Nazi Germany had a socialist economy

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

  1. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Concerning privatization under National socialism the whole story goes like this: In the time of economic crisis before National socialists got power many factories were bought by the state in an effort to save them and to keep at least some jobs. Later many were indeed sold and money was used to finance rearmament. It was still dangerous at that time to finance it with taxes.

    But on the other hand National socialists made many new state owned companies and even in the factories which were privatized, owners had to follow government policy about wage, price etc. controls.

    Plus state was making contracts with private sector and such contracts were not a result of negotiations between two sides, but were just offered by the state to private company. In that way private company became directed also in its investment policy by the state.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  2. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    54,793
    Likes Received:
    26,712
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, the Nazi economy functioned rather like China under the CCP.

    "The control over the volume of investment by prohibiting the distribution of the dividends above a fixed level(in Germany, six percent), by subjecting new issues of shares to the permission of the state and by obliging firms to lend the government all of their non-invested excess capital helped in the management of deficit spending." ..."Inflation was only suppressed with extensive controls of prices and wages."
    Wolfgang-Dieter Classen, "Fascism" from "Problems of the Planned Economy" edited by Murray Milgate, John Eatwell, and Peter Newman, pp. 105, 107.
     
    Anonymous.Professor likes this.
  3. Bob Newhart

    Bob Newhart Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2021
    Messages:
    4,328
    Likes Received:
    1,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not even close.
    Also untrue. Hitler gained most of his support from workers, many of them out of work. The leaders were academics or in government and the military.
    The militant arm which Hitler used to gain power, the SA, was not made up of big business types.
    The Nazi's never used the term privatization. The term they used was synchronization which is the opposite of privatization. What he did was in the open.
    Businesses could make a profit but what could they spend the money on? From early on everything was rationed. How many of these big business guys built something like the Heart Castle? No one.

    Money was basically useless in Nazi Germany. Everyone had tons of it and there was nothing to buy. You could only buy what the Nazi's said you could buy. So, when most industrialists would have hoarded gold, knowing the economy would collapse, they weren't allowed to. Everyhtin had to be deposited in the Bank. And then the Nazi's would take that money in the bank and spend it.

    Yeah, the people benefited when the soldiers confiscated goods from the countries they invaded and sent those goods home. How exactly does a businessman make a profit off of that.
    So, competition for government contracts is capitalism? The government spending other people's money telling business what they are competing to produce is capitalism? No, that's socialism.

    In addition, businesses were confiscated and given to Krupp under the policy of synchronization. (socialism)
    The thing about Marxists is that they lie habitually, even as a show of morality and superiority.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2021
    Anonymous.Professor and Mushroom like this.
  4. Bob Newhart

    Bob Newhart Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2021
    Messages:
    4,328
    Likes Received:
    1,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Left wing radicals were killed - Trotsky.

    Labour rights eliminated - Gulags.

    So, Stalin had nothing to do with Marxism . . .
     
    Anonymous.Professor likes this.
  5. Bob Newhart

    Bob Newhart Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2021
    Messages:
    4,328
    Likes Received:
    1,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is a difference between good standing with a government and having to follow the dictates of a government.

    In a communist system, the business are all killed and their property and factories are given to party bosses. The party bosses have to do what they are told or they die.

    In the Nazi system, the business leaders are allowed to live if they become party bosses and do what they're told. If they refuse to do what they are told, they die.

    A minor distinction with the same end result - government control of the economy.

    On the other hand, The British East India Company was more likely to tell the British government what to do than the other way around.
    Only if you remove the small merchant class and perhaps some of the mercenaries.

    Otherwise, feudalism was socialism. The peasants owned nothing and were happy, or else!
    The Nazi's most definitely aspired to a classless society of nothing but the "Aryan Races". That being said, just like communist party bosses, there was a hierarchy. One should not confuse this with an inheritable hierarchy or a hierarchy whose dependence is not solely dependent on the Nazi Party.

    Just look. Who had the wealth? Goering. Hitler. Goebbels. etc. Just like in Animal Farm, everyone is created equal. Some are more equal than others.
    No.

    The German Worker's Party, originally established in 1919, changed its name to National Socialist Workers Party at the behest of Jung. Jung Discusses his National Socialism and how it is different from International Socialism (Marxism) in his book.
    As already mentioned, putting National in front of the name had nothing to do with making the upper-class happy.
    There is no "Democratic People's Republic of North Korea". No country calls themselves that name.
     
