a century. The opposite of socialism is not Nazism. The opposite of socialism is classical liberalism, the order of property rights, contract, individual conscience, limited government, and voluntary exchange. Fascism and Nazism are not on the side of that liberal order. They are on the other side, alongside their Marxist cousins, fighting under different banners for the same anti-liberal cause.

The phrase “as the modern left would have you believe” is doing real work in Lee’s post. The denial that fascism shares a family with socialism is not an innocent classification. It is a political maneuver, designed to disconnect the modern left from any uncomfortable lineage and to monopolize the moral high ground against a “right wing” that, by the actual record, fought and died opposing both Hitler and Stalin. American conservatives, drawing on the Heritage Foundation, the Mises Institute, and decades of careful scholarship, are not asking anyone to call all socialists Hitler. They are asking that the historical and conceptual record be read honestly. On that reading, Lee is right and the textbooks are sloppy. The burden of proof now lies with those who insist otherwise.

If you enjoy my work, please subscribe: https://x.com/amuse.

Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

READ NEXT: Congressman Accused Of Abusing US Senator’s Daughter