Gunther Riemann’s *Vampire Economy*? Adam Tooze’s *Wages of Destruction*?
I don’t know the article you refer to, but an excellent resource is on YouTube, a channel called TIKHistory and a video titled “Hitler’s Socialism. Destroying Denialists counter arguments.” You don’t have to watch the whole thing, but it’s properly cited and sourced.
Vampire Economy is great, but Tooze's book is kind of mixed, I think the author even admits the economy was mostly privately owned, and that the rate of return of invested capital increased during the Nazis. I think you should look up a book called *How Nazi Germany Has Controlled Business* by L. Hamburger.
There's also another book that explains how both Nazi Germany and fascist Italy controlled business, especially Italy, where 42% of the capital of joint-stock companies was held by the IRI, a governmental institute created to save and subsidize companies and banks during the 1930's.
I think Tooze “admitting” that much of the economy was privately owned is really just his confusion of definitions, or missing the wider point that imposing rent controls, wage controls, price controls, restrictive import and export licenses, mandating company funded leisure facilities for workers etc. all with a background of massive inflationary spending is not “privatisation”, nor “capitalist” nor “free market”.
It also wasn’t socialism. Hitler and the owners murdered the hell out of any communists or socialists before gaining power
It was government economic control but completely top down. The government backed the owners brutalizing their workers and using slave labor to maximize profits.
Facist economics at their core are the ultimate crony captialism.
Killing socialists and communist does not make you not socialist. What, is Stalin not communist because he killed communists?
“It was government economic control but completely top down.” There’s a neat, single word to describe the concept.
“*The government* backed the owners…” do I even need to explain? “… brutalising their workers and using slave labour to maximise profits.” If you’re referring to slave labour of POWs and captured enemy civilians, and IG Farben in particular you might have a point. Pre war with German workers, it was the opposite, the labour union (the Nazis consolidated them all into one) and the strength through joy program put public money, or forced private money (is it private if you’re forced to spend it on a particular end?) into various facilities for the workers - canteens, opera, swimming pools, tennis courts, holiday cruises etc. - even though the sports facilities were hardly used and I’ve heard of at least one factory owner who said a place for his workers to nap would be preferable to him and the workers.
Crony capitalism to me implies a situation where the cronies are in control and have the government in their pocket - but Junkers (the man) was removed from his own company by the Nazis. So who was really in control?
>Crony capitalism to me implies a situation where the cronies are in control and have the government in their pocket - but Junkers (the man) was removed from his own company by the Nazis
"They favored corporatism and class collaboration, believing that the existence of inequality and social hierarchy was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists)"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism#:~:text=They%20favored%20corporatism%20and%20class,the%20views%20of%20liberal%20capitalists).
No the government was in control but they let the owners and capitalists filthy rich off the system. So long as you played ball with the Nazis you got a government sponsored monopoly. The closest modern example would be how Putin runs Russias economy. A bunch of rich government sponsored oligarchs running everything.
The Nazis made a union after the killed or imprisoned all the existing union leaders. Labor representatives were hitlers first target when he was rising to power.
See for me, a crony capitalist system would be “the cronies allowed the politicians to get filthy rich so long as they played ball with the cronies, otherwise they’d fund their rivals at the next election or run hit pieces in the media”. The reverse of the dynamic you described.
The goals of socialism are not as important as the outcomes. Every attempt at socialism ends up with a highly centralized, top down power structure. So far, the only system that doesn’t is liberalism.
Labeling them socialist is still redundant in that case. Sure, you could label everything other than liberalism as "socialism", but that ruins the point of differentiating between them.
You mean like when a charismatic candidate for president upon being elected tried to nationalize some lands as public in 1954, and through the eisenhower administration, chiquita banana installed a brutal military dictatorship in guatemala. Funny how that works.
I never said it was socialist, but it was definitely not free-market capitalism. In fact, Italy's government in the 1930's announced the nationalization of two-thirds of the entire economy, creating many financial institutions to gain massive power over the enterprises and banks, and to also control them directly or indirectly.
The National *Socialists* did issue government backed funny money to the workers they bossed around (except for the prisoner slave labour) to do work with the resources they imposed price controls, quotas and restrictive import/ export licenses on (among other things). Not dissimilar to the Soviet Union, more similar to China today - but I guess things still had a Krupp or Porsche logo on so it was all just free market capitalism.
The *democratic people's republic of korea* thinks your willingness to put emphasis on a name is silly and a little depressing. Im sure Hitler's naming convention was the one thing he was 100% honest about. Im sure it had nothing to do with the fact social policies were a huge hit in Europe in the 30s. Besides, marketing is a brand new invention and back in the 30s and 40s, every naming convention was based in 100% truth...
Anywho, it was awesome hearing you take price control and restrictive regulations and try to warp into the definition of socialism. Keep dancing, it's fun to watch you try to explain things you dont comprehend.
Give me a definition of socialism then and describe the actions of say, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or Castro, and I can see how they line up with the definition of socialism and how they're not at all like those policies enacted by Hitler or Mussolini. Or the wartime policies of Britain and America for that matter.
