Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@secretsfullofsaucers
More leftists were killed in the great Purge of USSR than that Nazi Germany in peace time (1933 to 1939).
According to the official record, at least 41,000 Red Army personal were sentenced to death by Military Courts and 10000 more Political prisoners (not ex-kulaks) were executions in the Gulag during the great purge.
While in Nazi German:
“Historians estimate the total of all those kept in the concentration camps in 1933 at around 100,000, and that does not count those picked up by the SA, beaten, kept for a time, and released without being formally charged. The estimates for these “wild” camps run to another 100,000.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p158. )
Out of those 200,000 prisoners, from various sources can be found online, the highest number of German Communist (the left elements) executed/died in Concentration Camp was ranged from 20000 to 30000.
In the low end of the estimation, only 600 communists were killed in 1933. (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p158. )
“[Hitler] rejected from the outset the idea that the millions who voted for the KPD or the SPD could simply be “forbidden” [from the people’s community], and he was fully aware that the process of getting them integrated in the community could take years.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p163. )
“By July 1934 only around 4,700 prisoners remained, and a Hitler amnesty on August 7, 1934, cut the number to 2,394, 67 percent of whom were in Bavaria.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p162. )
The rest of those 200,000 were released from the concentration camps.
In PRC: In Sufan movement of 1955-1957 which targeted the counter revolutionary within the party and the government, 53,000 abnormal death.
3
-
@Schnoz42069 And the state is society, this idea is not from Lenin nor Hitler but Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.
“Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”(Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith)
“
…These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
…
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
…
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848)
“Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. ” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
3
-
3
-
There are plenty of socialist policies implemented by the Nazis and advocated within Nazism. Here are the relevant quotes from the video:
"Workers had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State." (17:15, 17:31)(Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," see Chapter 2.)
"The employment and wage of workers were also regulated by the DAF." (9:17,17:25)
"Profit, as Point 14 of the Nazi ‘Twenty-Five Points’, declared in 1920, was to be shared out among the community." (10:10)
"As Götz Aly’s book “Hitler’s Beneficiaries” makes clear, most of the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews. They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidised by the State."(10:20)(Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
3
-
3
-
National socialism did appropriate means of production to the workers. Here are the relevant quote from the video:
"Workers had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State." (17:15, 17:31)(Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," see Chapter 2.)
"The employment and wage of workers were also regulated by the DAF(9:17 ,17:25)."
"Profit, as Point 14 of the Nazi ‘Twenty-Five Points’, declared in 1920, was to be shared out among the community (10:10)."
"As Götz Aly’s book “Hitler’s Beneficiaries” makes clear, most of the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews. They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidised by the State."(10:20)(Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
Hitler also didn’t killed all “left fascist”. Hitler only banned but not purged the “Black Front” and Otto Strasser.
For the “Red Triangle”. Lenin also did that during the Red Terror
First Lenin came for Anarchist in 4/1918.
Then Lenin came for the Socialist Revolutionary in 7/1918.
3
-
@alexxx4434
1/
Nazism is not Fascism
"The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Prof Zeev Sternhell debunked the misconception of Nazism is Fascism.
“Before proceeding any farther, we have to insist on another element of the definition we are proposing. Fascism can in no way be identified with Nazism. Undoubtedly the two ideologies, the two movements, and the two regimes had common characteristics. They often ran parallel to one another or overlapped, but they differed on one fundamental point: the criterion of German national socialism was biological determinism. The basis of Nazism was racism in its most extreme sense, and the fight against the Jews, against“inferior” races, played a more preponderant role in it than the struggle against communism. Marxists could be converted to national socialism, as indeed quite a number of them were; similarly, national socialism could sign treaties with Communists, exchange ambassadors, and coexist with them, if only temporarily. Nothing like this, however, applied to the Jews. Where they were concerned, the only possible “arrangement” with them was their destruction.
Certainly, racism was not limited to Germany. At the end of the nineteenth century, biological determinism developed in a country like France too; but if it was a factor in the development of the revolutionary Right, racism in its French variant never became the whole purpose of an ideology, a movement, and a regime.
