The difference between communism and Nazism

Nazism has recently become a hot topic in Brazil, with podcaster Monark and congressman Kim Kataguiri defending, in an episode of the Flow podcast, the legitimacy of a Nazi party and the expression of antisemitic sentiment. Adrilles Jorge, a former Big Brother Brazil contestant, joined the chorus on a Jovem Pan radio program. This is not the first time Nazism has become a topic of discussion in the Bolsonaro government – ​​former Secretary of Culture Roberto Alvim, in 2020, made references to Joseph Goebbels, being dismissed shortly afterward. Other minor incidents occasionally appear in the press. The far-right ideology, in times of the alt-right, has considerably moved out of the margins in recent years.

The immediate reaction from much of the country was one of repudiation, but conservative politicians and commentators reacted differently: stating that, yes, Nazism is repulsive, but so is communism, and both must receive the same treatment. The reaction is strange – even if someone harbors enormous contempt for communism, neither they nor any communist were involved in the accident. Far-left parties have a timid existence in Brazil, and unlike Nazism, basically no incidents have been recorded, except for a clash between the PCO and PSDB parties in 2021 demonstrations. Larger (center)-left parties have class conciliations and alliances with liberalism that are, in fact, harshly criticized by parties like the PCB. So it sounds curious and bizarre that the first reaction to a controversy involving Nazism is to equate it with communism – it sounds like relativization, from a government and allies that They were celebrated and linked to neo-Nazi figures on several occasions during their term.But what, ultimately, is the difference between Nazism and Communism? One is a far-right movement, and the other a far-left one. Wouldn't it make sense that both are types of extremism deserving the same condemnation? The answer is no; there are enormous differences between the two ideologies—differences that even social scientists and historians critical of communism acknowledge. This text does not aim to defend the virtues of communism, nor does it aim to criticize it. It is intended for sympathizers, neutrals, or harsh critics. For people on the left or right, what I write below is not my personal position, but a good-faith attempt to explain the difference.

Nazism: right-wing, based on racial extermination.

In short, the difference between the ideologies is that only Nazism advocates – and has as its main idea – the genocide of all races not included in the “Aryan race.” Nazism is based on pseudoscientific concepts that point to an idea of ​​racial purity, where its Aryans would be a “master race,” of pure blood, with the right to exterminate “inferior” races. Its great objective would be to conquer its “Lebensraum” (“living space”), where a utopia of racial eugenics would be achieved. Its plan for the total extermination of the Jewish population was called the “Final Solution,” put into practice during the Holocaust, where Slavs, communists, Roma people, homosexuals, blacks, Jehovah's Witnesses, the physically and mentally disabled, and other ethnic minorities were also systematically exterminated. As exemplified by a statement from the president in 2019, Nazism was accused of being a left-wing ideology, largely due to its name being translated as “National Socialist.” Another misconception, it ignores the fact that the bizarre term doesn't point to any link with socialism - the emphasis is on "national," pointing to an ultranationalist ideology, a conservative trait.

The intellectual dishonesty of these claims becomes blatant with a brief look at one of the first acts of the Nazi Party in power: precisely to persecute socialists, along with any center-left to far-left group operating in Germany. Hitler persecuted, sent to concentration camps, and killed everyone from more moderate social democrats to Bolsheviks and Marxists. The Night of the Long Knives, the purge that occurred in 1934, even persecuted internal factions of the Nazi Party that had any left-leaning inclination.

While the right wing can be found in abundance within Nazism, if the party persecuted the left when it came to power, the right wing… well, the Nazi Party only came to power due to alliances forged by Hitler with German conservatives and capitalists. The conservative businessman Alfred Hugenberg, of the German National People's Party (DNVP), was instrumental in Hitler's rise to power, hoping to use the Führer as a "tool" against the left. Hugenberg even became a member of the Nazi government. The Holocaust Explained foundation website explains it in detail. The alliances between Nazis and capitalists/conservatives/the right wing.

Furthermore, Nazis were filled with traits associated with the right: strong Christianity (reinterpreted, claiming that Jesus was an Aryan, not a Jew), the aforementioned ultra-nationalism, the strong patriarchal structure of society, militarization, elitism and opposition to class struggle, anti-internationalism, and the Holocaust itself being focused on non-normative figures in German society. 

The text could end here, since communism shares none of the traits mentioned above. But let's talk about it now.

The difficult definition of Communism.

