Breaking from our recent articles’ characters of being responses to basic anti-communist claims, we will go a little deeper into anti-communism and our responses to its claims. Something that anti-communists really like to use against the USSR and communism in general is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Non-Aggression Pact between the German Reich (Nazi Germany) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) that existed from 1939 until 1941. This pact is used as a supposed “example” of the “similarity” of communism and Nazism; worse, some use it to “prove” that the National “Socialists”, as the Nazis called themselves, were socialist! Here, we will explain the context of the pact, defend it due to its necessity, attack mythology against it, and prove that communism and Nazism are not the same.
Situation in Europe
The German bourgeoisie experienced a lot of trouble after Germany’s defeat in World War 1, the “Great War”. Germany had to pay a large war debt to the Allied Powers, and it tried to engage in imperialist expansion in what recently became the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) and its allies. German workers at home were furious, and many joined the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) in attempting revolution, though this was suppressed as the Social Democratic Party (SPD) collaborated with reactionaries of the Freikorps. The German bourgeoisie attempted to use inflation to pay its war debt, but this caused economic crisis in Germany. This, combined with the capitalist overproduction crisis which led to the Great Depression, completely weakened the German capitalist economy and agitated workers. Communism was on the rise in Germany.
Knowing what was at stake, the German capitalists did in Germany what their Italian class members did in Italy: support reactionary street gangs (“fascists”, as they called themselves in Italy, and “National Socialists” in Germany) in their attacks on communists as well as in their quest for taking power. The “social democrats”, who betrayed the communists in 1918-19 during their attempted revolution, went ahead yet again against the communists, attempting to repress their organizations. The German Communist Resistance by T. Derbent explains this well:
The SPD’s legalism led it to fight the communists rather than the Nazis. It was a socialist police prefect, Zörgiebel, who on May 1, 1929 opened fire on the Communist procession in Berlin, killing 33 demonstrators. It was the Prussian Socialist Interior Minister, Severing, who then had the Rote Frontkämpferbund banned. The following year, the Socialists allowed the adoption of the very repressive “Law For the Protection of the Republic”: the communist mayors were no longer confirmed in office and the police closed the KPD headquarters. The SPD voted for Article 48 (which would give full powers to Hitler) and was the main architect of the re-election in 1932 of Marshal Hindenburg, who would choose Hitler as chancellor a few months later. The same policy was followed in the large ADGB trade union, where the social-democratic leadership proceeded with massive exclusions of communists. On July 17, 1932, in Altona, a working-class district of Hamburg, the machine-gunners of the police force led by the Social Democrat Eggerstädt came to the rescue of a Nazi parade threatened by Communist counter-demonstrators: 17 counter-demonstrators were killed. These facts gave particular weight to Stalin’s 1924 analysis that “Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism… These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other.”
[Source]
Due to the popular support of communists (whose election results were pretty good for a party that had to compete with the Nazis, who practically controlled the elections with their thugs), the bourgeoisie allowed the Nazis to take power by making Adolph Hitler the Chancellor of Germany. Following this, the German bourgeoisie was able to enforce brutal dictatorship, suppressing workers’ movements, particularly the Communists; these workers’ movements were the main roadblocks to the expansion of German capitalist-imperialism, especially to its genocides against numerous ethnicities. Following this, antisemitic legislation got enacted. Opposition parties were suppressed, centralizing the bourgeoisie and uniting it.
To this suppression, the Western capitalist countries did not say anything; after all, they were all bourgeois dictatorships, so they had nothing against a new bourgeois dictatorship that had a very strong hatred of communism. Sure, it may have been antisemitic, but for the non-Jewish bourgeoisie, they would “get the job done”. They often used the claim that they simply “wanted peace” and “no more war”, even though that was simply untrue; they were the ones who wanted Russia to continue its participation in World War 1 when it, as the RSFSR, wanted to pull out of the war and develop in peace. They attempted everything to weaken the fledgling USSR, including forced sanctions and encirclement. They were the ones who gave Germany the harsh policies that enabled the rise of Nazism. They did everything violent, yet called for “peace”.