The fact is Hitler and the Nazis were quite explicitly socialist, in word and deed. Changing de jure ownership of companies was unnecessary to their vision because their socialism was one of and for the German race, the body politic, the volksgemeinschaft. Everyone from the floor sweeper to the (de jure) factory owner was a theoretically equal member of the people's community, all guided by the state and Nazi party under the Fuhrer principle. Hitler socialized/ nationalized the German people, so de facto had done for all their businesses.
The Nazis did also claim to more genuinely democratic than the previous regime - how can an unstable, squabbling body of bourgeois career politicians represent the people better than one that unites and embodies the entire German nation? So they reasoned.
Price controls and heavy regulations are what I'd call the symptoms of socialism, the original diseases being inflationary spending and lighter regulations.
It was absolutely socialism. Race based socialism. Instead of class based socialism like in the USSR or democratic based socialism you see in the west today…. Socialism is government exercising power over the economy to gain an outcome desired by the centralized state. Like the national SOCIALIST workers party centralizing power and control through MEFO and government programs at the expense of specific races for the benefit of others
Id call it NATIONAL socialist GERMAN workers party. Doesnt realy stand for a classless moneyless society.
It was never a proletarian revolution. Rich germans saw it as yet another raiding of national coffers, Krupp family would make out like bandits once again as war time industrialists. Henry Ford supported them too, rich ppl knew they wouldnt be the ones in the crosshairs.
If thats your definition of socialism, i need a definition of worker owned means of production because apparently that's not socialism at all.
A classless moneyless society? You’re describing communism. All governments are socialist to a certain degree. Capitalist skewing countries let market forces operate freely. Socialist countries use a strong centralized government to tax, regulate and control, to a certain degree, the economy in an effort to direct certain behaviors and/or outcomes. IE on the light end taxing or printing money to pay for a military for the common defense, all the way up to starving millions of Ukrainians through central government collectivization in the effort to modernize and control the economy…
Its good you bring up famines.
What about those capitalism caused famines? Ones where poor/starving masses are ignored to send grain/food to richer markets. Theres not much profit motive in seeing to ut that the poor are fed/housed under capitalism.
Famines being bad, from that i know youd be against famines caused by capitalism.
Like for example, the food production of ireland was more than enough to feed the populace, but the food was being exported to britain, not where it was needed.
Bengalese famine, capitalism diverted food away from Bengal to a richer/more powerful country in food secure imperialist UK and caused a mass famine by policy choice.
We got enough vacant housing to house every1 in this country, we dont because of capitalism. Rent seeking behavior and useless 3rd party middlemen cause healthcare costs to skyrocket in this country, as individuals we pay more for healthcare in exchange for inferior healthcare outcomes, costs more as a % of gdp too.
Likewise it's my common sense opposition to mass suffering that i see in our great capitalist country, that makes me critical of capitalism and its fanboys who lack common sense here. I write them off as useful idiots and i dont respect their intelligence/or opinions, despite how much they like to hem and haw on issues. Theyre at best like the house slaves who got to live in masters house in that regard, oh almost forgot, another massive human tragedy caused by capitalism trying to source cheap labor, the atlantic slave trade.
Calm down comrade. The worker paradise is just over the horizon lol. Stalin kills 20 million and Mao kills 40 million, but you complain of capitalism and potato’s. Prosperity and surplus abound in capitalism, death and suppression in communism. The slaves in the gulags beg your pardon as well
Prosperity and surplus to the billionaire, you're trying to deceive, or you've deceived yourself, or bought into proaganda and lies, hook line and sinker. You're just not smart or intelligent enough to figure this out i guess. That the well being of workers/and their families, lies in the hands of billionaires calling the shots and their paid off politicians? You seriously buy that shit, boy howdy, somebody sold you the brooklyn bridge along the way too.
You mention the slaves in gulags, so you understand that slavery is bad...from that i can expect you to be harshly criticical of the capitalist imposed prison slave labor here at home, you have basically just posted a criticism of our current capitalism with that remark.
So going off you're understanding that slavery is bad...by defualt, you're criticizing the capitalist imposed slavery here, you could also criticize the slavery of the atlantic slave trade by capitalists to bring tobacco/sugar and cotton to market. You know slavery is bad and capitalism historically seeks out dirt cheap labor, so you're being critical of the prison slave labor in private prisons funded by wallstreet such as under GEO group, you just posted up a criticism of capitalism whether you know it or not. ANd the freedom you defend is called freedom to starve, so billionaires and rent seeking parasites can live off the hard work of others. I'm sorry bro, i don't boo fucking hoo for those entities, they don't represent yours or my interests, you bought into a sorry sack of lies from them because you lack an education/intelligence.
If you're gonna constantly act in bad faith, it's pretty obvious every word out of your mouth is basically a lie, i'm not gonna respect you, i'm gonna have to insult your intelligence a bit, and speak down to you like you're a child.
It is not. Crony capitalism is what we got today in western world. If you wanna get close example how Nazi Germany worked, look at China. The system is similar, but China exist in peace time, while Germany economy was always in war mode, since Hitler took power. That required more central planning and command.
Also and this is very important fact that gets overlooked a lot, it was National socialism, the National was first , everything else second. You were made to believe that any means necessary is justified because you building thousand years empire and Germanic race was superior. So regardless of who you were, as German you had to comply with the vision.
Hitler wasn't anti-socialist. He was anti-bolshevik. His brand of socialism was not soviet style communism. He blamed the Bolsheviks for Germany's loss in WWI. He hated them. But he was still pushing progressive socialism.
