Anarcho-Syndicalist Adolf Hitler did not ‘Abolish Unions’ he Augmented them

I guess the time is overripe to do some writing about Naziism and its parallels to Obama’s “Organizing for” and nationalization of America.  Much of that has to do with union domination of both public and private concerns.

Here is an excellent little report from The Graph, which scratches the surface.  It explains how the current group-think blather of neo-Marxists, so often repeated in Madison, Wisconsin lately that, “Hitler abolished the unions,” is a classic, propagandist lie.

Actually, he took unionists’ utopianist, anarcho-syndicalist dreams and folded them into the ministerial control of fascism, like eggs into a batter.  What a coincidence for Barry O.

Hitler Didn’t Outlaw Unions – As a National Socialist, He Went Double-Down On Them

Posted on 21. Feb, 2011 by Brooks Bayne in Articles

Time and time again, the collectivist left in America chooses hyperbole when championing their economy-killing objectives. Most recently, as in the case of the socialist union (yes, they were created by socialists and Marxists)  protests in Wisconsin, you see many signs being wielded by the neo-Marxist rubes stating, “Hitler banned unions”. The purpose of this urban legend-styled disinformation, of course, is a weak attempt to paint Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker as a Nazi, even though the Nazi’s were national socialists who subscribed to most of the tenets of modern American leftists.

continues, please finish there

Also from that article, this kind of symbology deserves an article all its own.  This is an actual, Nazi banner from 1930’s Germany.



  1. Actually they were Fascists that suppressed unions. They also destroyed their Liberal, Socialist, and Communist opposition. Check “”The Third Reich in Power” by Richard J. Evans (2005).

    • Actually they were Fascists that suppressed independent unions, While co-opting them into a greater union umbrella. National Socialists are liberal, “progressive” in most respects, according to Adolf Hitler himself.

      Hitler said: “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

      Check the rise and fall of the third Reich, instead of some co-opted hack piece put on by a dedicated pro-union Obama hack.

      • I appreciate your references, Toaster. What you describe is what we mean by “augmenting” and it is similar to what is being done with unions, today in America, especially public unions.

      • Actually, that “We are socialists, enemies of today’s capitalists economic system” comment was not made by Hitler but by Gregor Strasser, an influencial member of the NSDAP that Hitler had murdered on the night of long knives.

        At least get your history right before spreading it around.

        • Words to the same effect are also in the manifesto of the Duce himself, Benito Mussolini, father of Fascism. Like Adolph Hitler, he was a Marxist, disillusioned by the ineffectiveness of and lack of “sustainability” of strict Communism. He sought a better way of binding effectively all of society into one controlled unit (think of Sauron, his rings, and Mordor). And that is where we get the concept of corporatism, practiced in numerous of America’s fallacious policies, e.g., Obamacare.

  2. Chemiczny Bogdan says

    This is true only if “augmenting unions” means “systematically killing trade unionists”. Seriously, he did abolish _free_ trade unions and those that remained were under full control of the state. Dissidents were eliminated.

    • CB, you describe to a T, what Marxists and quasi-Marxists do. See: American union leadership. First comes the broad, spoon-fed coalition for the revolution; after that succeeds come the purges.

  3. Wow I found it. The most stupid page, in the whole histroy of internet! Fantastic! But I guess this is just a joke, is it not?

    • The "1930s" Flag Isn't Real says

      I know, right? Nothing special about the stupid at play…. actually pretty common…. and then we get to the bottom of the article with a humdinger of an a-historical proffering of bullshit in the form of a flag which never existed before… being REALLY generous here…. gonna say… never existed before 2003. Hell. I’m willing to bet it was created specifically for the game Nation States inspired by the book Jennifer Government. Why?? Because that- and flags like that- were used by people on that game EVERYWHERE. And extra points for in my instance of the webpage? The selected quotations includes to the right include a red colored bolding of a supposed quote by Jesus Christ ““’Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money?’” Jesus Christ, in a parable of a “capitalist,” Mt. 20:15” Yeah. That parable don’t exist. And I’m pretty sure the ONLY thing that penniless fictitious hippy ever said about money was this: “Render under Caesar that which is his.” Oh, and casting the money lenders and merchants out of the temple. There was that whole thing. Another selected quote- oh this IS good (in the worst way possible) Proverbs 22:7 NASB (New American Study Bible) “The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower becomes the lender’s slave.” Which… just… holy shit. The NASB is a REALLY bad translation of the bible. Just insanely bad translation of an already mishandled translation of another bad translation of a fictitious text.


  5. Not a joke; reality. But surely not what one is taught in public schools.

    Adolph Hitler was a socialist – an authoritarian leftist, like Barack Obama with his ministerial “czar” structuring, his “green, sustainable development,” his “public-private partnerships” with crony state capitalists, and his friends in anarcho-communist union leadership.

    And neo-Marixm as currently played out is nearly indistinguishable in essential policy from fascism.

    Why do you think they called it the National Socialist Workers’ Party?

