Nazi Germany had a socialist economy

Dr. Friedrich Hayek wrote a book Road to serfdom during WW2. In the book he is talking about National socialism and fascism as forms of socialism and trying to warn also his opponents to rethink their positions about state planned economies which lead to totalitarian regimes even if maybe their proponents at first did not really want that outcome. The definition of socialism is that it is a system based on the state ownership of former private property or state controling previous private property.

Economic policy of National socialists started with big public spending ( big public works and re-armament industry ). This caused big inflation and in 1936 Nazis started to control wages and prices of goods, which lead to rationing of the goods by state. State was setting up rents, bank interests, farmland was proclaimed heriditary and should not be sold anymore and mortgages can not be put on it, state was controling what should be produced in factories and where money should be invested etc. German owners lost their rights over property as they are considered in the normal capitalist system and democracy. They still owned the property but the state controled it! Many owners were even quite happy with it being blinded by the Nazis because at the same time they also banned worker strikes.
For the Jewish owners it was even much worse because according to racial ideology of National socialists they could not be socialised being corrupt and selfish by their nature. So their property was nationalized 'for the benefit of Aryan socialist society'.

Hitler explained his plan for the elimination of class struggle in a letter to G. Strasser in 1930 where he said that nationalization of the property of German owners would not be needed if they will be put under his strick discipline and thus 'socialised'. For the Germans which were a superior race for Hitler it was not neccessary to have a civil war in the sense like Marx, Lenin or Stalin wanted because by their nature the are inclined to work for their nation. According to Hitler that is the greatest racial benefit of Germans.


Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | George Reisman

Summary from the book Road to serfdom

- Is there a greater tragedy imaginable than that in our endeavour consciously to shape our future in accordance with high ideals we should in fact unwittingly produce the very opposite of what we have been striving for?

- The contention that only the peculiar wickedness of the Germans has produced the Nazi system is likely to become the excuse for forcing on us the very institutions which have produced that wickedness.

- Totalitarianism is the new word we have adopted to describe the unexpected but nevertheless inseparable manifestations of what in theory we call socialism.

- In a planned system we cannot confine collective action to the tasks on which we agree, but are forced to produce agreement on everything in order that any action can be taken at all.

- The more the state ‘plans’ the more diffi cult planning becomes for the individual.

- The economic freedom which is the prerequisite of any other freedom cannot be the freedom from economic care which the socialists promise us and which can be obtained only by relieving the individual at the same time of the necessity and of the power of choice: it must be the freedom of economic activity which, with the right of choice, inevitably also carries the risk and the responsibility of that right.

- What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not.

- We shall never prevent the abuse of power if we are not prepared to limit power in a way which occasionally may prevent its use for desirable purposes.

- We shall all be the gainers if we can create a world fi t for small states to live in.

- The first need is to free ourselves of that worst form of contemporary obscurantism which tries to persuade us that what we have done in the recent past was all either wise or unavoidable. We shall not grow wiser before we learn that much that we have done was very foolish.


Book road to serfdom in pdf form:

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Road to serfdom.pdf

Some basic informations about dr. Hayek:

Friedrich Hayek - Wikipedia

 

Seems to me that the comparison of Socialism with totalitarianism depends on the political system not the economic one, and neither is anywhere close to the PPACA, also known as Obamacare. Canada and GB have Parliaments elected by the people, and we have a Congress democratically elected too.

Fear mongering is dishonest.

 

Well in fact the warning of dr. Hayek is that from mismanaged economy = planned economy totalitarianism follows. I recommend this video lecture. Destroying of the free market as national socialists and many other socialists did is leading to black market flourishing. To destroy the black market state should impose severe penalties. The politicians which are more ruthless have their oportunity now to climb high in governament structure. Socialist economy enables their ruthleness as an advantage in political struggle with less harsh politicians, maybe more idealistic too. On this way revolution is eating its children. Not just on this way of course but it is an important one.

 

About fascism in Italy. Its founder Giovani Gentile made it very clear that it is a form of socialism. But fascism was hindered by monarchy so it could not go so far. More about fascists model of corporativism and the ideology behind it in years between 1922-1943.