In fact, racial determinism was not present in all the varieties of fascism. If Robert Brasillach professed an anti Semitism very close to that of Nazism, George Valois’s “Faisceau” had none at all; and if some Italian Fascists were violently anti-Semitic, in Italy there were innumerable Fascist Jews. Their percentage in the movement was much higher than in the population as a whole. As we know, racial laws were promulgated in Italy only in 1938, and during the Second World War the Jews felt much less in danger in Nice or Haute-Savoie, areas under Italian occupation, than in Marseilles, which was under the control of the Vichy government.
Racism was thus not a necessary condition for the existence of fascism; on the contrary, it was a factor in Fascist eclecticism. For this reason, a general theory that seeks to combine fascism and Nazism will always come up against this essential aspect of the problem. In fact, such a theory is not possible. Undoubtedly there are similarities, particularly with regard to the “totalitarian” character of the two regimes, but their differences are no less significant. Karl Bracher perceived the singular importance of these differences, which Ernst Nolte (this was his chief weakness) completely ignored.” - Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p5
3
-
2/
Despite scattered, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" illustrated the Socialism origin of Fascist's economic and political ideologies.
The political aspect of Fascism originated from Sorelianism, while the economic aspect of Fascism originated from from Émile Janvion’s revolutionary syndicalist.
Sorelian belief or realized that the classless communist state was not achievable by class struggle as Marxism suggested because Marxism failed to account for/predict the following factors:
1. The bourgeoisie would avoid a fight, reduce its power, and purchase social tranquillity at any price.
2. Socialist parties would become instruments of class collaboration and concoct Democratic Socialism.
3. The elimination of bourgeoisies' appetites (the freedom of purchase) and the proletariats' ardor (the reward of production) would lead to the decadence of civilization (Production Inefficiency).
4. A state of affairs in which the official syndical organization became "a variety of politics, a means of getting on in the world" (the power of uniting proletarians would ascend the syndical leader social class from proletarian. Hence the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms can never be swept away)
5. The government and the philanthropists took it into their heads to exterminate socialism by developing social legislation and reducing employers' resistance to strikes."
6. Proletarian violence would come on the scene just at the moment when social tranquility tries to calm the conflicts.
(Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66)
Hence, therefore, Sorelian had two conclusions.
The first is that capitalism failed to accomplish its social purpose and create a united, organized proletariat, conscious of its power and mission. (AKA Capitalism was not Self -Destructive in late 1800s to early 1900s) In order to achieve the "communistic revolution", Class Consciousness, Will to Struggle, and Social Polarization needed to be artificially created. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66)
"class antagonisms were never automatically or necessarily produced by capitalism. Capitalism does not inevitably produce class struggle; a capitalist "inevitability" exists only in the domain of economics, production, and technology. If capitalism develops as the result of a certain necessity, if the capitalists all have to try and improve their equipment, to find new outlets, to reduce their manufacturing costs, "nothing obliges the workers to unite and to organize themselves." For this reason, capitalism can neither automatically cause social polarization and class antagonisms nor give rise to a combative way of thinking and a spirit of sacrifice. Class struggle materializes only where there is a desire, continually fostered, to destroy the existing order. The mechanisms of the capitalist system are able to give rise to economic progress, create ever-increasing wealth, and raise the standard of living. These mechanisms are a necessary but not sufficient precondition for nurturing a class consciousness. The capitalist system does not by its nature poduce a revolutionary state of mind…" ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p51-52)
The second one is that the classes would be the foundation of all socialism. The end goal of class struggle would be a free-market society in that different classes coexist in harmony with “an equality of expenses, efforts, and labor for all men, as well as an equality of profits and salaries.” ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66, p147)
"In that case, "should one believe the Marxist conception is dead? Not at all, for proletarian violence comes on the scene just at the moment when social tranquillity tries to calm the conflicts. Proletarian violence encloses the employers in their role of producers and restores the structure of the classes just as the latter had seemed to mix together in a democratic quagmire." Sorel added that "the more the bourgeoisie will be ardently capitalist and the more the proletariat will be full of a fighting spirit and confident of its revolutionary force, the more will movement be assured." This was especially the case because he considered this division of classes to be "the basis of all socialism." This is what created "the idea of a catastrophic revolution" and would finally enable "socialism to fulfill its historical role." " (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66)
To archive this final goal, a Fascist Revolution will be required.
(Because of the need to include Mosley's Fascism, which did not use any myth to push his fascist revolution, into the definition, and even Communism IRL also used "antimaterialistic" and "antirationalistic" values like Cult of personality, social solidarity, the sense of duty and sacrifice, and heroic values to justify its final goal of the classless communist state, which was deemed as not purely scientific by Sorelian. I will skip the myth part.)
