RE: Is Elon Musk Undermining German Democracy?
Hi,
I only know about his interview from seven months ago. Since he is very conservative and far-right, he naturally spoke with the German party that also has these characteristics, and he did so shortly before the election. The interview was broadcast live on television and was intended to support the AfD party. Certainly, self-promotion was also his goal, but since the conversation was only about politics and German history, he was unable to exert much influence. It quickly became apparent that he was not very knowledgeable, but neither was the AfD party leader. They brought up the topic of the Second World War and Hitler, and they agreed that Hitler was politically left-wing and also a communist. Most of their voters believe everything immediately without informing themselves, but the fact is that Hitler and his party were right-wing and not communists, because communists were persecuted by his people and also ended up in the gas chambers. Why Musk was so interested in Germany and whether he needs to promote himself is questionable, but overall it was rather embarrassing for him.
I also find his interference strange, especially since he did nothing to support the AFD except with his absence.
Regards
Anja
Hi Anja,
thank you for sharing these details. Your clarification about the historical facts is really important. Hitler’s regime was undeniably far right and violently anti communist. Misrepresenting that history for political gain is indeed troubling.
I also agree that the whole event raises questions about motive and impact. Even if Musk did not actively campaign simply lending his celebrity status can shift attention and possibly normalize certain narratives. At the same time the awkwardness you describe shows that influence is not automatic and that credibility matters.
It is a good reminder that we all need to fact check political claims especially when high profile figures and parties are involved.
I don’t see it that way. The Nazis were called “National Socialists” for a reason: they combined a strict nationalist worldview with many genuinely socialist elements. Their policies included state control over large parts of the economy, massive welfare programs (for “Aryans”), price controls, and suppression of free markets. These are not conservative or liberal ideas – they are deeply collectivist.
Of course, the Nazis persecuted communists, but that was not because they opposed socialism as such. It was because they were fighting for power against a rival socialist movement with an international outlook. In other words: it was a battle between two totalitarian camps – one internationalist (communist) and one nationalist (Nazi) – but both were hostile to individual liberty and true democracy.
That’s why I think it is misleading to portray the Nazis as simply “right-wing” or “anti-socialist.” They were a hybrid: nationalistic in identity, but socialist in economics. And that distinction really matters if we want to understand history accurately.
To add to my previous point: it is also important to consider how the Nazis saw themselves at the time. They repeatedly rejected being called “right-wing” and attacked what they described as the “property-owning bourgeoisie.”
In their propaganda, this so-called “property class” was often equated with “Jewish capital” – the bankers, publishers, and business owners they demonized as enemies of the people. That shows clearly: their enemy image was not just communism, but also what they portrayed as capitalist elites.
This is why I think the simple label “right-wing” is historically misleading. The Nazis were nationalist in identity, but they also carried strong socialist and anti-capitalist elements in their ideology. Understanding this dual character, and the way they defined their own enemies, is crucial if we want to talk about history in an honest and accurate way.