Nazi Germany had a socialist economy

Discussion in 'History & Past Politicians' started by Anonymous.Professor, Jan 9, 2020.

  1. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    43
    As for Hayek, in his The Fatal Conceit, he criticizes what he calls 'rational constructionism' as fatally flawed, and has praise for traditionalist Christian religious beliefs as generally positive and far more effective than 'rationalism' as an influence on society and culture, though he is an atheist himself. Hayek is no more a fan of right wing Social Darwinism than he is of Marxist bullshit.
     
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,069
    Likes Received:
    1,823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fascism is a jampot of joviality because of its multiple definitions. To highlight its right wing nature, however, there are several elements we can refer to. I'd first refer to Keserich's definition of fascism as 'the reactionary and terroristic dictatorship of finance capital'. I'd then describe how fascism is incompatible with socialist political economy. Zanden (1960, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol 19, pp 399-411) is a good source. First, the movement is characterised by anti-intellectualism ('obedience, discipline, faith and a religious belief in the cardinal tenets of the Fascist creed are put forth as the supreme values of a perfect Fascist. Individual thinking along independent lines is discouraged. What is wanted is not brains, daring ideas, or speculative faculties, but character pressed in the mold of Fascism'). That is closer to a worship of alienation. Second, we have the belief in the distribution of innate ability (i.e. the Theory of the Elites where those with a natural talent for ruling rule over the masses). A socialist, on the other hand, appreciates the destructiveness of class. Third, we have a reaction against democracy: 'the mass of men is created to be governed and not to govern; is created to be led and not to lead, and is created, finally, to be slaves and not masters: slaves of their animal instincts, their physiological needs, their emotions, and their passions'. That ain't participatory socialism! Fourth, we have 'fascism is in its broadest meaning a revolt against the modern age, against democratisation, secularisation and internationalism'. That is conservatism! Fifth, we have corporatism where fascism is defined as 'a system of political and economic decision-making based on the representation of organised interest groups in government' (Sarti). Ultimately fascism and economics, unlike socialism, do not go well together. The economics of fascism is actually 'economics by mistake, not design'. But isn't that the case with most right wing schools?

    But the Nazi economy itself? Try Buchheim and Scherner (2007, The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry, Journal of Economic History, Vol 66, pp 390-416) note:

    "Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment profiles. Even regarding war-related projects, freedom of contract was generally respected; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency".

    Naff all to do with socialism. Capitalist exploitation was maintained. They just shifted it eventually to working people to death because they could.
     
  3. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    43
    the Nazi Party intellectuals, like the Strasser brothers, Goebbels, and Himmler were all fans of the Marxist theories. When Hitler took over the Party they had to choose loyalty to him over ideological fantasies. Those that chose ideology over Hitler were killed or marginalized. In 1932-33, Hitler had to choose whether to appease the Junkers and industrialists or his left wing allies; he chose to pander to the Junkers and industrialists.
     
  4. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,069
    Likes Received:
    1,823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More unsubstantiated guff! The Nazis were fascist thugs who, through historical accident, rose to power. There is no common ground with Marxism. Indeed, left wing radicals were killed and labour rights eliminated.
     
  5. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Those who educated themselves know for a fact that Goebbels, the Strassers, and Himmler were left wingers both socially and economically, and there is nothing the fans of Lenin and Marx can do to change the historical record. The Peanut Gallery can amuse themselves looking up biographies of Goebbels, Himmler, the Strassers, etc., themselves. For starters ...


    National Bolshevism as a term was first used to describe a current in the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) and then the Communist Workers' Party of Germany (KAPD) which wanted to ally the insurgent communist movement with dissident nationalist groups in the German army who rejected the Treaty of Versailles.[5] They were led by Heinrich Laufenberg and Fritz Wolffheim and were based in Hamburg. Their expulsion from the KAPD was one of the conditions that Karl Radek explained was necessary if the KAPD was to be welcomed to the Third Congress of the Third International. However, the demand that they withdraw from the KAPD would probably have happened anyway. Radek had dismissed the pair as National Bolsheviks, the first recorded use of the term in a German context.[6]

    Radek subsequently courted some of the radical nationalists he had met in prison to unite with the Bolsheviks in the name of National Bolshevism. He saw in a revival of National Bolshevism a way to "remove the capitalist isolation" of the Soviet Union.[2]

    During the 1920s, a number of German intellectuals began a dialogue which created a synthesis between radical nationalism (typically referencing Prussianism) and Bolshevism as it existed in the Soviet Union. The main figure in this was Ernst Niekisch of the Old Social Democratic Party of Germany, who edited the Widerstand journal.[7]