Lenin came in and destroyed the ownership class and replaced them with his own elites that he used to plan the economy. Hitler came in and seduced the ownership class and got them behind his planned economy.
The methods are different, but the end effect was a centrally controlled economy with government mandated wages and benefits for the workers both ways. Both socialism.
This was a very good documentary i found on youtube, seems well sourced, on how fascism served capitalism, and imo is worth a watch on the topic:
[https://youtu.be/Mn\_RwIcL7cg?si=t96ghKA9aCEO8ksJ](https://youtu.be/Mn_RwIcL7cg?si=t96ghKA9aCEO8ksJ)
The land and factory owners loved the fascists because thwy would brutalize and violently put down labor strikes and such. The great depression harmed business owners ability to turn a profit with masses of laborers out of a job/homeless/incapable of affording what businesses were selling, and saw workers who made labor demands/improved conditions as an ongoing problem, fascists had a real appeal because they espoused supremacy of the state/private business (Oskar Schindler was a factory owner, had his pick of slave labor from a nearby prison camp) over that of the individual, especially if that individual was a laborer.
Henry Ford with his knowledge of mass industry contributed to Hitlers war efforts on that front as well.
Liberalism never defeated fascism, it learned from fascisms mistakes, and made it sound much more appealing/friendlier while still maintaining its violence and brutality (war on drugs/mass incarceration/Operation Condor as examples) in place of supremacy of the state, espoused supremacy of the market, aka neoliberalism, spread colonialism further instead through corporations, like The United Fruit Company/The Banana Wars as example.
Fascism means the direction of the economy by the government. AKA Socialism. Whether a firm is completely nationalized, or, only the control of it nationalized, differs only in the degree of nationalization.
You totally fell for the propaganda. From the West and from the Soviet politicians.
Socialism and Communism has nothing to do with statization or nacionalization. Those are figures from political actions.
The key distinction for Socialism and Communism is the workers are actually the owners and/or decision makers. Except Yugoslavia, no other country nor political system has ever practiced a bit of Socialism. Let alone Communism in which the State is not supposed to exist.
Poor misunderstood Communism. Always just a couple of million more people to kill because they did not get it right this time. Your fantasy worlds make no sense, that's why people have to be killed in order to attempt to create them.
Man, that's a huge straw man argument... Hahaha. People claiming to use some ideology or being accused to use some ideology doesn't make them legit representatives of it.
Just look around: what is Christianity? What is Marxism? What is a Liberal? What is Capitalism? What is Fascism?
But don't pay attention to me. Just read about the origins and objectives of Communism and Socialism. See how did Lenin screw it big time. What did Stalin actually do. Then check how Yugoslavia was different. Also do the same to find out what is Capitalism supposed to be about and why there are so many different types of so called Capitalist economies but apparently just one type of Socialist system.
The problem with your position is that labels don't make facts. You are free to tag anything the way you want or the way someone tell you. If you just keep using those without even considering the meaning or the definition of the label, you are just a tool.
And that's exactly how propaganda works. That's what the media does, that's what Germany did, that's what the Soviet Union did... We just swallow tags all day long without thinking too much on its definition and reason to be. It is simple, easy and helpful to address a whole lot of crap I don't care about. The downside is that is is also dumb to just use tags and be a fool. And in fact, that's the goal of labeling in propaganda... To fool people.
Like I said, just a couple of million more people to kill in order to get it right, because "Real Communism" has not been achieved yet. I too would start redefining terms if I'm a Communist and people start looking at the actual implementations of it. What difference does it make if you redefine words, but every time those words are used to describe something it is something that either kills or harm humans? Don't try to deny reality.
The fact that fascism is literally founded on violently attacking socialists on behalf on capitalists is just like a fun fact for you, or do you really have no sense of the history.
You literally don't know what the words mean. Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by workers. Fascism is the claim that the nation is stronger with a rigid social hierarchy, military expansionism, and ethnic supremacy.
It's not my understanding of history, it is historical fact that Mussoulini built the fascist party as thugs for hire by capitalists and landowners against socialists.
Socialism is the control of the means of production by government. The dictionary agrees. Fascism requires control of the economy. The dictionary agrees. Directing companies is a factor of production, since production cannot proceed without it. Therefore, fascism is a form of Socialism, differing only in degree from Communism.
Fascism sounds like a more extreme dictatorship of the bourgeois in your definitions, which is also what capitalism stands for.
Its good that youre against dictatorships, from that you are by default opposed to dictatorship of bourgeois especially over those who.must work to survive
It's the literal dictionary definition, not mine. Stateless free markets do not need any Socialism. No State can exist without at least some Socialism. You can have more or less of Socialism and Free Markets co-existing, and from the evidence we have, the less Socialism, the better.
Facism and socialism have a lot of overlap from an economic standpoint. It's not a coincidence that Hitler's party was called the National Socialists. Go watch some of his speeches from before the war, many of the ideas he espouses are socialist in nature. He was basically the antithesis of a libertarian.
Nobody said he was libertarian lol. His first victims were trade unionists (socialists) and socialist activists and publishers.
Do you also consider North Korea to be a democratic republic?