Unlike Nazism, an ideology formed and put into practice specifically at a particular historical moment in Germany, communism is a complex concept that has been attempted in different places, in different ways, with varying results. The Communist Manifesto, published by Karl Marx in 1848, is an essential ancestor, but its development follows diverse paths, generally guided by the development of each political leader who attempted to implement the idea: Marxism, Leninism, Marx-Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Castroism, Leonism, etc. Theorists debate whether communism, as described by Marx, was ever even put into practice – a final stage where private property, currency, class, and money would be abolished. States like the Soviet Union, Cuba, and China have been associated with a kind of state capitalism, far removed from what real communism would be, with some critics being communists of other persuasions themselves. The transitional stage to communism would be socialism, where the proletariat would own the means of production, eliminating social inequality and putting into play Marx's most famous phrase: "If the working class produces everything, then everything belongs to it." But in practice, socialism has become a vague term, with even American social democrats like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez adopting it – usually alongside the word "democratic," a "democratic socialism" so as not to frighten Americans so much. The fact that the country of the "red scare" has its own idea of ​​"socialism" shows how vague its definition has become in recent years.

Similar to the "Pink Tide," which elected leftist leaders in Latin America in the 2000s, socialism has been used to refer to politicians who merely advocate for social programs, investments in public health and education, and other popular reforms, achieved through dialogue with bourgeois sectors, participation in traditional politics, and attempts at class conciliation—what might be better defined as social democracy—despised by communists who call for more revolutionary tactics. The "Red Scare," the anti-communist paranoia experienced worldwide under the shadow of the US during the Cold War, made the definition even more generous: even union members who merely demanded rights and wages, without necessarily having any contact with Marxism, were labeled as communists. Bolsonaro supporters shamelessly use the term to attack any opponent; even Globo, unbelievably, has been a victim. At times, in present-day Brazil, any minimally humanitarian project is denounced as communist.

All of this is an oversimplification – there are scholars more qualified than I to explain the many nuances of these leftist ideologies, but the point has already been made. In all these perspectives, no type of racial supremacy, eugenics, or advocacy of genocide is mentioned. These ideologies, when they talk about taking up arms to make a revolution, may defend violent action, but at no point do they defend the evils that made Nazism a unanimous example of absolute evil among basically all scholars.

Human lives were indeed lost under communism, but these were deaths of political enemies, some fought during wartime, others a consequence of the precarious conditions in some of these countries, and still others, in fact, violent repressions by authoritarian far-left leaders. None were caused by motivations of systematic racial extermination like Nazism. Deaths occurring in self-proclaimed communist regimes were in no way foreseen according to Marxist theory. Holocaust deaths were not only foreseen, but were the great objective of Nazi ideology. Each murdered Jew was a step to be celebrated in the Nazi rise; each death in a communist state came at a time of civil unrest, under the guise of revolution. There is no equivalence.

Deaths and culpability

Much debate surrounds the mass deaths that occurred in communist states, with arguments on both sides. The Holodomor, the great famine that occurred in Ukraine between 1932-1933, has been one of the major conservative arguments attempting to find some equivalence with the Holocaust. The status of the episode as genocide is still open to debate. Proponents point to Stalin's intentional aim in fighting political enemies.Opponents speak of a failure in the distribution of resources, pointing to the relations of Ukrainian nationalists with Nazism as a possible fabrication of a myth. History is violent, and such situations will be encountered throughout it – also in capitalism. The then British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, is similarly accused of orchestrating a great famine in Bengal, in British India, in 1943, where about 4 million Indians are said to have died. Defenders of non-genocide point to Churchill's incompetence in handling the situation during wartime, while accusers point to intentionality – including Indian authors and politicians who They describe the English as genocidal., And activists in England itselfThe history of US international interventions also opens the door to accusations of violence and massacres. From the use of the chemical weapon Agent Orange in the Vietnam War to the more recent drone strikes in Yemen, the framing of US accusations of war crimes has been debated. Countries like Iraq, invaded by the US under false pretenses of weapons of mass destruction, were heavily devastated. The list is extensive, with Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Iran, Iraq (again), Cambodia, Panama, among others, also suffering from interventions. Critics point out that the economic motivation – especially oil – of these wars also increases the banality of the lives lost and the immorality of the attacks. And all this history revolves only around the mid-20th century – going back a little, the racial logic behind indigenous genocide and slavery is perhaps more ideologically aligned with Nazism than any other contemporary ideology. But in the post-war world, everything is debatable, with researchers disputing the legacy of communism, the responsibility of communist countries for deaths, the possibility of communism working in practice; and the same being done with capitalist countries. There are researchers on both sides, and political influence is difficult to separate in this search for truth. The ghosts of the Cold War remain strong, and communism and capitalism continue to be the subject of emotional and heated debates. What is not debatable is Nazism. Nazism is one of the rare academic consensuses, something that cannot be relativized as a mere dishonest tactic to gain an advantage in the discussion above. Nazism is not equivalent to even the worst moments of communism – and you can despise, repudiate these moments, and even believe that communism will never work. But equating the two is an irrational obscurantism that ends up favoring Nazism – precisely by normalizing it.