    A National Bolshevik tendency also existed with the German Youth Movement, led by Karl Otto Paetel. Paetel had been a supporter of the Nazi Party (NSDAP), but became disillusioned with them as he did not feel they were truly committed to revolutionary activity or socialist economics. His 1930-formed movement, the Group of Social Revolutionary Nationalists, sought to forge a third way between the NSDAP and the KPD, emphasising both nationalism and socialist economics.[8] He was especially active in a largely unsuccessful attempt to win over a section of the Hitler Youth to his cause.[9]

    Although members of the NSDAP under Adolf Hitler did not take part in Niekisch's National Bolshevik project and usually presented Bolshevism in exclusively negative terms as a Jewish conspiracy, in the early 1930s there was a parallel tendency within the NSDAP which advocated similar views. This was represented by what has come to be known as Strasserism. A group led by Hermann Ehrhardt, Otto Strasser and Walther Stennes broke away in 1930 to found the Combat League of Revolutionary National Socialists, commonly known as the Black Front.[10]

    After the Second World War, the Socialist Reich Party was established, which combined neo-Nazi ideology with a foreign policy critical of the United States and supportive of the Soviet Union, which funded the party.[11][12]


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism

    The Wiki article has been modfied to edit out the role and beliefs of Goebbels and Himmler, for some reason, probably leftist embarrassment and shame, but the majority of it can be found in Riemann's biography of Goebbels below, which can't be censored.

    .... and, a more detailed exegesis:

    https://libcom.org/files/NATIONAL BOLSHEVISM IN WEIMAR GERMANY.pdf

    But, the most definitive proof of the ideological brotherhood of sociopaths is Viktor Reimann's Goebbels -Doubleday, 1976. It gives the ideological history of the Nazi Party, and from the Communist 'Annalist' school of historical analysis there are Detlev Peukert's excellent series of books on Nazi Germany, noteworthy for his assembly of statistics and data and politics of the period, including a book on Wiemar Germany. His political views are open and easily determined and its not a problem to separate his data and stats from his ideological bent, otherwise I would not recommend his books.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detlev_Peukert
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2020
  6. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Well in Wikipedia under 'Adolf Hitler' you can read also: After World War I, Hitler returned to Munich. Without formal education or career prospects, he remained in the army. In July 1919 he was appointed Verbindungsmann (intelligence agent) of an Aufklärungskommando (reconnaissance unit) of the Reichwehr, assigned to influence other soldiers and to infiltrate the German workers party (DAP) - which aimed to establish 'classless socialist Germany'. But what is not told is what happened just before this. During Bavarian soviet revolution after WW1 Hitler was collaborating with communists and was even a delegate in local Soviet military council. So his new job at Reichwehr as their agent was in fact also a way to 'clean' himself. Later Hitler claimed how Jews were behind Bavarian soviet revolution, yet he collaborated with Bavarian communists at that time. It is true he was not a member of communist party, but surelly as a representative of his group of soldiers he comformed to communist and before socialist government, did not defect from Red army, joint right-wing free corps units etc. but rather he helped on the area of red propaganda as historian Mathias Mesenholler analyzed more in details. So he tried compromise with marxism himself.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2020
    Farnsworth likes this.
  7. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Yes. He eventually rejected an alliance with the Soviets in favor of conquering them later on, mostly due to paranoia over Stalin, but Goebbels was still determined to guide Germany along National Bolshevism lines to the end. Hitler changed his ideologies to suit himself and the current situation he was in, a true existentialist.
     
  8. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    I should add this youtube video about G. Reimann's book Vampire economy. It explains well how socialism is older than marxism and means state control/or ownership over means of production. Marxism is class version of socialism and Nazism is racial socialism or race based socialism, but both are forms of socialism.

    Reimann was marxist himself, but he explains well in details how private property in Nazi Germany was only de iure in the hands of private owners, but de facto it was under the control of totalitarian state. However because the working class was not in full control of Nazi totalitarian state in his opinion this was not real socialism. He errs here because this is not a proper definition of socialism, just of its marxist form. But as i said he demonstrated well state control over German economy during pre-war Nazi years. Plus he shows how Nazi German state control over economy was already before war oriented toward militarism.



    Vampire economy in pdf form:

    https://mises.org/library/vampire-economy
     
  9. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Yes, when everyone can make up their own definitions of words and concepts, they are arguing different points and not really debating or discussing the same things any more.



    Yes. The 'black armies' were created earlier than even Hitler's domination of the Nazi Party, by Hindenburg, Papen, and the Kruppe man who ran the Prussian police, under the guidance of the Wehrmacht commander General Streicher, all right wingers. The irony here is limiting the Army to 100,000 troops was a bad mistake without the occupation of Germany by the allies after the war; the Wiemar Republic had no way to impose any rule of law and the street armies took over, essentially gangsters and thugs.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2020
  10. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    1,477
    Likes Received:
    797
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Inflation was about 25% under Hitler, compare that to inflation in the stratosphere before Hilter came to power.
    Hayek was a hard right winger, and naturally he wants to associate Naziism with the left.