    • haha yes, and why do yoy think east Germany was called a Democratic Republic? But I guess you will only use that as an argument against democracy, so I will drop that :)

      Two basic concepts of socialism (in any shape or form), the class struggle and internationalism. Nazist are nationalists and supports national corporatism, i.e as far from all real socialism (in any shape or form)

  6. Yeah,that’s why he shot the communists. :D LOL.

  7. Did we forget about the Night of the long knives? Where Hitler ordered the death and slaughter of influential leaders of the left-wing Strasserist faction. He also killed in this operation many conservatives who were anti-nazi.

    Note that the fascist Nazi party gave themselves a left-sounding name–to wit, “the national socialist German workers’ party.” From their name, one would think they were socialists–i.e. part of the labor movement. However, facts were the exact opposite. Rather than supporting the labor movement like real socialists would, the Nazis broke up picket lines, murdered union leaders, banned worker newspapers, outlawed strikes, and sent the leaders of pro-labor organizations to death camps. The Nazis gave their organization a left-sounding name to garner popular support, and they appealed to imagery that appeared to praise the working class. Yet as soon as Hitler assumed power, he implemented “Operation Hummingbird,” in which all socialists in the Nazi party were executed. Likewise, Mussolini’s Squadistri–the “Blackshirts”–were also hired by private businesses as strikebreakers, union-busters, and as a “front against Bolshevism.” Under Hitler, hundreds of socialists and communists were murdered, and the peasant workers’ movement was demolished by the corporately-funded Fascist squads The fascists were anti-Marxist and against organized labor, while the socialists were Marxists fighting on the labor movement’s behalf. Far from being socialists, the fascists were vehemently opposed to socialism and everything that socialists stood for. Hitler crushed his country’s labor movement as soon as he assumed power.

    All this is confirmed by the economics of fascist regimes. During the 1930s, Italy, Germany, and Spain were strangled with public recession, wage cuts, the banning of strikes, the overturn of workplace safety laws, and the private appropriation of both public property and public industries. At the same time, profits for big corporations like I.G. Farben and the Federazione Industriale were never higher. The fascism of Italy and Germany showered the weapons industries with state money, and stimulated war profits by waging imperialism abroad, as Mussolini did in Ethiopia and Hitler did in eastern Europe. Hitler and Mussolini both eliminated the inheritance tax, cut taxes for the rich, deregulated business, gave public property and public works to private companies, and increased taxes for the poor. (In Italy, child labor was reintroduced as well!) A fascist regime, summarily, is a conservative, pro-business, *capitalist military state*, in which the state’s suppression of organized labor is purportedly justified by appeals to tradition, heritage, patriotism, the family, and other conservative social norms. Fascism is right-wing in its conservatism, right-wing in its alliance with the private sector, right-wing in its policies of imperialism and war, and right-wing in its violent opposition to Marxism and organized labor. Fascism is not socialism, nor is it a left-wing movement of ANY kind.

    This authour and article is a complete joke and shows a complete lack in actual historical study. Absolutely no relation to Obama or Anarcho-Syndicalists.

  8. John in Bachmann's district says

    Yeah, anyone that tries to whitewash a sick bastard like Hitler doesn’t have the credibility to be heard. Everything he did was for power and aryan supremacy. Stop re-writing history to fit your ideology.

  9. you’re a cretin.

  10. Odd response, to me, if anyone thinks this item promotes Adolph Hitler. Here’s another much more expansive article on Adolph’s neo-Marxian progressivism (a.k.a., fascism).

    Adolph Hitler – Progressive Pioneer

  11. The number of comments trying to say this article “whitewashes” National Socialism indicate what a sore point this is to modern Marxists. Using verbiage to clutter the discussion only deflects.

    Indeed there have been national and international versions of socialism, and the argument that Hitler’s was limited to being national is itself betrayed by the Anschluss and thereafter. He too was international is his dreams of power, as were the Soviet Socialists and Sino-socialists, and beyond.

    The point is simpler than today’s Marxists would have it be. Authoritarian power structures described by a whole variety of terms come down to the same thing. Pervasive, invasive government.

    That the supposed apologists for one form and one term wish to distance themselves from other forms and terms to describe tyranny is instructive. “They” should not rule, but “we” should.

    The antithesis to this is not some other form of greater rule over a citizenry, but less and weaker government, thereby allowing greater freedom and responsibility to the individual. This is the true anathema to those who would rule with the muscle of government.

    Socialism, fascism and Communism were once seen in the US press as close sisters. The work today by socialists is to tell us this was not, is not and never can be true. Such is the nature of political propaganda.

    Divorced from discussions about political terms, when one speaks simply about greater and smaller government, the ardent proponents for their form of rule will identify their urge to rule. Hence, the need for jargon, confusion and diversion. Liberty increases as government decreases in scope, size and power. One must have some government, to be sure, but that is no excuse to advocate for greater government until tyranny arises — again.

Speak Your Mind