Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@hobbso8508
1. It is right in the original post, Fracism did use class theory.
"As a French Marxist who supported Lenin, Bolshevism and Mussolini concurrently in the early 1920s,[8][9] Sorel promoted the cause of the proletariat in class struggle, and the “catastrophic polarization” that would arise through social myth-making of general strikes.[10] The intention of syndicalism was to organize strikes to abolish capitalism; not to supplant it with state socialism, but rather to build a society of worker-class producers. This Sorel regarded as “truly true” Marxism.[11]" (from wiki of Fascist syndicalism)
2. I am not the only one classify USSR PRC and Cuba as socialist states. And those countries surely without the “non Western Democracy” that has the same criteria of Western Democracy within your funky Socialism definition.
3./4./5. Only under your funky definition of Socialism, Socialism would require the “non Western Democracy” that has the same criteria of Western Democracy.
We have been this all day, Marxist permit applying Revolution Measure to a state via either democratic proletarian revolution or violent Revolution forcefully without collective consensus. The end result of Revolution would not guarantee any democracy. Your funky Western Democrac socialism definition excluded Marxism.
"Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations" ( Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848)
"If the proletariat, during its contest with the bourgeoisie, is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. " ( Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848)
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@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)
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Karl Marx written the “On the Jewish Question” and has offended at least one Jews (“Hyam Maccoby”), while also being suggest by multiple scholars it is anti-Semitic.
______________________
Lenin also sent socialist to death camps and nationalised trade unions as Hitler did.
If you can determine Hitler and his ideology is far right or left just by all those things you mentioned, Lenin and his Marxist-Leninism would be far right too.
Sent socialist to death camps:
During the Red Terror
First Lenin came for Anarchist in 4/1918.
Then Lenin came for the Socialist Revolutionary in 7/1918.
Nationalised trade unions:
“Today we can no longer confine ourselves to proclaiming the dictatorship of the proletariat. The trade unions have to be governmentalised; they have to be fused with state bodies. The work of building up large-scale industry has to be entrusted entirely to them. But all that is not enough. “(V. I. Lenin Report at the Second All-Russia Trade Union Congress January 20, 1919)
The real wage of worker didn’t decrease, because of the fixed price and the fixed wage. According to the table 7.2.1 of “The Longman Companion to Nazi Germany”, the Average real Wage of workers was at its lowest of 88.5 at 1933 and gradually increased to 107.5 at 1938. With the price control imposed them on the German people since 1936. According to Table 1 of ”Feast or Famine: The Welfare Impact of Food Price Controls in Nazi Germany”, by 1937 the total food expenditure of Nazi household reduce to 964 RM from 1369 RM of 1927 where the average real wage per week was 92.3 compare to 103.0 of 1937.
Burning Books
Books written by Fyodor Raskolnikov( an Old Bolshevik), Bukharin, Zinoviev, Trotsky, and other 651 authors were also banned and burn in USSR in Stalin Era. Others than those Communists Books, Anarchist Book by Bakunin was also deemed as “large poison grass” during Cultural Revolutions in PRC, once being discovered in the public, they would be destroyed imminently by burning or recycling as waste paper.
Other examples of socialist burning socialist book included Political comics made by left-wing German cartoonist George Grosz was burned by SPD Weimar Germany.
Besides, Nazi didn’t burned all Socialist books, they mostly burned the Marxist Books. The books from other Socialist like Robert Owen, Proudhon and Bakunin was not in any list I can find.
____________________
Hitler did take cooperation from owners, Junker was seized from Professor Junker 4:20. Even the Fritz Thyssen, one of the biggest industrialist in Nazi Germany was sent to concentration camp in 1944. 20:55
There is no deal with Cooperation only Nazis.
As 3:53 and 4:38 suggest. Those property were seller to party members only the extension of state when the party equals to the states and as long as the party members need to follow the order and production control and regulations from the party/state, the worker representative, mentioned in the video since 5:06.
________________________
Nazi did care about the workers
Firms in Nazi Germany were co-controlled by the "leader" ,ex-owner of the firms or newly assigned administrators, and the Daf, which represented the followers. 8:50
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)
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.)
Average Worker real wage has been gradually increase from 88.5 at 1933 to 107.5 at 1938 (Table 7.2.1 “The Longman Companion to Nazi Germany”). With the price control imposed them on the German people since 1936, by 1937 the total food expenditure of Nazi household reduce to 964 RM from 1369 RM of 1927 where the average real wage per week was 92.3 compare to 103.0 of 1937(Table 1 ”Feast or Famine: The Welfare Impact of Food Price Controls in Nazi Germany”,).
Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was also not pro-capitalist as the Nazi in your own imagination. 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)
____________________
Bank Credit
Nazi forces the Deutsche Bank to give the state credit with Bank Act of 1934 allowed the government to exercise tight control over private banks(Bel, “Against the Mainstream,” P20.),
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
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.),
No one could fire, hire, or even change the wages of workers without the permission of DAF( 17:23). ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.).
5
-
5
-
5
-
2/
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)
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
Again Nazis Germany was neither running a Totalitarian Communist Economy nor a Democracy Socialist Economy. Nazi Germany was running a Totalitarian Socialist Economy where the property administrator(the owner who had no legal property right anymore) had more control than the administrator of the Communist state. Still, they were much more regulated by the state when compared with the property owner in a social democratic state, which made the Nazi economic system set right in the middle of the Socialist economic Spectrum.
1) The DAF controlled all. Any group of workers, managers or ex-company owners who tried to wrest control of a company away from the Nazi influence would be punished. The exportation of Heinrich Lübbe, Professor Junker, and Fritz Thyssen proved that the right to property of even Aryan Capitalists was not de facto guaranteed.
You also recognised Nazi was running State Capitalism which was just the vocabulary people used to criticise how Eastern Bloc ran their economy during Cold War. By saying Nazi Germany was running State Capitalism, you are saying Nazi German was running their economy as the Communists State during Cold War. This argument seems to prove Nazism Germany was as socialised as the Communist State during Cold War, not to mention that Western Social Democratic governments are running more liberal economies and still being recognised as Socialists.
2) Noted that you recognised both the Modern Social Democratic regime (Mexico) and Communist Totalitarian regime (USSR) as Socialists despite the vast difference between their economic policies.
The boundary of socialism is defined by the most extreme cases, the worst and the best. When comparing the performance of DAF with the worst cases scenario, the National Union of Communist States. The Nazi National Union, will fit right within the spectrum. USSR would be a great example of the inequality between the party members and the workers. Proven by the lavish lifestyle of Brezhnev and the following case:
Fred Copeman was disillusioned by the inequality in the Soviet Union in his official delegation to the USSR in 1938. On his return, he ceased to be a member of the Communist Party.
3) According to the account of Hjalmar Schacht, Nazi Germany failed to accumulate wealth. Other than his account, The fact that Nazi Germany failed to accumulate wealth can be proven by the fact that they experienced an economic crisis in 1935-1936 and failed to pay the MEFO bill in 1938. Nazi Germany needed to pay back the MEFO by starting the war and with the wealth of citizens via party-controlled fixed wages (Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," Chapter 2.), national investment policy like Geräuschlose Kriegsfinanzierung (forcing banks to "invest" war bonds with the customer saving) and Eisernes Sparen ( Provident fund but for the war effort, involuntary if you were Civil servants, state employees, employees of the NSDAP and their organisations), plus scams against citizen like "Strength Through Joy Car" (Beetle Car).
If you tried to use the economic data to prove Nazi Germany did accumulate wealth, I could also use the USSR data to prove that the overall capital of the USSR had been accumulating since its foundation and its dissolution was totally not due to its economic collapse.
4) With the existence of the Social Democrats Government since 1920. You don’t need the total subjugation of any means of production to be a Socialist. I can just use the Mexico example from your 2) point to show that the Nazi Economy was more socialised than the modern Socialist State; therefore it proves that Nazism is indeed a kind of Socialism.
4
-
@brandonmorel2658
["Name one country that didn't hoard all of the capital in their own benefit. . ." I would answer to that Cuba, Vietnam, Stalinist Soviet Union, Maoist PRC, Nicaragua, Grenada, every communist country ever. . . Since you seem to know nothing of political economy, let me break it down real easy for you. Hoarding capital is inefficient. Hoarding is a primitive form of accumulation that kills any potential for future further investment. All nominally ideological communist countries in history have instead of hoarding the capital, invested it in the welfare of the people and the expansion of production so as to receive greater profit, that could be invested for more welfare and so on. . .
This is the calibre of comments we have in the threads, beautiful people! We have feeble minded individuals that don't know terms and how to use them! ]
During Maoist China, Maotai white wine was a "special supply item" only available for the Communist Party and government officials within the PRC.
A ton of Maotai white wine requires about 5 tons of grain to brew.