In contrast, the Soviets called for peace before the rise of Nazis. They did not want to get involved in war. “Socialism in one country” was the policy of the USSR, so it did not actively spread socialism yet; at most, it encouraged communist parties to revolt if possible. While Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan left the League of Nations, the Soviets joined it. In the face of German militarism, the Western bourgeoisie did nothing but watch it expand and give it concessions to postpone its inevitable attack against themselves. While the Soviets backed the Spanish Republic and its allies, the Germans backed Spanish monarchists and fascists, and American, British, and French capitalists looked on. The British capitalists, in a hypocritical action, financed the Nazis in their investments and loans.
Following the defeat of Spanish bourgeois democracy to fascism, when German imperialists invaded German-majority parts of Czechoslovakia, the Soviets called for a joint defense of the country with the West, but without the latter’s support, little could be done. Instead of defending Czechoslovakia, the Western countries and Poland partitioned the country, dividing it between Germany, Poland, and initially Czechoslovakia; later, Germany took the rest of Czechoslovakia. The West considered Bolshevism to be worse than Nazism, even after the communists attempted collaboration with liberal “democracy” numerous times. Many bourgeois governments signed non-aggression or alliance pacts with the Nazis. With all of this happening, the Soviets had no choice but to have non-aggression with the Nazis. By guaranteeing temporary peace with the Nazis, the Soviets acquired the needed time to build up its military industry; also, by giving itself a buffer of bourgeois governments to its West, the Soviets remained secure.
Now that we know all of this, we must defend the pact.
Why the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Was Justified
As the UK and its allies refused to work with the USSR against fascism, what could the Soviets do? The USSR was born encircled by imperialist countries and their puppets, and that was still the case. The Soviets needed a buffer to its West to ensure enough safety to develop its military. Therefore, in 1939, the USSR and Nazi Germany signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, a non-aggression pact between the two countries. The pact defined the German and Soviet “spheres of influence”; with this, the Soviets would be able to ensure that the existing bourgeois governments between them and Germany would have locations from which to sue for peace.
Many people say that this pact allowed the USSR to “partition” Poland with Germany. On the contrary, the Soviet interest was to maintain an independent Polish government in the region to exist as a buffer from Germany. However, this could not happen, for when Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, the Polish government fled their country, leaving millions of Poles behind. Because of the absence of the Polish government, the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact regarding Poland were inapplicable, for the Polish state ceased to exist. Because of this, German troops began marching beyond their defined sphere of influence. That is why the Red Army sent troops to Eastern Poland. (The lands that the Soviets took used to be part of the RSFSR before the Polish-Soviet War of 1920.) Grover Furr explains all of this in his work, “Did the Soviet Union Invade Poland in September 1939?” He says:
The Soviet Union signed the Nonaggression Pact with Germany not to “partition Poland” like the Allies had partitioned Czechoslovakia, but in order to defend the USSR.
The Treaty included a line of Soviet interest within Poland beyond which German troops could not pass in the event Germany routed the Polish army in a war.
The point here was that, if the Polish army were beaten, it and the Polish government could retreat beyond the line of Soviet interest, and so find shelter, since Hitler had agreed not to penetrate further into Poland than that line. From there they could make peace with Germany. The USSR would have a buffer state, armed and hostile to Germany, between the Reich and the Soviet frontier. …
When Poland had no government, Poland was no longer a state. (More detailed discussion below)
What that meant was this: at this point Hitler had nobody with whom to negotiate a cease-fire, or treaty.
Furthermore, the M-R Treaty’s Secret Protocols were void, since they were an agreement about the state of Poland and no state of Poland existed any longer. Unless the Red Army came in to prevent it, there was nothing to prevent the Nazis from coming right up to the Soviet border. …
Once the Nazis had told the Soviets that they, the Nazis, had decided that the Polish state no longer existed, then it did not make any difference whether the Soviets agreed or not. The Nazis were telling them that they felt free to come right up to the Soviet border. Neither the USSR nor any state would have permitted such a thing. Nor did international law demand it.