What Is Fascism? | John T. Flynn

https://mises.org/library/what-fascism-1

Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.

Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.

To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.

Fascism - Econlib


But when fascists were 'liberated from Italian monarchy by Nazis' in Autumn 1943 they became again more radical as they were at their beginning. Now they were republicans and strongly anti-capitalist.

By September of 1943, Mussolini was heading a Nazi puppet state called the Italian Social Republic (RSI) in which he proposed additional “economic socialisation.” He began to display a renewed interest in his earlier radicalism. Claiming that he had never abandoned his left-wing ideals “he returned to a type of socialism which once again attacked capitalism,” in an effort to “annihilate the parasitic plutocracies.” In February 1944, Mussolini’s government devised a “socialisation law” that called for more nationalization of industry and under which workers would participate in managing factories and businesses, along with land reform. The Italian Social Republic “obsessively emphasized” commitments to socialisation and a “variety of fascist equalitarianism and an amplified fascist welfare state.”

Under socialisation law bigger factories would be run by workers loyal to fascism or nationalized and smaller would be run by commities were owners would be subordinated to representatives of fascist syndicates and state. Workers in such smaller factories would vote half of the members of commitie which would lead such factory. Leading manager could be named by state.

The Socialist Economics of Italian Fascism - Econlib


When Historian Martin Clark is writting about law of socialisation made by fascists in the time of RSI. He is saying that Mussolini said to his economic minister that he wanted that law from 1919 ( ! ). Author claims also that Mussolini's leftist ( ! ) schemes were burried under the strikes of workers in northern Italian industrial towns and under the boycot of elections for new management bodies by workers in 1944.

Mussolini

 

An example from Nazi agriculture how deeply was socialist economy applied in this area. As historian Clifford R. Lovin put it Nazi minister for agriculture Walther Darré felt that farmers were only free if they could till the soil without fear that this right could be taken away from them. One of the ways to guarantee this freedom was to withdraw the farmer from the free market. This was achieved with Hereditary Farm Law. Under this law, farmers were protected from having their land foreclosed on, but they were also permanently legally bound to their land. According to this law, any plot of land above 308 hectares could never be divided, sold, or used as collateral for loans. With this law farmers were owners just de iure as Ludwing von Mises wisely says this is also true for other areas of German economy under National socialists.

So called Food estate was established by the state with big bureaucracy. This institution controled everything from agricultural education, credit practices, soil maintenance, forestry, household economy, animal husbandry, youth organizations, agricultural propaganda, exports and imports, and every agricultural product produced, which was each governed by its own sub-bureaucracy.

In more recent literature, historian Tiago Saraiva has written about the Food Estate’s Seed Decree, which exercised considerable control over the development and regulation of new strains of crops. New varieties of any crop had to be approved by a sub-bureau of the Food Estate, the Biological Imperial Institute for Agriculture and Forestry, before being allowed to go into cultivation. Out of the several hundred new varieties of seed that were inspected, only sixty-four were approved for German production and consumption, and those that were approved were given legally fixed prices. As Saraiva puts it, “it was not for the market to decide the value of a variety; such value was defined at the [Biological Imperial Institute] in accordance with the general food policy of the regime.

In agreement with Lovin, Saraiva writes that “the truth is that the setting up of [the Food Estate], taking over the numerous pre-existent associations and societies of agriculture in Germany, by establishing fixed prices and controlling production, marked the end of the free market for agriculture in the country.” Neither Lovin or Saraiva would be considered capitalist apologists (extremely far from it, in fact), but they recognize, just as Mises did, that the Nazis paid only lip service to property rights, while in reality, they established a command economy that fully fits Mises’s description of “socialism of the German pattern.”


Mises Wire | Mises Institute

mises.org

 

Leaders of national socialism were talking about their revolution and their form of socialism to the very end. In April 1945 so just before the collapse of Third Reich Nazi radio under dr. Joseph Goebbles declared to German public:

Revolution has no end, revolution ends only when people who are making it stop being revolutionaries. Together with cultural monuments also last obstacles for our revolutionary duties are falling. Now when everything is in ruins we will be forced to rebuilt Europe. In the past we were bound by private property in restricting citizens ( ! ). But now bombs instead of killing all Europeans just demolished the prison walls in which people were living... Enemy which tried to destroy the future of Europe just destroyed its past and with it all old and unworthy disappeared.