"The capitalist system does not by its nature produce a revolutionary state of mind, and it is not by itself capable of creating the conviction that the bourgeois order deserves to be overtaken not only by a "material catastrophe," but also by a "moral catastrophe." ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p52)
3
-
@alexxx4434
3/
The economic aspect of Italian Fascism mainly originated from revolutionary syndicalist economics theory, a revision of Marxist economics.
The revolutionary syndicalists proclaimed revolutionary syndicates to be the necessary combat weapons for the working class. Even though they did not deny the professional syndicate a positive role, revolutionary syndicalists believed professional syndicates is that their field of action is extremely limited due to the nature of the capitalist economy. The limits were set by the overriding need of capitalism to accede to workers' demands only to the degree that this concession would leave it with a profit. As soon as profit ceased, the capitalists moved on to some other sector where profit was assured, leaving the workers of the professional syndicates without employment. Therefore, this syndicate is incapable of posing a threat to bourgeois society.
To address this limitation, the Revolutionary Syndicalists proposed the creation of industrial unions that would organize workers across different trades and industries. This approach would allow workers to exert greater collective power over the capitalist system by coordinating strikes and other forms of direct action that could disrupt the normal functioning of the economy. By focusing their efforts on the economic sphere, the Revolutionary Syndicalists hoped to bring about a change in the infrastructure of society, which would, in turn, lead to a change in the superstructure. They believed that this change could not be brought about solely through political action or a small revolutionary vanguard's actions but required the working class's active participation as a whole.
In addition to industrial unions, the Revolutionary Syndicalists also advocated for creating worker cooperatives, where workers would collectively own and manage the means of production. This approach was seen as a way to challenge the capitalists' power and create an alternative economic system based on worker control and cooperation.
Overall, the Revolutionary Syndicalists believed that the key to achieving social change was to organize the working class in a way that would allow them to exert direct economic power over the capitalist system. By organizing across trades and industries and focusing on the economic sphere, they hoped to create a society where workers could control their destinies and build a new, more equitable social order.
As a revision theory, the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is distinct from traditional Marxist economic theory, as they focused on the relationship between workers and the process of production rather than the relationship between workers and the means of production.
One of the key concepts in the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is that of "producers." The term "producers" indicates a type of corporatist organization that appeared just after the war in the political writings of Lanzillo, Panunzio, and De Ambris. In the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory, producers have to be grouped into corporations whose members are bound by a community of socioeconomic interests.
Unlike the Marxist conception of the proletariat or workers, the class/category of "producers" could include not only workers, but also technicians, administrators, managers, directors, and even capitalist industrialists who participate in the productive process. In this model, the revolutionary syndicalists opposed the class/category of "parasites," consisting of all those who do not contribute to the productive process.
The revolutionary syndicalists believed that this model of a corporation formed from the bottom upward, beginning with the proletarians and some producers and then including all producers, reflected reality. However, above all, it had the enormous advantage of providing an integrated solution to social and national problems.
Furthermore, revolutionary syndicalists add a voluntarist element to their theory. They believe that moral improvement, administrative and technical amelioration, and the emergence of elites among the proletariat would lead to the formation of revolutionary syndicates. These elites would lead the fight against bourgeois society and bring about a "liberalist" economy in which the capital would have no legal privilege and relations between capital and labor would be regulated by market forces. ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p143-145)
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Rebel-Forces-Earth-007
“Between the 1950s and early 1970s, a powerful ideology in the Muslim world galvanised itself from the minds and fringes of modern Islamic intellectualism and made its way into the mainstream political arena.
But this ideology did not have a single originator. Its roots can be found amongst the works of Muslim thinkers and ideologues in South and East Asia, Africa and in various Middle Eastern (Arab) countries.
Also, once it began being adopted by mainstream leaders and political outfits, it was expressed through multiple names. But today, each one of these names and terms are slotted under a single definitional umbrella: Islamic Socialism.”
As Islam can also be intolerant of homosexuals, gay marriage, abortion, birth control, and those who do not follow the Quran. There maybe some fundamental extremist would mix their ideology and Marxism and create their own Islamic Socialism.
From a very shallow observation, there are very few Islamic that tolerate homosexuals, gay marriage, abortion, birth control, and those who do not follow the Quran.