    Mushroom likes this.
  6. Bob Newhart

    Bob Newhart Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2021
    Messages:
    4,328
    Likes Received:
    1,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The government is not capitalism.

    The government is a Representative Republic which leeches off of a Capitalistic system with many socialized industries and corporations.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2021
  7. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    13,153
    Likes Received:
    2,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The problem with most Marxists is that they try to define everything, and get furious if you refuse to accept their definitions.

    And I gotta admit, I love when people try to claim that there is no connection between Socialism and Fascism.

    Well, other than Il ****** was one of the leaders of the Italian Marxist Party and was the publisher of their own newspaper before WWI. At which he felt that Nation should come first, and supported Italy in WWI. He was then excommunicated from the Italian Communist Party, and created the National Fascist Party. An openly Socialist party, but Nationalist instead of Internationalist. That basically started an eternal war between the two groups, and the NSDAP patterned itself after the Italian Fascist Party.

    To those fools, if it is not Marxist, it is not Communism. And they accept no Socialism unless it was as it was dictated by the German Marx Brother.
     
  8. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    It could be argued without a problem that National socialism was a form of socialism which included a mixture of capitalism, communism and socialism. ;)
     
  9. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,956
    Likes Received:
    834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hitler crushed the German labor unions, which is why the industrialists and bankers loved him. 'Capitalists' actually hate competition and 'free enterprise', and do everything they can to stifle it, a fact people like Thomas Jefferson understood, hence his opposition to Hamilton's massive corporate welfare agenda. They loved Hitler for the same reasons these multi-national American-in name-only countries like Black Rock, Microsoft, and Apple love the Red Chinese Cadre and their government's labor racketeering.
     
  10. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,956
    Likes Received:
    834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Soviet Union was also a 'capitalist' country; it's the form it takes that is different from other flavors of capitalism.
     
  11. Bob Newhart

    Bob Newhart Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2021
    Messages:
    4,328
    Likes Received:
    1,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then argue it.

    Describe how, outside the Nazi party, you would start a business in Nazi Germany and end up building your own Hearst Castle through the free trade of goods and services. I'll even give you a past with no political or religious affiliations, no evidence of Gypsy, Jewish, etc. blood - that way you'll be able to exist in Hitler's socialized society and not be immediately liquidated. You have 1,000 Reichsmarks and it's now 1 March 1933. Remember, free trade of goods and services, only.

    Want to start the next Wal-mart of Germany? Nope, Price Commissars aren't going to allow you. How about international trade? Nope, Autarky has stopped you from trading outside of Germany without Nazi party affiliations and even then with great limitations. How about releasing Star Wars? Nope, the movie industry is fully controlled by the state. How about building the Atomic Bomb for Hitler? The state decided that that was not possible and a Jewish lie, so they won't allow you to even buy the most basic materials needed.

    But let's say you manage somehow to succeed in building a business selling widgets. The second anyone in the Nazi government wants what you have or doesn't like how you're using it, you'll lose it. The lack of any recognition of private property rights kills capitalism.

    When I think through the details, the complete lack of capitalism in Hitler's Germany and the Nazi ideology is obtusely obvious.
     
  12. Bob Newhart

    Bob Newhart Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2021
    Messages:
    4,328
    Likes Received:
    1,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, the Soviet Union was not 'capitalist'.
    No. Hitler forced all the German labor unions to unify in The German Labour Front.

    The industrialists and Bankers didn't all love him - especially those he killed.
    Then they aren't capitalists.
    nope
    Corporate welfare is not Capitalism.

    Public corporations are not capitalism. They are a social construct and therefore more closely related to Socialism.
    I don't know who you're referring to with "Black Rock" but I'm not happy with the cozy relationships U.S. corporations have with the CCP either. That being said, the CCP is definitely not capitalist.
     
  13. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,956
    Likes Received:
    834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, it indeed was; it was a state capitalism, pretty much the same as Red China's economy was. Armand Hammer and Fred Koch got rich doing business with the Soviets; Henry Ford did business with them well as many others.

    Wrong, it was a government controlled 'union' and Hitler's government set their wages, extremely low, just like company run 'unions' did in the Soviet Union and the U.S.

    Some of them supported his rivals, so he murdered them like he did anybody else who opposed him. Gangsters do that, right or left wing.

    Yes, they are, and they're the same all over the world.

    Yep.

    Yes, it is; it's what they all shoot for when they bribe politicians and buy protectionist polices for themselves.

    lol all laws and political ideologies are ' social constructs'. So is 'laissez faire', even though no corporate types actually beleives in 'competition', that's just PR for the dumb masses to be subjected to.