Goebbles diary, published in 1981, Maribor, page 56.

 

Socialism is the platform of a government, the stance in relationship to it's own economic policies.

Totalitarianism is the form of the government.

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. You can have any blending of the two, even a Democratic Parliamentary Totalitarian government that follows the beliefs of Marxist Communism.

The problem is that far to many can not separate the two and assume that if a system is implemented one way, it has to be something else.

 

Nazi Germany was a capitalist country. In fact, Hitler gained tremendous support from big business in Germany. Privatization of industry once run by the government and relying on private industry was how he was able to slip under the radar of the international community. German (or what hitler considered to be Aryan) businesses were given plenty of the riches stolen from the Jewish people, businesses were able to purchase slave laborers and profit from their toil. People like Krupp eagerly competed for contracts much like US defense contractors compete for contracts and Krupp was able to keep all of the fortunes made and only lost it to nationalization after the regime was crushed. The thing about nazis is they lie habitually, even as a show of power and machismo. Hayek was wrong.

 

Goebbels was a frothing liar. You have to look at what was actually implemented. The Nazis had already removed all pretense of being “socialists”when they killed the Strasserites. There was nothing left wing about the nazis. They were incredibly far right wing, so much so economically and socially that the soviets had a far better record of women’s liberation. The nazis hated marxism so badly that they treated it like a jewish conspiracy. They originated the cultural marxism conspiracy theory.

 

This is a must-read for anyone interested in this topic.

http://www.ihr.org/other/economyhitler2011.html


I haven't formed a firm opinion on any of this.


This may be a little off-topic but it's relevant.

The Lightbulb Conspiracy - Planned Obsolescence


Socialism is better for the planet than capitalism.

 

If we don't learn history, we're doomed to repeat it; seems history is repeating in these unprecedented times, unless you cite for the rise in populism to just before the second world war in Germany as precedent that is.

I don't know if this will teach a reader of Adolf Hitler's dream of Socialism for his people, it seems, unless you're young and still learning, you've probably already got an opinion on Hitler's brand of Socialism which funny enough reminds me of Jeremy Corbyn and Momentum in the UK, but other than their ideas and views on Jews, Jeremy Corbyn was handed his notice by the electorate, and he's still leader of the opposition because what should take hours (like 48 hours), is taking months because of the mindset of Momentum to insure continuity for their dream.

 

It's a good idea to know the revisionist version of WW2 whether you accept it or not.
http://flinttalk.com/viewtopic.php?t=12196&start=0

 

Fascism is communism and vice versa

It’s like magnetism and electricity

 

Communism seems to work on a small scale when everybody is a volunteer.

https://www.google.com/search?q=com.....69i57j0l5.4165j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Virginia Commune Still Draws Members After 40 Years



When it's imposed on a few million people, a lot of them don't want it and don't cooperate. I don't know if it's possible to have communism on a large scale without a little fascism to keep everyone in line. I don't see the two words as synonymous.


Chomsky says that the Russian system was not true socialism.

(This link only works with FireFox)
https://epdf.pub/world-orders-old-and-new.html
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------
The Bolshevik takeover was recognized as an attack on socialism very quickly by a large part of the left, including leading left intellectuals, ranging from some of the most prominent intellectuals of the Marxist left (Anton Pannekoek, Rosa Luxemburg, and others) to such independent socialists as Bertrand Russell, and of course the libertarian (anarchist) left quite generally.
------------------------------------------------

Noam Chomsky - The Soviet Union vs. Socialism



The Russians gave communism a bad name.

 

@bomberfox yes of course Goebbles was a liar for the public and he explains some of his tricks in his diary, but why would he lie to his diary?! He believed what he wrote for himself.