At the end of September a new secret agreement was concluded. In it the Soviet line of interest was far to the East of the “sphere of influence” line decided upon a month earlier in the Secret Protocol and published in Izvestiia and in the New York Times during September 1939. This reflected Hitler’s greater power, now that he had smashed the Polish military.
[Source]
Anna Louise Strong also wrote on the pact in Chapter Seven of The Stalin Era:
The British saw the meaning of that march better than did the Americans. Americans still speak of Stalin as “Hitler’s accomplice” in cynically dividing Poland. But Winston Churchill said in a radio broadcast October 1: “The Soviets have stopped the Nazis in Eastern Poland; I only wish they were doing it as our allies.” Bernard Shaw, in the London Times, gave “three cheers for Stalin,” who had given Hitler “his first set-back.” Even Prime Minister Chamberlain sourly told the House of Commons, October 26: “It has been necessary for the Red Army to occupy part of Poland as protection against Germany.” The Polish government-in-exile, which was in flight through Romania at the time but reached London some weeks later, never ventured to declare that Soviet march an act of war.
The population of the area did not oppose the Russian troops but welcomed them with joy. Most were not Poles but Ukrainians and Byelo-Russians. U.S. Ambassador Biddle reported that the people accepted the Russians “as doing a policing job.” Despatches told of Russian troops marching side by side with retiring Polish troops, of Ukrainian girls hanging garlands on Russian tanks. The Polish commander of the Lvov garrison, who for several days had been fighting against German attack on three sides, quickly surrendered to the Red Army when it appeared on the fourth side, saying: “There is no Polish government left to give me orders and I have no orders to fight the Bolsheviks.” That there was some opposition but only from small bands was shown by the casualty figures later released by the Red Army—737 dead and 1,862 wounded. Many of these occurred in the taking of Vilna by a small motorized force which was ordered to “reach Vilna by midnight“ from seventy miles away.
The American view that Stalin and Hitler had partitioned Poland in advance is not borne out by the way the partitioning occurred. The boundary between Germans and Russians changed three times before it was fixed at a conference, September 28. It is unlikely that German troops drove all the way to Lvov and attacked it for several days in order to give that city to the USSR. Nor is it likely that the Russians would have incurred casualties by rushing to Vilna, if the city had been allocated to them in advance. It seems probable that some statement of Russia’s interest in the non-Polish areas of Poland had been made, but that the march as it took place was not agreed in advance.
[Source]
Politsturm, a “Marxist-Leninist” organization, explained how the Soviet liberation of Poland was necessary:
The course of the war reveals which country best acted for the liberation, restoration and prosperity of the Polish.
Polish bourgeois government had done everything possible to undermine its own security and nothing to meaningfully protect their people from the genuine threats of invasion and genocide. They elicited Nazi subjugation by acting in the interest of their national capitalists, leaving their home unprotected by real allies and abandoning the inhabitants of the Polish Republic to foreign flight and servitude. In the battle for their country, Polish troops were the equal of any nation in resilience and unbreakable fighting spirit. Over 400 thousand soldiers surrendered to the Nazis, and the same number were captured by Soviet troops; 80% of the total Polish army. …
The Soviet Union did the most of any nation for Poland and Polish people.
Since 1933, the USSR fought to protect Poland from German aggression, recognizing their importance as ‘German’ territories in the Polish state. The Soviet Union further rejected the “policy of appeasement” that had been pressured by the imperialists and opposed the annexation of Polish territories that the imperialists had facilitated in Czechoslovakia. Collective security supposed, from the very beginning, the participation of the Polish Republic in order to guarantee its territorial integrity and state sovereignty in the Soviet guarantee of protection from aggression and support during the defensive war.