    First, let's get something straight:

    Dems do not advocate totalitarianism.

    But the right sure loves their strawman.

    You want a strawman, two can play that game, but this one is actually much truer:

    Unfettered classic liberalism (talkin' Ayn Rand here ) leads to plutocracy/oligarchy.


    The point is, either extreme, left or right, is bad. and Hitler is more associated with right ring fascism, the 'socialism' was used because at the time, it sounded good.

    As for the 'German socialist worker's party' it's propaganda trick, really. There is nothing egalitarian about Nazism. Without egalitarianism, you cannot claim 'socialist' ( nor can Soviet Russia, or any of the other so-called 'socialist' regimes, they just use the term because of the propaganda value of it, but they are in fact, nationalist totalitarian fascist dictatorships.

    Nazi germany was an oligarchy/plutocracy run by a military industrial complex largely owned by the Krupp family. A plutocracy with a dictator as leader is the essence of fascism, and traditionally is held to be on the extreme right. So, Hayek is talking nonsense.

    IF Nazis were socialist, the would have confiscated the entire industry, and they must certainly did not.

    https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

    According to historians, the complicated moniker [NAZI] reveals more about the image the party wanted to project and the constituency it aimed to build than it did about the Nazis’ true political goals, which were building a state based on racial superiority and brute-force governance.

    I know right desperately tries to associate democratic socialism with NAZI - ism , but only a moron would believe it, and, of course, Trump's fans have plenty of those.

    Hitler did not repossess the military industrial complex, the Krupps, etc. It was an oligarchy.

    Given that Nazism is traditionally held to be an extreme right-wing ideology, the party’s conspicuous use of the term “socialist” — which refers to a political system normally plotted on the far-left end of the ideological spectrum — has long been a source of confusion, not to mention heated debate among partisans seeking to distance themselves from the genocidal taint of Nazi Germany.

    The debate has heated up to the point of critical mass in recent years, thanks to the rise of nationalist political movements reacting in part to stagnant economic conditions and the perceived threat of globalism, and also in part to a flood of immigrants and foreign refugees pouring into Europe and the United States because of war and economic crises abroad.


    A subset of these groups, identified as ethno-nationalists, hold racially-tinged views ranging from nativism (the belief that the interests of native-born people must be defended against encroachment by immigrants) to full-on, hate-mongering white supremacy. Some of the latter openly align themselves with historical Nazism, to the point of waving swastikas, spouting anti-Semitic rhetoric, and imitating the tactics of Adolf Hitler.

    The Nazi problem comes down to this: As an ultra-nationalist, socially conservative, anti-egalitarian and fascist ideology, Nazism naturally falls on the extreme far-right end of the political spectrum;


    Democratic socialism is not a 'planned economy' no more than Denmark, or Norway is . iT'S ABOUT AS FAR AWAY FROM NAZISM AS ONE CAN GET.







     
  11. Bjorn

    Bjorn Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Nazi Germany didn't take over control of the means of production or services, so no, it was not Socialist. All the major German production and service companies at the time remained in private hands. In order to benefit the most financially you needed to remain in good standing with the government, sure, but this was true in pre-capitalist mercantilist Europe as well, and yet we don't call The British East India Company "Socialist", do we? Nor was feudalism "Socialist". The Nazis did not aspire to a classless society, but a society where the upper class or capitalist class had the right and privilege to their wealth, provided that they also advance the interests of the Nazi party, which was equal to the interests of the state. That has nothing to do with Socialism.

    The reason National Socialists called themselves something with "Socialist", was simple a fashion statement similar to how Americans on both sides of their political isle will insist that having a welfare state means being a "Socialist" country. Because it was a popular and fashionable term. It would be like if you advocated that you were a "Protectionist Monopolistic Capitalist" to gain political supporters. Sounds fancy... but if you support a protectionist monopoly, calling yourself a capitalist after that, is more of an indicator that you just call yourself that because you want to be seen as supporting capitalism, without actually doing so in the slightest.

    And also, the origin of the word "Socialist" going back to the 18th century was as a response to "individualist". By putting "National" in front, and allowing for the upper classes to remain in the same position as they always have, Nazis are of course not Socialist in any sense of the word except their own, personalized, definition of the term.

    All in all, you should have learned by now that someone self-identificating as X does not equate actually being X. Just ask the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2020 at 3:49 AM

Share This Page