    Yes, they are; they're co-owners of all those American capitalist company operations in Red China. The Cadre is that 'new middle class' companies want to market to at the expense of their own countries.

    Never heard of Black Rock??? It's one of the giants.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackRock
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2021
  14. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    First this: definition of capitalism is that economy is lead by private owners.
    Definition of socialism is that state controls or even owns economy ( like ) for the benefit of larger society.

    So if state is leading economy in a way that it more or less drains workers and making itself strong that does not make it capitalism - just totalitarian. Of course communists would say also that their model of dictatorial system is making People more equal and they were promising economical boom too as a result, but in dictatorial system People can not be either equal or free and economy of course does not work on that way so there was no boom.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2021
  15. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    From this we can see how racial socialism that is National socialism took elements from capitalism because you still had some private owners, elements from socialism because state had control over economy so owners did not own their property in real and classical way. And this control of the state was like for the benefit of Aryan people. Best race deserves best social system. This happened to be false because it was leading Germany in conflicts and at the end to great defeat. Also National socialist were using totalitarianism to ( like ) make their version of racial socialism work more efficient.

    In the case of communist states or states ruled by the communist parties, totalitarianism was used to ( like ) make their version of socialism more efficient. Private owners were destroyed and state controled all economy. Totalitarian state always needs Big repressive system on the other hand and also they were on the crusade to spread their regime in the entire world. So state had to be making itself strong and also draining workers for these purpuses - which were like for the benefit of their class too. However this draining was so Big also because there was no economical boom after private property was destroyed.

    So we can see that we can not separate either National socialism or communist regimes from socialism at the end. Both were functioning according to the definitions which make common sense.
     
  16. Bob Newhart

    Bob Newhart Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2021
    Messages:
    4,328
    Likes Received:
    1,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    State Capitalism

    like

    Democratic Dictatorship
    Forced Free-Speech
    Live-Birth Abortion
    Truthful Lie
    Loving Abusive Spouse
    God Man

    Ahem . . . no. Stringing words with opposite meaning together does not make suddenly make them similar. It's simply an attempt to confuse the words and make 2+2=5. Socialism is not Capitalism.

    The CCP has always been socialist. There was no Capitalism in Red China. The CCP did make deals with countries and corporations outside of China. But once again, the state is making deals with corporations outside of China - not the individual people. Foxconn made a deal with the CCP, not with private land owners and employees in China. You can't have any capitalism without property rights.
    Once again, they did business with the Soviet government with the approval of Stalin. Everything was approved or controlled by the government.
    Government controlled 'union'

    Government controlled economy = Socialism

    Once again, Nazi = 0% Capitalism.
    There is just so much wrong here.

    You might want to read the book - "Hitler's Beneficiaries"

    The German workers had more disposable income under Hitler than they had previously. They also benefited from the looting of the rest of Europe. In addition, they had so much money they didn't have anything to spend it on.
    What does right and left mean to you? Generally speaking, Hitler, Mao, Stalin , Kim, Pol Pot are all on the same side of the political spectrum. They all were authoritarian governments, with large dead body counts, racism, centrally planned economies, and devoid of human rights. Trying to put any of them on opposite sides is a propaganda effort.
    For you Capitalist = any bad person?

    For me capitalist = a person who engages in the free trade of good and services.
    nope
    So, using the state to control the economy.

    State controlled economy = Socialism.
    You're right. I gave a poor definition.

    A public corporation is not a private company. A corporation is owned by the public. The corporation does what is best for the corporation - not any individual private owner. So, when one is doing business with a public corporation, one is doing business with a small state.
    That is interesting. The same situation applies. Public corporations (or private persons) are making deals with the CCP. This doesn't make the CCP even remotely capitalist.
     
  17. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    13,153
    Likes Received:
    2,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It goes even beyond that. They killed hundreds of thousands of people, all "Good Aryans", and many from well respected German families. But it had nothing to do with blood lines.

    It was because they were retarded, mentally ill, or seriously physically handicapped. One thing that many forget about is "Aktion T4", which killed at least 300,000 people. Most of the population of mental hospitals and long term treatment facilities in Germany were systematically liquidated by their government. Seen as a "drain" on the nation, therefore killed.

    So if you give them that "past", better not include any mental instability or retardation, or other serious physical conditions. Because even if they were blonde-blue eyed they would still be killed. Those that could not work, could not live in NDSAP Germany.
     
  18. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    13,153
    Likes Received:
    2,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But that is not really part of "National Socialism".