I believe you might find out what would be the fusion product of Marxist Socialism and Religious fundamentalism from the history and development of Islamic Socialism.
3
-
3
-
Privatisation was a Nazi Scam.
Nazi renationalised all the state property that was previously sold to private sector as stock since 1933 with corporate law in 1937 by removing the shareholders “right to vote on dividend policy and on the dismissal of directors (Mertens, 2007: 95-96). Moreover, the government was empowered to dissolve any corporation deemed to endanger the national welfare without the need to compensate shareholders (Mertens, 2007: 101).” (THE RISE AND FALL OF THE GERMAN STOCK MARKET, 1870-1938)
Bank Act of 1934 allowed the government to exercise tight control over private banks(Bel, “Against the Mainstream,” P20.),
That Nazi’s Bank Act allowed the Government to "intervene actively in banking business as and when they think fit and even to select the personnel of bank management".(Dessauer, Marie. 1935. "The German Bank Act of 1934.", p.224)
Even if banks were privately owned in the forefront, they were still under the control of the Nazi party.
3
-
3
-
In practise from what happened in Great Chinese Famine and, The Cultural Revolution, Communism did meet the definition of religion defined by Max Lynn Stackhouse and Emile Durkheim.
"a comprehensive worldview or 'metaphysical moral vision' that is accepted as binding because it is held to be in itself basically true and just even if all dimensions of it cannot be either fully confirmed or refuted" (Max Lynn Stackhouse)
"a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say things set apart and forbidden - beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a church, all those who adhere to them."(Emile Durkheim)
In the Great Chinese Famine, the leadership known that they need to capitalise the econmy to increase the farmer incentive, they didn't do that because they believed it would be a recession from Communism stage to Capitalist stage of Mode of production in the Marxist theory of historical materialism.
It has a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, the images of Mao, Lenin, Engus, Marx and communist propaganda were everywhere, and the "The Little Red Book"/"The Treasured Red Book" holded by every red guard .
The left deviationism and the cult of personality to Mao that led the Red Guard to "fight and contest" their own parents.
The daily "Reporting to the portrait of Chairman Mao day and night" (This was an actual activity) to reinforce the cult of personality to Mao.
There were many more examples to show that many historical practiced of communism fitted the definition of religion and even cult.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The definition of Socialism is an ideology that advocated “Social Ownership of means of production”, which appropriate the surplus product, produced by the means of production or the wealth that comes from it, to society at large or the workers themselves. ("Theory and Practice in Socialist Economics")
Nazi economic system did able to achieve social ownership of means of production. By the fact that the surplus product produced by means production, and the wealth derived from it, were appropriated to society as a whole by the State and to workers by DAF. The way how Nazi Germany appropriated the surplus product met the description of two principal variants of social ownership of the mean of production according to the following source.
"Here again there are two principal variants of such social claims to income, depending on the nature of the community holding the claim: (1) Public surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to an agency of the government (at the national, regional, or local level), representing a corresponding community of citizens. (2) Worker surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to enterprise workers." (Toward a Socialism for the Future, in the Wake of the Demise of the Socialism of the Past, by Weisskopf, Thomas E. 1992. Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 24, No. 3–4, p. 10)
Historical fact show that Nazi Germany gradually eliminate unemployment, the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews. They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
“Family and child tax credits, marriage loans, and home-furnishing and child-education allowances were among the measures with which the state tried to relieve the financial burden on parents and encourage Germans to have more children.” (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” p38-39.)
In addition to this, there were price controls, wage controls, rent controls, and centralised distribution of goods - materials could only be bought with certificates which had to be obtained from one of the various central planning boards which distributed said materials.( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p51-52, p67-70, p251-254.)
Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was not pro-capitalist as the Nazi in your own imagination. Capitalists were also being regulated by the DAF. Under the new National Socialist regulations (enforced by the DAF), the concepts of “employers” and “employees” were done away with, being replaced with the terms “leaders” and “followers”. And while some “followers” did complain about the new system, saying it was benefiting the “leaders” at the expense of the “followers”, their “leaders” also complained about the new system.
(Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p107. Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p70, p83. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327-329.)
“Yes, I am the ‘leader’ in my factory; my workers are my ‘followers.’ But I am no longer a manager...
(Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p107.)