[Source]
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact did not define how history played out in Poland alone. Other countries in Eastern Europe were involved with this. (All of the information from here until the end of the section is from The Stalin Era.) Romania had the threat of pro-Nazi fascist uprisings by the Iron Guard, but as Soviet troops entered Poland and got close to Romania, these fascists stopped their activities. Romania also gave Bessarabia (Romania stole this from the RSFSR in 1918), a region rich in grain that the Nazis desperately wanted; this return of Bessarabia to the USSR encouraged Soviet-backed Balkan anti-fascists to resist Nazi takeover. The Balkans, being rich in food and oil, proved to be hard for the Nazis to take, and this was thanks to the non-aggression pact; the Nazis could not attack the Soviets, but the Soviets had every right to supply the Nazis’ enemies, and they used that right as much as possible.
The Soviets tried negotiations with Finland to reduce its threat to Leningrad (by moving its border further from the city), but Finland responded aggressively. When the Soviets destroyed the Mannerheim Line, a series of forts designed to assist the Nazis in their invasion of the USSR, Finland surrendered, allowing the USSR to gain a buffer to protect it from the North; despite winning the war, the Soviet terms for Finland were generous, returning nickel mines and showing willingness to supply food. Doing this allowed Sweden to be neutral, rather than hostile, to the USSR, making the benefits of peace more profound. Again, this was only possible due to the pact.
The Baltic states, who were technically allied to the Soviets because they gave them military bases, started turning more pro-Nazi, especially since the Nazis started marching eastward. The USSR sent more troops to their military bases in these countries (even Lithuania, which was in the German sphere of influence, but was still a Soviet ally), and since these countries were all allies, this was not an invasion. The pro-Nazi officials fled the countries, and the Baltic states volunteered to join the USSR as new Soviet Socialist Republics because their workers wanted this. Yet again, the Nazis could not fight the Soviets, and the Soviets got a buffer against the Nazi invasion.
From the Baltic Sea to the Balkan Peninsula, the USSR got a buffer belt that checked Hitler more times than all of Western Europe did, and this was due to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Not once did the USSR want more land; it always wanted peace, and its doctrine of “socialism in one country” showed that. Nevertheless, as the USSR became a non-aggressor to Nazi Germany, bourgeois governments in Eastern Europe understood the necessity to allow the Soviets to protect them. Hitler knew the seriousness of this pact, and knowing that the Soviets stopped his expansion numerous times, he and his allies made the decision to invade the USSR on June 22, 1941, launching the largest invasion in human history.
Now that we showed that the non-aggression pact was not an alliance (with many examples showing the opposite), we will debunk the myth that Nazism and communism are the same.
Why Nazism and Communism Are Not the Same, but Are Opposites
A common claim that liberal capitalists make is the notion that Nazism and communism are “siblings” in “totalitarianism”, “socialism”, or some other misused term. A less-common, but still significant idea is that Nazism and communism are the same in essence and only different on the surface. These claims could not be further from the truth.
To start off, Nazism claims to be “National Socialism”, and that is the primary reason for confusion. “National Socialism” is a variant of fascism, specifically one that endorses biological racism as opposed to classical fascism’s “spiritual” racism. Regardless of its views on race, we must understand that it is fascist, and fascism is very much against genuine socialism. Benito Mussolini, one of the most famous fascists, explicitly attacked socialism for it being class-based, rather than nation-based, in his Doctrine of Fascism:
No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State. Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon.
[Source]
This makes perfect sense since Italy’s bourgeoisie used fascists to suppress the socialist revolution occurring in the country. The Biennio Rosso, or the “Red Biennium” or “Red Two Years”, ended as the capitalist class and state allied with the fascist Blackshirts to kill, arrest, and suppress socialists and communists in Italy. Obviously, the fascists opposed socialism. Likewise, the Nazis were not actual socialists. To quote Georgi Dimitrov’s “The Fascist Offensive and the Tasks of the Communist International in the Struggle of the Working Class against Fascism”:
Comrades, fascism in power was correctly described by the Thirteenth Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International as the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital.