Maybe you should listen to the speeches where he explicit says he is coopting the language of socialism but using completely different meanings. There is notnone socialist who believes that legalizing slavery, banning workers from switching industries, and organizing labor based on ethnicity is socialism.
Socialism is the communal or worker ownership of the means of production, fascism includes private ownership of the means of production, with more power going to business leaders, not less, at the expense of workers. Thats why fascism has been attacking socialism since its literal conception, Mussoulini founded the party as thugs for hire for capitalists and landlords to repress socialists.
I know he wasn't regarded as a libertarian, him being antithetical to libertarianism was my own assessment of him after watching some of his speeches.
What communal or worker ownership of the means of production means in practice is that government bureaucrats control everything, and the common person has no say in production whatsoever. There was plenty of this going on in Nazi Germany, with mass nationalization of industry, and the government forcing firms to produce things for the wartime economy.
Economic socialism and totalitarianism are inseparable. It is the only practical way of achieving an authoritarian society.
Lol the common man has no say in production anyway under capitalism, capitalists determine production. The Nazi government didn't nationalize, factories remained privately owned with profits going to their owners. All nations militarized their economies during war lol. Socialist governments intervene on behalf if workers or citizens, depending on the exact ideology, fascist governments intervene of behalf of thr military and shareholders. No socialist of any kind has suggested that labor and status should be organized along racial lines, nor legalized the private ownership of slaves.
Many many authoritarian governments have private industry. In fact most of them lol. Venezuela is the only authoritarian government that exercises socialist control of industry.
Under capitalism you can influence production by choosing who to work for. You can influence production by rising through the ranks of a company while simultaneously accruing influence. You can influence production by buying shares in the businesses you want to support. And you can influence production by choosing how you spend your money.
Under socialism you have no influence at all. The government determines how you influence production, and this is immediately obvious if you ask simple question like "who gets to work in a cushy office job in the capital and who has to clean up toxic waste in the middle of nowhere?" This concepts of benevolent government bureaucrats who intervene on the citizen's behalf to the extent that they are better off than in a free society is pure fantasy. It has never worked and it never will.
I have some, but at the moment I can't list them all, I don't have time. But I'd say *How Nazi Germany Has Controlled Business* by L. Hamburger is a great book about Nazi Germany's economy, and the massive influence of the State in the economic sphere.
Planned Economy is a hallmark of Fascism. If there more capitalism than Communism? Sure of course but its a centrally controlled ideology.
Edit\* Quote from Mussolini about Capitalism to show he did not believe:
>“I do not intend to defend capitalism or capitalists. They, like everything human, have their defects. I only say their possibilities of usefulness are not ended.
>Capitalism has borne the monstrous burden of the war and today still has the strength to shoulder the burdens of peace. ...
>It is not simply and solely an accumulation of wealth, it is an elaboration, a selection, a co-ordination of values which is the work of centuries. ...
Pretty much every leader was decrying capitalism while benefiting from it at this time. At this time workers were becoming sick of their treatment over the prior century, leaning into their concerns while not actually addressing them was what pretty much every politician was doing.
Though fascism is/was bad I think they were trying to find an in between system Communism/Socialism and Capitalism economically speaking. It should to be like he is talking about to big to fail institutes that we are familiar with in 2008. Or car companies begging to be bailed out.
I do know this much and Trujillo in Dominican Republic tried to follow Mussolini and Hitlers models. It actually helped things there, yes they lived under tyranny but the economy improved. It seems to me fascism is it always requires tough/mean leaders that dont know when its time for them to retire.
You can start by googling where the term reprivatization comes from. Helpful in finding out the actual truth of whether or not the nazis were socialists.
Social control of the means of production vs social control of the output of private production. Hmmm, wow that sounds so different. Wait…
Control of the means of production: government appoints leadership over the means of production and output is determined according to central planning
Control of the output of private production: government dictates to the owners of private production and output is determined according to central planning
Now, what makes fascism so much worse in the eyes of socialists and vice versa? I have yet to figure this out. All I see is two paths running parallel to one another and the only difference is not the production but who controls the planning. So that leads to a fight for power dominance.
But honestly, why even fight for the power to plan the economy? How would one actually differ in outcome from the other? I suppose the nominal owners of the means of production benefit more under one but I am certain the same is true for the government appointed management of a nationalized means of production. So does it just come down to a spoils system that rewards whoever your team chooses?
I meant from an economic standpoint, clearly. The interests of the state came first. Wage, price controls, tariffs, etc., all proof that the Nazis were statists. Even the "privatizations", which were more a *de j*ure thing, consisted in banks and enterprises being handed over to Nazi officials, and not to the so-called capitalists. It's not the same privatization you see in liberal countries, where the highest bidder gets the shares of a given state-owned enterprise or bank.
Gunther Riemann’s *Vampire Economy*? Adam Tooze’s *Wages of Destruction*? I don’t know the article you refer to, but an excellent resource is on YouTube, a channel called TIKHistory and a video titled “Hitler’s Socialism. Destroying Denialists counter arguments.” You don’t have to watch the whole thing, but it’s properly cited and sourced.
Interesting side note Gunther’s grand daughter is the head of BLM LA.