I cannot decide what is allowed or forbidden in my own factory...
(Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.)
There have been cases where managers were removed by the Party of Labor Trustees and replaced by ‘kommissars.’ ”
( Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p116.)
Furthermore, the “private profit” of those private companies would still be forced to redistribute among the workers ( to further the Nazi goal) by the DAF, the party subordinates, or directly by the Nazi Government.
"A year or so ago I was ordered to spend social evenings with my 'followers' and to celebrate with them by providing free beer and sausages. The free beer and sausages were welcome enough ... Last year he (The Labor Front secretary) compelled me to spend over a hundred thousand marks for a new lunchroom in our factory. This year he wants me to build a new gymnasium and athletic field which will cost about 120,000 marks." (Reimann, The Vampire Economy, p. 112)
3
-
3
-
So as Karl Marx, his dialectic showed that Hegel's "End of History" and resulting reconciliation of freedom and determination, was premature: Hegel had not accounted for the contradictions in what he called "civil society"--the economic sphere--that continued to undermine the "autonomous" activity of modern subjects. Since the species had not yet gained rational mastery over our economic activity, since collective social action was still characterized by alienated productions that take on a life of their own, and come to dominate their producers (arrayed under the category of capital), humanity had not yet returned to itself, and history remained incomplete.
Karl Marx redefined the term of “End of History” from Hegel’s from something indefinite, to a definite goal (the reunification of production and producers). Human can complete the incomplete history( the future, things that not yet happen) by reunify production to the producers, which coincidentally Marxism advocated.
It seems Karl Marx (distorted the meaning of dialect in some way) dialect as a token to justify communism (his ideology).
Dialectic in this context is just a tool for theory, ideology or religion justification.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3/
Those industries that had their former owners removed (expropriated) were then sold to individuals in the Nazi Party, who then ran them for the benefit of the Nazi Party. In other words: they were nationalised. This fact is pointed out by Bel’s “Against the Mainstream” - a text that is often used by Marxists to “prove” that it was ‘privatisation’. Except it doesn’t, it accidentally proves the exact opposite. If only they had actually bothered to read it.
“It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party.” (Bel, G. "Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany," Universitat de Barcelona, PDF p3.)
“Besides the transfer to the private sector of public ownership in firms, the Nazi government also transferred many public services (some long established, others newly created) to special organizations: either the Nazi party and its affiliates(Pollock (1938, p. 43-68) provides an extensive revision of the organizational characteristics of the Nazi Party holding of organizations.) or other allegedly independent organizations which were set up for a specific purpose (Nathan, 1944a, p. 321). In this way, delivery of these services was privatized.”
(Bel, G. "Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany," Universitat de Barcelona, PDF p9.)
[The Party of the Government is not private sector](TIK remark)
"Both governments [Nazi and Soviet] reorganised industry into larger units, ostensibly to increase state control over economic activity. The Nazis reorganised industry into 13 administrative groups with a large number of subgroups to create a private hierarchy for state control. The state therefore could direct the firms’ activities without acquiring direct ownership of enterprises. The pre-existing tendency to form cartels was encouraged to eliminate competition that would destabilise prices.”
(Temin, “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” p582-583.)
"...in practice the Reichsbank and the Reich Ministry of Economic Affairs had no intention of allowing the radical activists of the SA, the shopfloor militants of the Nazi party or Gauleiter commissioners to dictate the course of events. Under the slogan of the 'strong state', the ministerial bureaucracy fashioned a new national structure of economic regulation."
(Tooze, “Wages of Destruction," p112.)
“We worked and governed with incredible elan. We really ruled. For the bureaucrats of the Ministry the contrast to the Weimar Republic was stark. Party chatter in the Reichstag was no longer heard. The language of the bureaucracy was rid of the paralysing formula: technically right but politically impossible.”
(Schacht, speaking of the situation after 1933, quoted from Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," p112-113.)
“Manufacturers in Germany were panic-stricken when they heard of the experiences of some industrialists who were more or less expropriated by the State. These industrialists were visited by State auditors who had strict orders to “examine” the balance sheets and all bookkeeping entries of the company (or individual businessman) for the preceding two, three, or more years until some error or false entry was found. The slightest formal mistake was punished with tremendous penalties. A fine of millions of marks was imposed for a single bookkeeping error. Obviously, the examination of the books was simply a pretext for partial expropriation of the private capitalist with a view to complete expropriation and seizure of the desired property later. The owner of the property was helpless, since under [National Socialism] there is no longer an independent judiciary that protects the property rights of private citizens against the state. The authoritarian State has made it a principle that private property is no longer sacred.”
(Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Chapter 2.)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jakubsirocky4787
["Unlike the social welfare institutions of the Weimar Republic and the Christian charities, the NSV distributed assistance on explicitly racial grounds. It provided support only to those who were "racially sound, capable of and willing to work, politically reliable, and willing and able to reproduce." Non-Aryans were excluded, as well as the "work-shy", "asocials" and the "hereditarily ill.""
That is basically paying your member to like you, not welfare to create equality. Paying soldiers is not socialism.]
Socialism just for the Aryan just for poverty, not for the one who didn't work. That is Nazism. As I remember, the "work-shy", "asocials" and the "hereditarily ill." would also get punished by the Cheka in USSR under Lenin.
["The stated goal of the German Labour Front was not to protect workers, but to increase output, and it brought in employers as well as workers"
"The law establishing the DAF stated that its aim was not to protect workers but "to create a true social and productive community of all Germans" and "to see that every single individual should be able to perform the maximum of work.""
That as I showed wasn't to help worker or share profits with anyone. It was to maximize production and profit by very few approved capital owners. Those capital owner were not state or "society"]
Historically Fascists and Communist Regime had the same approach toward trade Union——Nationalisation. Nazi nationalised all Labor Union into DAF, like Cuba nationalised all Union into CTC, USSR to ACCTU, and Italy to Fascist Trade Unions.
Use the CTC of Cuba as an example.
Non of them have right to strike and collective bargaining. (Por Pedro Pablo Morejon, There Aren’t Any Real Unions in Cuba)
“There was no change in Cuba where the single trade union system persists, there is no genuine collective bargaining and the right to strike is not recognised in law. “ (2007 Annual Survey of violations of trade union rights - Cuba)
Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was also not pro-capitalist as the Nazi. The "capitalists" were also people being regulated by the DAF. Under the new National Socialist regulations (enforced by the DAF), the concepts of “employers” and “employees” were done away with, being replaced with the terms “leaders” and “followers”. And while some “followers” did complain about the new system, saying it was benefiting the “leaders” at the expense of the “followers”, their “leaders” also complained about the new system.
(Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p107. Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p70, p83. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327-329.)
“Yes, I am the ‘leader’ in my factory; my workers are my ‘followers.’ But I am no longer a manager...
(Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p107.)
I cannot decide what is allowed or forbidden in my own factory...
(Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.)
There have been cases where managers were removed by the Party of Labor Trustees and replaced by ‘kommissars.’ ”
( Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p116.)
Furthermore, the “private profit” of those private companies would still be forced to redistribute among the workers ( to further the Nazi goal) by the DAF, the party subordinates, or directly by the Nazi Government.
"A year or so ago I was ordered to spend social evenings with my 'followers' and to celebrate with them by providing free beer and sausages. The free beer and sausages were welcome enough ... Last year he (The Labor Front secretary) compelled me to spend over a hundred thousand marks for a new lunchroom in our factory. This year he wants me to build a new gymnasium and athletic field which will cost about 120,000 marks." (Reimann, The Vampire Economy, p. 112)
["historians Christoph Buccheim and Jonas Scherner state that "companies normally could refuse to engage in an investment project designed by the state without any consequences."[70] Private firms refused government contracts and directions on many occasions. In 1937, de Wendel, a coal mining enterprise, refused to build a hydrogenation plant. In 1939, IG Farben denied a government request to increase its production of rayon and refused to invest in a synthetic rubber factory despite this being an important project for the regime. Froriep GmbH, a company producing machines for the armaments industry, successfully demanded cheap credit from the Nazi government under a threat of cutting back investment if its demand was not met.[71]"]
The internal competition didn’t decrease the employment nor wage of workers in Nazi Germany because the economic relations between firms and the workers were heavily regulated by the DAF(9:17 ,17:25). The only buyer and seller was also the State, as there is no real free market in the economic system in practice as well as in theory, as stated in the CHARACTERIZING THE NAZI ECONOMIC SYSTEM chapter in the "The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry."
"The ideal Nazi economy would liberate the creativeness of a multitude of private entrepreneurs in a predominantly competitive framework gently directed by the State to achieve the highest welfare of the Germanic people.