    There were a lot of National Socialist nations, that did not turn Racist. That was all a single nation, which is not the norm with nations that followed that form of government. Italy did not, nor did China, Argentina, Greece, and a hell of a lot of the parties from India to Czechoslovakia. Of all the National Socialist nations or parties, only those based upon the Mad Painter and his ideas went genocidal. Those inspired by Nationalist China and the writings of Der Lamp Ornament did not.

    When people want to make claims about "National Socialism", it might help if they realize Germany did not create it, and was not the only nation that followed it. So any attempt to make a blanket statement regarding it and referencing Germany is always going to fail.
     
  19. Bob Newhart

    Bob Newhart Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2021
    Messages:
    4,328
    Likes Received:
    1,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For Hitler, Nation = Race.

    The problem here is that you may not realize that the brand of socialism called National Socialism was only tried by Hitler. Like all socialism, it didn't work well.

    For Hitler and National Socialists, when they said nation, they meant the German race.

    I'm not as familiar with Greece and some of the others, but I know that Italy was Fascist - not National Socialist. And yes, they are completely different. For a Fascist, the nation was actually the nation. A Jew could be a good Italian Fascist. A black guy could be a good Italian Fascist. For fascists, the person had to adopt the culture and practices of the nation to be considered part of the socialized society.
    Stalin killed millions of workers. Pol Pot killed a million peasant farmers. Mao killed millions of Chinese. etc.

    Although they claim to be the saviors for the particular class, they often end up killing a lot of it.

    I don't think the Nazi's interest in eugenics helps to prove the case that their economic system was based on race.
     
  20. Bob Newhart

    Bob Newhart Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2021
    Messages:
    4,328
    Likes Received:
    1,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In any socialist economic system, the system decides who is part of the society. Often, in order to set up the socialist economic system, a crisis has to occur to convince people to give up their freedoms. Often an enemy is named for this crisis. For Marxists, this enemy was everybody who owned property. As a result, slaughtering all the property owners meant no one "owned" property. However, in National Socialism, the enemy were lesser races who were slaughtered or to be slaughtered. So, since some of the "owners" were left alive, people want to claim private property existed. When, in practice, it did not.

    Hitler saw no reason not to keep people in their position as long as they played ball. This doesn't mean that they owned anything except in a transient sense like a Soviet Worker owned a watch or a car. At no point does Hitler extol the virtues of capitalism. He saw capitalism as Jewish. The thought that Hitler was a proponent of any capitalism is wrong.

    https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/why-did-hitler-hate-jews/
     
  21. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,956
    Likes Received:
    834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A lot of spam and rubbish. State capitalism:

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

    You can redefine it to suit yourself, but then you would just be talking to yourself, and you are. Posters who like to think they're clever and play semantic games only end up confusing themselves, as you have.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2021
  22. Bob Newhart

    Bob Newhart Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2021
    Messages:
    4,328
    Likes Received:
    1,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

    If people are unable to think for themselves, cannot follow a conversation, and throw a fit when they lose an argument, they very likely use Wikipedia as their primary source.
     
  23. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,956
    Likes Received:
    834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh, and for the enlightenment of the Peanut gallery the term was defined in 1886, not by the WSJ or National Review or FreeRepublic. or Ann Coulter. Try and explain the Federal Reserve, government corporations like the SBA, the Treasury, Fort Knox and the Gold Reserve, etc. without state capitalism.

    Hitler's private army was almost 10 times larger than the German Army; even the Marxists' private armies were larger than the state's, which was limited to 100,000 by the Versailles Treaty.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2021
  24. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    @Mushroom for Nazism i usually use term National socialism, because that was their original name. However i agree there were different forms of national socialism and German racial socialism was just one of them.

    About Italian fascism i was writing already before in this topic. Fascist economy was using principles of revolutionary and national syndicalism and applied them on capitalist economy. Italy had strong statism with very large state sector, just USSR had even larger before WW2. However during the time of their collaboration with monarchy they were not so radical. Later when Germans ''liberated'' them from monarchy they became even more left, specially in economy, but also more racist and antisemitic. Even their republic was called social republic and their law of socialization ( February 1944 ) is a good example of their form of socialism. Fascists banned other unions as communists did and national socialists also, but othervise official unionism was decreed for all Italian workers.

    Fascism was so totalitarian and socialist, yet not international socialism like communism or marxism. For example they were using forced Italianization policy also against Slovenes in Primorska.
     
  25. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What can you call the Democratic party's demand our industry comply with their political scheme if not Socialism?
     

Share This Page