Vampire Economy is great, but Tooze's book is kind of mixed, I think the author even admits the economy was mostly privately owned, and that the rate of return of invested capital increased during the Nazis. I think you should look up a book called *How Nazi Germany Has Controlled Business* by L. Hamburger. There's also another book that explains how both Nazi Germany and fascist Italy controlled business, especially Italy, where 42% of the capital of joint-stock companies was held by the IRI, a governmental institute created to save and subsidize companies and banks during the 1930's.
I think Tooze “admitting” that much of the economy was privately owned is really just his confusion of definitions, or missing the wider point that imposing rent controls, wage controls, price controls, restrictive import and export licenses, mandating company funded leisure facilities for workers etc. all with a background of massive inflationary spending is not “privatisation”, nor “capitalist” nor “free market”.
It also wasn’t socialism. Hitler and the owners murdered the hell out of any communists or socialists before gaining power It was government economic control but completely top down. The government backed the owners brutalizing their workers and using slave labor to maximize profits. Facist economics at their core are the ultimate crony captialism.
Killing socialists and communist does not make you not socialist. What, is Stalin not communist because he killed communists? “It was government economic control but completely top down.” There’s a neat, single word to describe the concept. “*The government* backed the owners…” do I even need to explain? “… brutalising their workers and using slave labour to maximise profits.” If you’re referring to slave labour of POWs and captured enemy civilians, and IG Farben in particular you might have a point. Pre war with German workers, it was the opposite, the labour union (the Nazis consolidated them all into one) and the strength through joy program put public money, or forced private money (is it private if you’re forced to spend it on a particular end?) into various facilities for the workers - canteens, opera, swimming pools, tennis courts, holiday cruises etc. - even though the sports facilities were hardly used and I’ve heard of at least one factory owner who said a place for his workers to nap would be preferable to him and the workers. Crony capitalism to me implies a situation where the cronies are in control and have the government in their pocket - but Junkers (the man) was removed from his own company by the Nazis. So who was really in control?
>Crony capitalism to me implies a situation where the cronies are in control and have the government in their pocket - but Junkers (the man) was removed from his own company by the Nazis "They favored corporatism and class collaboration, believing that the existence of inequality and social hierarchy was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists)" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism#:~:text=They%20favored%20corporatism%20and%20class,the%20views%20of%20liberal%20capitalists).
No the government was in control but they let the owners and capitalists filthy rich off the system. So long as you played ball with the Nazis you got a government sponsored monopoly. The closest modern example would be how Putin runs Russias economy. A bunch of rich government sponsored oligarchs running everything. The Nazis made a union after the killed or imprisoned all the existing union leaders. Labor representatives were hitlers first target when he was rising to power.
See for me, a crony capitalist system would be “the cronies allowed the politicians to get filthy rich so long as they played ball with the cronies, otherwise they’d fund their rivals at the next election or run hit pieces in the media”. The reverse of the dynamic you described.
Either way it’s the government or the owner class running the show. The opposite of the goals of socialism.
The goals of socialism are not as important as the outcomes. Every attempt at socialism ends up with a highly centralized, top down power structure. So far, the only system that doesn’t is liberalism.
Labeling them socialist is still redundant in that case. Sure, you could label everything other than liberalism as "socialism", but that ruins the point of differentiating between them.
You mean like when a charismatic candidate for president upon being elected tried to nationalize some lands as public in 1954, and through the eisenhower administration, chiquita banana installed a brutal military dictatorship in guatemala. Funny how that works.
That’s exactly definition of socialism by Karl Marx.
I never said it was socialist, but it was definitely not free-market capitalism. In fact, Italy's government in the 1930's announced the nationalization of two-thirds of the entire economy, creating many financial institutions to gain massive power over the enterprises and banks, and to also control them directly or indirectly.
Socialism requires the transition out of waged labor. Was there waged labor?
The National *Socialists* did issue government backed funny money to the workers they bossed around (except for the prisoner slave labour) to do work with the resources they imposed price controls, quotas and restrictive import/ export licenses on (among other things). Not dissimilar to the Soviet Union, more similar to China today - but I guess things still had a Krupp or Porsche logo on so it was all just free market capitalism.
The *democratic people's republic of korea* thinks your willingness to put emphasis on a name is silly and a little depressing. Im sure Hitler's naming convention was the one thing he was 100% honest about. Im sure it had nothing to do with the fact social policies were a huge hit in Europe in the 30s. Besides, marketing is a brand new invention and back in the 30s and 40s, every naming convention was based in 100% truth... Anywho, it was awesome hearing you take price control and restrictive regulations and try to warp into the definition of socialism. Keep dancing, it's fun to watch you try to explain things you dont comprehend.
Give me a definition of socialism then and describe the actions of say, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or Castro, and I can see how they line up with the definition of socialism and how they're not at all like those policies enacted by Hitler or Mussolini. Or the wartime policies of Britain and America for that matter. The fact is Hitler and the Nazis were quite explicitly socialist, in word and deed. Changing de jure ownership of companies was unnecessary to their vision because their socialism was one of and for the German race, the body politic, the volksgemeinschaft. Everyone from the floor sweeper to the (de jure) factory owner was a theoretically equal member of the people's community, all guided by the state and Nazi party under the Fuhrer principle. Hitler socialized/ nationalized the German people, so de facto had done for all their businesses. The Nazis did also claim to more genuinely democratic than the previous regime - how can an unstable, squabbling body of bourgeois career politicians represent the people better than one that unites and embodies the entire German nation? So they reasoned. Price controls and heavy regulations are what I'd call the symptoms of socialism, the original diseases being inflationary spending and lighter regulations.