 

[QUOTE="bomberfox, post: 1071423168, member: 84761"]Nazi Germany was a capitalist country. In fact, Hitler gained tremendous support from big business in Germany. Privatization of industry once run by the government and relying on private industry was how he was able to slip under the radar of the international community. German (or what hitler considered to be Aryan) businesses were given plenty of the riches stolen from the Jewish people, businesses were able to purchase slave laborers and profit from their toil. People like Krupp eagerly competed for contracts much like US defense contractors compete for contracts and Krupp was able to keep all of the fortunes made and only lost it to nationalization after the regime was crushed. The thing about nazis is they lie habitually, even as a show of power and machismo. Hayek was wrong.[/QUOTE]
National Socialist Party

 

@Scott what happened in Russia was not a coincidence. Socialist economy enables the most ruthless in political struggle against less harsh politicians or maybe more idealistic. I like and prefer to explain things to people but marxists and socialist preachers so called red professors i consider my enemies. Mostly they now how harmful their ideology can be but they do not care much because they are extreme consequenceists. Tools of planned economy are in fact making economic crisis longer as dr. Hayek clearly showed and usually socialist states also Germany under Hitler are ''solving'' the problem with concentrating investement and purchasing power in war industry with this encouraging militarism and expansionism of such regimes. USSR, red China, fascist Italy, Nazi Germany etc. all clear examples of this.

H. Bruning was trying to solve economic crisis in Germany with classical tools of liberal economy. He cut wages and government spendings with this making crisis deeper but shorter. Yet this classical tools did not work to well on short term, partly also because of the big war reparations and people started to follow more and more rethoric and false promises of both communists and national socialists. Because there was a real danger that they might become temporary allies as some prominent German figures like general Schleicher wanted the decision was made to support Hitler for chanchelor in agreement with old elite which was hoping it will be able to control him.

 

Socialism is state control of economy and marxism is class version of this state control. Some early examples of state and party control in Germany from the work of Guenter Reimann. He wrote a book The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism. Through contacts with German business owners, Reimann documented how the "monster machine" of the Nazis crushed the autonomy of the private sector through onerous regulations, harsh inspections, and the threat of confiscatory fines for petty offenses.

Reimann quotes from a businessman's letter: "You have no idea how far state control goes and how much power the Nazi representatives have over our work. The worst of it is that they are so ignorant. These Nazi radicals think of nothing except ‘distributing the wealth.' Some businessmen have even started studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system.

Reports another factory owner: "The greater part of the week I don't see my factory at all. All this time I spend in visiting dozens of government commissions and offices in order to get raw materials I need. Then there are various tax problems to settle and I must have continual conferences and negotiations with the Price Commission. It sometimes seems as if I do nothing but that, and everywhere I go there are more leaders, party secretaries, and commissars to see."

Etc.

As Mises says under fascism businessman, the capitalist were only de iure owners of their property and "must be servile to the representatives of the state" and "must not insist on rights, and must not behave as if his private property rights were still sacred."

https://mises.org/library/national-socialism

 

Nazis were barbarians regarding human life but their economy was relatively successful. This is a remarkable contrast to socialist economic systems that stumbled from the beginning and ultimately collapsed.

 

Planned economy normally leads to big public spending which leads to inflation and then price and wage controls and then rationing of goods and then black market develops and it is crushed by brutal force, police and administrative apparatus become huge, state is deciding what must be produced, where money should be invested etc. Free market is destroyed with such measures. Private initiative and inovations which are both so important for the growth of economy are at least in decline if not destroyed.

 

I recommend this article of economist mr. Daniel Lacalle for understanding the difference between capitalist welfare system and socialism. When capitalism makes country rich it can indeed be also more welfare like in the case of Scandinavia.

https://mises.org/wire/face-it-nordic-countries-arent-socialist

 

If we go from comrade Sanders back to National socialists. Privatization of some state companies under Hitler regime was mentioned also before. It should be said that it was not real privatization as it is considered in the capitalism, but state under Nazi control sold some companies in the hands of Nazi party members yet kept the state control over the production, wages, prices, investment etc.

 

Nazism wasn't a social or economic program, it was purely a personality cult. And, Hitler could have gotten nowhere without the support of the bourgeoisie and aristocrats like Goering and the industrial capitalists like Kruppe behind him. It's roots are very different than Marxism's was, though both rely heavily on pseudoscience as propaganda tools.

It's worth noting that few Party members ever actually read Hitler's Mein Kampf or Rosenberg's and Goebbel's propaganda books and writings.