The most reactionary variety of fascism is the German type of fascism. It has the effrontery to call itself National Socialism, though it has nothing in common with socialism. German fascism is not only bourgeois nationalism, it is fiendish chauvinism. It is a government system of political gangsterism, a system of provocation and torture practised upon the working class and the revolutionary elements of the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia. It is medieval barbarity and bestiality, it is unbridled aggression in relation to other nations.
German fascism is acting as the spearhead of international counter-revolution, as the chief instigator of imperialist war, as the initiator of a crusade against the Soviet Union, the great fatherland of the working people of the whole world.
Fascism is not a form of state power “standing above both classes — the proletariat and the bourgeoisie,” as Otto Bauer, for instance, has asserted. It is not “the revolt of the petty bourgeoisie which has captured the machinery of the state,” as the British Socialist Brailsford declares. No, fascism is not a power standing above class, nor government of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen-proletariat over finance capital. Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its most brutal form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations.
This, the true character of fascism, must be particularly stressed because in a number of countries, under cover of social demagogy, fascism has managed to gain the following of the mass of the petty bourgeoisie that has been dislocated by the crisis, and even of certain sections of the most backward strata of the proletariat. These would never have supported fascism if they had understood its real character and its true nature.
[Source]
Now, if the Nazis were not socialists, why did they call themselves such? We should examine their leaders’ “definitions” of their “socialism”. Joseph Goebbels’s “The Nazi-Sozi”, a Nazi propaganda publication, shows us what the Nazis meant by “socialism”. Unlike Marxist socialism, National “Socialism” showed opposition to class struggle. It says (with our emphasis for the reader):
We will take Germany’s fate in our hands. We will resolve the question of socialism, radically and completely, disregarding tradition, education, wealth, social standing and class. Our only concern will be the future of the creative German people.
[Source]
By denying the class reality of their movement, the Nazis really showed how much of a bourgeois movement they really were. Only those who side with capitalism can try to deny that they side with either capitalists or workers. In this publication, Goebbels strictly opposes Marxism, calling it “Jewish”, and proclaiming that Jews are bad. This is idealism, not the materialism that Marxist socialism is based on. With this, we cannot seriously equate Nazism and communism.
We will even quote Adolph Hitler himself on the matter. In his speech on December 28, 1938, he stated:
A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term ‘Socialist’ has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.
[Source]
Hitler’s attacks on Marxism are unfounded, for actual socialism as seen in the USSR actually rewarded individual effort more than capitalism. On top of this, Hitler is wrong about inventions, for inventions and innovation are the products of many people working together as well as the knowledge laid out by people of the past; innovation comes about from collaboration, not individuals’ work alone. Nonetheless, this passage is evidence to show that Hitler was no “socialist” as commonly understood.
What is probably the most well-known feature of Nazism is its anti-Semitism. It just so happens that Marxism is against anti-Semitism. Vladimir Lenin said this on anti-Semitism:
Anti-Semitism means spreading enmity towards the Jews. When the accursed tsarist monarchy was living its last days it tried to incite ignorant workers and peasants against the Jews. The tsarist police, in alliance with the landowners and the capitalists, organised pogroms against the Jews. The landowners and capitalists tried to divert the hatred of the workers and peasants who were tortured by want against the Jews. In other countries, too, we often see the capitalists fomenting hatred against the Jews in order to blind the workers, to divert their attention from the real enemy of the working people, capital. Hatred towards the Jews persists only in those countries where slavery to the landowners and capitalists has created abysmal ignorance among the workers and peasants. Only the most ignorant and downtrodden people can believe the lies and slander that are spread about the Jews. This is a survival of ancient feudal times, when the priests burned heretics at the stake, when the peasants lived in slavery, and when the people were crushed and inarticulate. This ancient, feudal ignorance is passing away; the eyes of the people are being opened.