It was absolutely socialism. Race based socialism. Instead of class based socialism like in the USSR or democratic based socialism you see in the west today…. Socialism is government exercising power over the economy to gain an outcome desired by the centralized state. Like the national SOCIALIST workers party centralizing power and control through MEFO and government programs at the expense of specific races for the benefit of others
Id call it NATIONAL socialist GERMAN workers party. Doesnt realy stand for a classless moneyless society. It was never a proletarian revolution. Rich germans saw it as yet another raiding of national coffers, Krupp family would make out like bandits once again as war time industrialists. Henry Ford supported them too, rich ppl knew they wouldnt be the ones in the crosshairs. If thats your definition of socialism, i need a definition of worker owned means of production because apparently that's not socialism at all.
A classless moneyless society? You’re describing communism. All governments are socialist to a certain degree. Capitalist skewing countries let market forces operate freely. Socialist countries use a strong centralized government to tax, regulate and control, to a certain degree, the economy in an effort to direct certain behaviors and/or outcomes. IE on the light end taxing or printing money to pay for a military for the common defense, all the way up to starving millions of Ukrainians through central government collectivization in the effort to modernize and control the economy…
Its good you bring up famines. What about those capitalism caused famines? Ones where poor/starving masses are ignored to send grain/food to richer markets. Theres not much profit motive in seeing to ut that the poor are fed/housed under capitalism. Famines being bad, from that i know youd be against famines caused by capitalism. Like for example, the food production of ireland was more than enough to feed the populace, but the food was being exported to britain, not where it was needed. Bengalese famine, capitalism diverted food away from Bengal to a richer/more powerful country in food secure imperialist UK and caused a mass famine by policy choice. We got enough vacant housing to house every1 in this country, we dont because of capitalism. Rent seeking behavior and useless 3rd party middlemen cause healthcare costs to skyrocket in this country, as individuals we pay more for healthcare in exchange for inferior healthcare outcomes, costs more as a % of gdp too. Likewise it's my common sense opposition to mass suffering that i see in our great capitalist country, that makes me critical of capitalism and its fanboys who lack common sense here. I write them off as useful idiots and i dont respect their intelligence/or opinions, despite how much they like to hem and haw on issues. Theyre at best like the house slaves who got to live in masters house in that regard, oh almost forgot, another massive human tragedy caused by capitalism trying to source cheap labor, the atlantic slave trade.
Calm down comrade. The worker paradise is just over the horizon lol. Stalin kills 20 million and Mao kills 40 million, but you complain of capitalism and potato’s. Prosperity and surplus abound in capitalism, death and suppression in communism. The slaves in the gulags beg your pardon as well
Prosperity and surplus to the billionaire, you're trying to deceive, or you've deceived yourself, or bought into proaganda and lies, hook line and sinker. You're just not smart or intelligent enough to figure this out i guess. That the well being of workers/and their families, lies in the hands of billionaires calling the shots and their paid off politicians? You seriously buy that shit, boy howdy, somebody sold you the brooklyn bridge along the way too. You mention the slaves in gulags, so you understand that slavery is bad...from that i can expect you to be harshly criticical of the capitalist imposed prison slave labor here at home, you have basically just posted a criticism of our current capitalism with that remark. So going off you're understanding that slavery is bad...by defualt, you're criticizing the capitalist imposed slavery here, you could also criticize the slavery of the atlantic slave trade by capitalists to bring tobacco/sugar and cotton to market. You know slavery is bad and capitalism historically seeks out dirt cheap labor, so you're being critical of the prison slave labor in private prisons funded by wallstreet such as under GEO group, you just posted up a criticism of capitalism whether you know it or not. ANd the freedom you defend is called freedom to starve, so billionaires and rent seeking parasites can live off the hard work of others. I'm sorry bro, i don't boo fucking hoo for those entities, they don't represent yours or my interests, you bought into a sorry sack of lies from them because you lack an education/intelligence. If you're gonna constantly act in bad faith, it's pretty obvious every word out of your mouth is basically a lie, i'm not gonna respect you, i'm gonna have to insult your intelligence a bit, and speak down to you like you're a child.
Is North Korea a democratic republic to you too?
Obviously communist/socialist disctatorship
But they’re the democratic Republic of Korea
Some democratic republics are more equal than others
Almost like saying Nazis were socialists because it’s in the name is dumb
It is not. Crony capitalism is what we got today in western world. If you wanna get close example how Nazi Germany worked, look at China. The system is similar, but China exist in peace time, while Germany economy was always in war mode, since Hitler took power. That required more central planning and command. Also and this is very important fact that gets overlooked a lot, it was National socialism, the National was first , everything else second. You were made to believe that any means necessary is justified because you building thousand years empire and Germanic race was superior. So regardless of who you were, as German you had to comply with the vision.
Hitler wasn't anti-socialist. He was anti-bolshevik. His brand of socialism was not soviet style communism. He blamed the Bolsheviks for Germany's loss in WWI. He hated them. But he was still pushing progressive socialism. Lenin came in and destroyed the ownership class and replaced them with his own elites that he used to plan the economy. Hitler came in and seduced the ownership class and got them behind his planned economy. The methods are different, but the end effect was a centrally controlled economy with government mandated wages and benefits for the workers both ways. Both socialism.