But this "directed market economy," as it was called, had not yet been introduced because of the war. Therefore, a way to characterize the actual German economy of the Third Reich more realistically would probably be "state-directed private ownership economy" instead of using the term "market." But that means neither that the specific measures taken by the State were really helpful in the war effort, nor that "markets" played no role in the actions of enterprises" (BUCHHEIM, CHRISTOPH & SCHERNER, JONAS. (2006). The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry.)
The firms can't cut costs for the workers by firing them or reducing their salaries. Even when the firm went bankrupt or was forcefully changed hand by the Nazi, as again private property right was abolished, the State could do whatever was necessary to remove the weak firm. The workers would still have their jobs and wages. The only parts of society with competition were between the firms.
What Buchheims described here is that the Nazis constantly regulated/directed the market to induce firms to act accordingly. According to Das Kapital V3, what the Nazis did was the socialist way to run a society.
"Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favorable to, and worthy of, their human nature." (“Das Kapital v3,” p593.)
3
-
@jakubsirocky4787
I think you should stop reading and clear your fallacy first. As it seems your points are filled with fallacies.
Here are my replies to your points supported by undisputed facts.
For “Feast or Famine: The Welfare Impact of Food Price Controls in Nazi Germany”
1.More Government control doesn’t guarantee things must always went better, as proven by North Koera.
2.Seems you missed the context that the existence of the Great Depression. The German economy after 1929 was greatly devastated. It is reasonable that the real wage in 1937 was less than 1927 regardless what economic system Germany was running.
Besides, how showing the real wage of average urban blue-collar worker in 1937 was less than 1927 can either disprove the existence of Nazi food price control policy or proven that “ wealth was not redistributed’?
For “The Longman Companion to Nazi Germany”
The sources define conservative and far right as racist, and nationalist. But this definition contradicted with the existence ideologies of Maoism and Marxist Leninism( both practising Socialism in one country), and the events of the Holodomor, National operations of NKVD, Doctor Plot of USSR.
For "List of companies involved in the Holocaust (Wikipedia)"
As stated, Nazi controlled companies' means of productions by replacing the managers and regulating the labor and force appropriating of surplus with DAF. The companies in that list involved in the Holocaust willing or unwilling because they were control or coecored by the Nazi.
__________________________
For your TL;DR
1. average urban blue-collar worker earned less -----irrelevant and quote out of context (compare 1937 with 1927neglect the negative effect of great depression )
2. Food was cheaper only nominaly (was worse and wages also lower) -----irrelevant and quote out of context (compare 1937 with 1927 neglect the negative effect of great depression )
3. Nazis far right. Ideology coincided to a great extent with far right groups in Germany. ------Name Calling, Nazi are Racist Socialist, and same racist and nationalist mentality can also be found in Marxist Leninst and Labour Zionist which both considered as left.
4. FORD (in USA) made huge revenues by producing war matériel for the Reich until at least August 1942–eight months after the United States entered the war. -------You made it up no sources you quote mentioned [FORD (in USA) made huge revenues by producing war matériel for the Reich ]
5. Ford in Germany negotiated profitable export markets.
Businesses were making profits, eveb foreign ones.------Irralivant, it is never the point of Socialism to make Businesses unprofitable, the point is to appropriat those profit internally.
6. other American firms–including General Motors and Chase Manhattan–worked with the Nazis------Shift of meaning, together with Ford, those company were being accused of help Germany to import war material and/or confiscating Jewish property, not controlling and profiting from the means of production of Geramny, otherwise you can just say that USSR was capitalistic because they made deals with foreign capitalist companies like Toshiba and Kongsberg.
7. Net private wealth was only reduced by taxation and levy on real estate by 3% (1% of top1%).-----You just made it up, {Wealth and its Distribution in Germany, 1895-2018}, Did not state that at all
8. There was sharpe reduction in total private wealth of USA and UK.-----You just made it up, {Wealth and its Distribution in Germany, 1895-2018} also never said that. The article only stated there were:
"....sharp drop in the private wealthincome ratio between the eve of World War I and 1950."
"sharp decline following World War II,
wealth concentration ...."
" Other advanced economies also saw sharp reductions in top-wealth shares ....."
"... aftermath of the Great Recession, also driven by the sharp decline in interest rates."
3
-
3