It is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people. The enemies of the workers are the capitalists of all countries. Among the Jews there are working people, and they form the majority. They are our brothers, who, like us, are oppressed by capital; they are our comrades in the struggle for socialism. Among the Jews there are kulaks, exploiters and capitalists, just as there are among the Russians, and among people of all nations. The capitalists strive to sow and foment hatred between workers of different faiths, different nations and different races. Those who do not work are kept in power by the power and strength of capital. Rich Jews, like rich Russians, and the rich in all countries, are in alliance to oppress, crush, rob and disunite the workers.
Shame on accursed tsarism which tortured and persecuted the Jews. Shame on those who foment hatred towards the Jews, who foment hatred towards other nations.
Long live the fraternal trust and fighting alliance of the workers of all nations in the struggle to overthrow capital.
[Source]
Joseph Stalin explained the USSR’s stance on anti-Semitism:
National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-Semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism.
Anti-Semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-Semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-Semitism.
In the U.S.S.R. anti-Semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-Semites are liable to the death penalty.
[Source]
Hitler and the Nazis even accused Marxism of being “Jewish” in nature. His book, Mein Kampf, is riddled with anti-communist ramblings against Bolshevism and Marxism as well as their supposed connections with Judaism (all emphasis here is ours):
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism repudiates the aristocratic principle of Nature and substitutes for it the eternal privilege of force and energy, numerical mass and its dead weight.
[Source]
In addition, he explains the reasons for the Nazis’ “socialist” symbolism in this text:
We chose red for our posters after particular and careful deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings—if only in order to break them up—so that in this way we got a chance of talking to the people.
[Source]
Lastly, to completely prove that the Nazis were not socialist, we will explain how the mode of production in Nazi Germany differed from that of the USSR.
- In the USSR, the workers sought to socialize more and more of the means of production after the New Economic Policy of the 1920s. In Nazi Germany, the term privatization was coined to describe what was happening as many enterprises were sold to private capitalists.
- Soviet enterprises were controlled by the workers’ state and collective farmers’ units; there was democracy for the workers and farmers. Nazis, like all fascists, were explicitly anti-democratic, and both the private and state enterprises were undemocratic and controlled by the capitalist class, the minority of the population. The state was a bourgeois dictatorship in Germany, while it was a proletarian state in the USSR.
- Class conflict was waged against the capitalist class and its ideologues in the USSR; while Stalin briefly denied class conflict’s existence after collectivization was complete, his understanding shifted as capitalist elements rose to prominence in the Soviet state. The Nazis were fiercely against class conflict on paper; in practice, they sided with the capitalist class by suppressing unions, workers’ parties, etc. and by forcing workers to join “corporations” (not to be confused with joint-stock corporations), which were “unions” between workers, the state, and capitalists. These corporations were used to enforce “class collaboration”, which was really supporting the bourgeoisie in class conflict.
There is more proof against the myth that Nazism is “socialist”. Nazism was and is very imperialist, while communism is anti-imperialist and internationalist. Communists supported gender, racial, and national equality (as we briefly touched upon with regards to anti-Semitism); Nazis focused on dividing the roles of men and women, and they were chauvinist against Slavic peoples as well as others. (They did use national traitors from such nations, but this was an exploitative relationship, not collaborative.) We cannot delve into these right now because this article is already too long! The proof that we provided already is more than enough to show the complete antagonism between Nazism and communism, and it shows how Nazi “socialism” is not socialist.
Conclusion
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact has been unfairly demonized; when we observe it in its context, we can see that it was actually necessary for the USSR. It was able to check German imperialism in Eastern Europe many times before Operation Barbarossa. Nazism and communism are not similar, but opposites, and Nazism is not socialist. As communists, we are very much anti-fascist, and we are sure as hell anti-Nazi, for fascism is the terroristic dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
You can see this article on our other pages:
Maoism For The Masses 
Leave a comment