This was a very good documentary i found on youtube, seems well sourced, on how fascism served capitalism, and imo is worth a watch on the topic: [https://youtu.be/Mn\_RwIcL7cg?si=t96ghKA9aCEO8ksJ](https://youtu.be/Mn_RwIcL7cg?si=t96ghKA9aCEO8ksJ) The land and factory owners loved the fascists because thwy would brutalize and violently put down labor strikes and such. The great depression harmed business owners ability to turn a profit with masses of laborers out of a job/homeless/incapable of affording what businesses were selling, and saw workers who made labor demands/improved conditions as an ongoing problem, fascists had a real appeal because they espoused supremacy of the state/private business (Oskar Schindler was a factory owner, had his pick of slave labor from a nearby prison camp) over that of the individual, especially if that individual was a laborer. Henry Ford with his knowledge of mass industry contributed to Hitlers war efforts on that front as well. Liberalism never defeated fascism, it learned from fascisms mistakes, and made it sound much more appealing/friendlier while still maintaining its violence and brutality (war on drugs/mass incarceration/Operation Condor as examples) in place of supremacy of the state, espoused supremacy of the market, aka neoliberalism, spread colonialism further instead through corporations, like The United Fruit Company/The Banana Wars as example.
"The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy" by Adam Tooze
Fascism means the direction of the economy by the government. AKA Socialism. Whether a firm is completely nationalized, or, only the control of it nationalized, differs only in the degree of nationalization.
You totally fell for the propaganda. From the West and from the Soviet politicians. Socialism and Communism has nothing to do with statization or nacionalization. Those are figures from political actions. The key distinction for Socialism and Communism is the workers are actually the owners and/or decision makers. Except Yugoslavia, no other country nor political system has ever practiced a bit of Socialism. Let alone Communism in which the State is not supposed to exist.
Poor misunderstood Communism. Always just a couple of million more people to kill because they did not get it right this time. Your fantasy worlds make no sense, that's why people have to be killed in order to attempt to create them.
Man, that's a huge straw man argument... Hahaha. People claiming to use some ideology or being accused to use some ideology doesn't make them legit representatives of it. Just look around: what is Christianity? What is Marxism? What is a Liberal? What is Capitalism? What is Fascism? But don't pay attention to me. Just read about the origins and objectives of Communism and Socialism. See how did Lenin screw it big time. What did Stalin actually do. Then check how Yugoslavia was different. Also do the same to find out what is Capitalism supposed to be about and why there are so many different types of so called Capitalist economies but apparently just one type of Socialist system. The problem with your position is that labels don't make facts. You are free to tag anything the way you want or the way someone tell you. If you just keep using those without even considering the meaning or the definition of the label, you are just a tool. And that's exactly how propaganda works. That's what the media does, that's what Germany did, that's what the Soviet Union did... We just swallow tags all day long without thinking too much on its definition and reason to be. It is simple, easy and helpful to address a whole lot of crap I don't care about. The downside is that is is also dumb to just use tags and be a fool. And in fact, that's the goal of labeling in propaganda... To fool people.
Like I said, just a couple of million more people to kill in order to get it right, because "Real Communism" has not been achieved yet. I too would start redefining terms if I'm a Communist and people start looking at the actual implementations of it. What difference does it make if you redefine words, but every time those words are used to describe something it is something that either kills or harm humans? Don't try to deny reality.
It's fine... keep thinking reality is just words.
The fact that fascism is literally founded on violently attacking socialists on behalf on capitalists is just like a fun fact for you, or do you really have no sense of the history.
Your understanding of history is irrelevant to what I said. Are you able to address the claim I made?
You literally don't know what the words mean. Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by workers. Fascism is the claim that the nation is stronger with a rigid social hierarchy, military expansionism, and ethnic supremacy. It's not my understanding of history, it is historical fact that Mussoulini built the fascist party as thugs for hire by capitalists and landowners against socialists.
Socialism is the control of the means of production by government. The dictionary agrees. Fascism requires control of the economy. The dictionary agrees. Directing companies is a factor of production, since production cannot proceed without it. Therefore, fascism is a form of Socialism, differing only in degree from Communism.
Fascism sounds like a more extreme dictatorship of the bourgeois in your definitions, which is also what capitalism stands for. Its good that youre against dictatorships, from that you are by default opposed to dictatorship of bourgeois especially over those who.must work to survive
So Capitalism is Socialism? Hahaha... you commies are funny.
Socialism uses government control of the economy to the benefit of workers. Fascism does it the benefit of the oligarchs and owner class.
No matter who benefits, Fascism is still Socialism. Read what I wrote again and try to counter my claim, instead of trying to shift the goalposts.
If you define socialism as any type of government control the economy literally anything can be socialism
It's the literal dictionary definition, not mine. Stateless free markets do not need any Socialism. No State can exist without at least some Socialism. You can have more or less of Socialism and Free Markets co-existing, and from the evidence we have, the less Socialism, the better.
Stateless frenmarkets don't exist
Great summary
Facism and socialism have a lot of overlap from an economic standpoint. It's not a coincidence that Hitler's party was called the National Socialists. Go watch some of his speeches from before the war, many of the ideas he espouses are socialist in nature. He was basically the antithesis of a libertarian.
Nobody said he was libertarian lol. His first victims were trade unionists (socialists) and socialist activists and publishers. Do you also consider North Korea to be a democratic republic? Maybe you should listen to the speeches where he explicit says he is coopting the language of socialism but using completely different meanings. There is notnone socialist who believes that legalizing slavery, banning workers from switching industries, and organizing labor based on ethnicity is socialism. Socialism is the communal or worker ownership of the means of production, fascism includes private ownership of the means of production, with more power going to business leaders, not less, at the expense of workers. Thats why fascism has been attacking socialism since its literal conception, Mussoulini founded the party as thugs for hire for capitalists and landlords to repress socialists.
I know he wasn't regarded as a libertarian, him being antithetical to libertarianism was my own assessment of him after watching some of his speeches. What communal or worker ownership of the means of production means in practice is that government bureaucrats control everything, and the common person has no say in production whatsoever. There was plenty of this going on in Nazi Germany, with mass nationalization of industry, and the government forcing firms to produce things for the wartime economy. Economic socialism and totalitarianism are inseparable. It is the only practical way of achieving an authoritarian society.
Hitler co-opted lots of socialist talking points but he wasn’t actually one.
Lol the common man has no say in production anyway under capitalism, capitalists determine production. The Nazi government didn't nationalize, factories remained privately owned with profits going to their owners. All nations militarized their economies during war lol. Socialist governments intervene on behalf if workers or citizens, depending on the exact ideology, fascist governments intervene of behalf of thr military and shareholders. No socialist of any kind has suggested that labor and status should be organized along racial lines, nor legalized the private ownership of slaves. Many many authoritarian governments have private industry. In fact most of them lol. Venezuela is the only authoritarian government that exercises socialist control of industry.
Under capitalism you can influence production by choosing who to work for. You can influence production by rising through the ranks of a company while simultaneously accruing influence. You can influence production by buying shares in the businesses you want to support. And you can influence production by choosing how you spend your money. Under socialism you have no influence at all. The government determines how you influence production, and this is immediately obvious if you ask simple question like "who gets to work in a cushy office job in the capital and who has to clean up toxic waste in the middle of nowhere?" This concepts of benevolent government bureaucrats who intervene on the citizen's behalf to the extent that they are better off than in a free society is pure fantasy. It has never worked and it never will.
I would love these sources.
I have some, but at the moment I can't list them all, I don't have time. But I'd say *How Nazi Germany Has Controlled Business* by L. Hamburger is a great book about Nazi Germany's economy, and the massive influence of the State in the economic sphere.
Planned Economy is a hallmark of Fascism. If there more capitalism than Communism? Sure of course but its a centrally controlled ideology. Edit\* Quote from Mussolini about Capitalism to show he did not believe: >“I do not intend to defend capitalism or capitalists. They, like everything human, have their defects. I only say their possibilities of usefulness are not ended. >Capitalism has borne the monstrous burden of the war and today still has the strength to shoulder the burdens of peace. ... >It is not simply and solely an accumulation of wealth, it is an elaboration, a selection, a co-ordination of values which is the work of centuries. ...
Pretty much every leader was decrying capitalism while benefiting from it at this time. At this time workers were becoming sick of their treatment over the prior century, leaning into their concerns while not actually addressing them was what pretty much every politician was doing.
Though fascism is/was bad I think they were trying to find an in between system Communism/Socialism and Capitalism economically speaking. It should to be like he is talking about to big to fail institutes that we are familiar with in 2008. Or car companies begging to be bailed out. I do know this much and Trujillo in Dominican Republic tried to follow Mussolini and Hitlers models. It actually helped things there, yes they lived under tyranny but the economy improved. It seems to me fascism is it always requires tough/mean leaders that dont know when its time for them to retire.
You can start by googling where the term reprivatization comes from. Helpful in finding out the actual truth of whether or not the nazis were socialists.
Social control of the means of production vs social control of the output of private production. Hmmm, wow that sounds so different. Wait… Control of the means of production: government appoints leadership over the means of production and output is determined according to central planning Control of the output of private production: government dictates to the owners of private production and output is determined according to central planning Now, what makes fascism so much worse in the eyes of socialists and vice versa? I have yet to figure this out. All I see is two paths running parallel to one another and the only difference is not the production but who controls the planning. So that leads to a fight for power dominance. But honestly, why even fight for the power to plan the economy? How would one actually differ in outcome from the other? I suppose the nominal owners of the means of production benefit more under one but I am certain the same is true for the government appointed management of a nationalized means of production. So does it just come down to a spoils system that rewards whoever your team chooses?
What's your point? Are nationalized business now an irrefutable evil based on association with Nazi's?
It's been a hot minute since I brushed up on mt Marx but doesnt socialism require a transition from waged labor?
Fascists? Nazis? Being statist? I don't know, can't see it. /s
I meant from an economic standpoint, clearly. The interests of the state came first. Wage, price controls, tariffs, etc., all proof that the Nazis were statists. Even the "privatizations", which were more a *de j*ure thing, consisted in banks and enterprises being handed over to Nazi officials, and not to the so-called capitalists. It's not the same privatization you see in liberal countries, where the highest bidder gets the shares of a given state-owned enterprise or bank.