During the years of the Great Leap Forward and the Great Chinese Famine, to ensure meeting the official "Launching satellites" production target of "produce ten thousand tons annually" set by Chairman Mao in 1958, the local Communist Government ordered to allocate all resources to ensure the annual production rate of Maotai "growth like launching satellite".
In the years 1959(820), 1960(912) and 1961(312), the state brewery produced a total of 2,079 tons of Maotai and exported 139.86 tons. The annual production rate of 1957, the year before Chairman Mao gave the production target of "produce ten thousand tons annually", was just 283 tons.
During those three years, nearly 40 million people starved to death nationwide. Instead of feeding the people, the CCP used those grains to expand the Maitai normal year's output by a factor of 3.
According to the statistics of the Maotai distillery's annual use of raw materials, these 2,079 tons of Maotai actually used 22.6 million catties of grain, equivalent to a total of 11,300 tons.
In Maotai's production area, Renhuai County, Guizhou, the average annual grain consumption per person in 1959 and 1960 was 350 catties and 334 catties, respectively (including 30 catties of seeds and feed).
In other words, the actual grain consumption was only about 300 catties per person. 11,300 tons of grain is equivalent to the annual grain consumption of 75,000 people.
In 1960, Maotai liquor faced a shortage of raw materials. The Guizhou government gathered 1.17 million catties of raw grain from various counties in the province to support the production. It was still not enough, so an additional 700,000 catties of raw grain were brought in from Jiangjin County, Sichuan, to ensure the production of 912 tons of Maotai liquor for that year. This single-year production record was not surpassed until 1978.
In that year, Tongzi County, which contributed 100,000 catties of grain, saw 41,734 non-normal deaths in one year. Xishui County, which also contributed 100,000 catties of grain, had 42,624 deaths over three years, with 499 households wiped out. Bijie County, contributing 290,000 catties of grain, had 53,990 deaths over three years. Jinsha County saw 55,000 deaths, and the most tragic was Meitan County, which had already recorded 122,000 deaths by April 1960, accounting for about 20% of the total rural population in the county. There were 2,938 wiped-out households, 4,737 people fleeing their homes, and 4,735 orphans.
Other example of communist country that hoarding capital in their own benefit would be the account of Fred Copeman. According his biography, he was disillusioned by the level of inequality in the Soviet Union in his official delegation to USSR in 1938, and on his return, he ceased to be a member of the Communist Party.
Again if you can claimed that every nominally ideological communist countries in history have instead of hoarding the capital, invested it in the welfare of the people and the expansion of production so as to receive greater profit, that could be invested for more welfare and so on, under the same standard I can also claimed that Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy also have instead of hoarding the capital, invested it in the welfare of the people and the expansion of production so as to receive greater profit, that could be invested for more welfare and so on.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@trafalgarcrew4625
Here is how private property will transform into join stock company (publicly shared), and joint stock company will eventually become state-owned according to Engels in Anti-Dühring.
“This rebellion of the productive forces, as they grow more and more powerful, against their quality as capital, this stronger and stronger command that their social character shall be recognised, forces the capitalist class itself to treat them more and more as social productive forces, so far as this is possible under capitalist conditions. The period of industrial high pressure, with its unbounded inflation of credit, not less than the crash itself, by the collapse of great capitalist establishments, tends to bring about that form of the SOCIALISATION of great masses of means of production which we meet with in the different kinds of joint-stock companies. Many of these means of production and of communication are, from the outset, so colossal that, like the railways, they exclude all other forms of capitalistic exploitation. At a further stage of evolution this form also becomes insufficient: the official representative of capitalist society – the state – will ultimately have to undertake the direction of production. This necessity for conversion into state property is felt first in the great institutions for intercourse and communication – the post office, the telegraphs, the railways.” (Friedrich Engels , Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring, p.175 )
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@GhostSamaritan You are right if you also refute Stalinism, Marxist Leninism and Maoism from the definition of Socialism through how they ruled, just like you refute Nazism from Socialism from how Nazis ruled IRL.
Besides, your second argument also directly refuted the OG Marxism, where the State( or the administration of things, which have every function of a state) is synonymous with the society/public of “Social ownership of mean of production”——the definition of Socialism.
“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 changes that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”(Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith)
“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. 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. But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the state as state. … When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not "abolished". It dies out.” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
4
-
4
-
@charleymount582
[Hitler allied himself with leaders of German conservative and nationalist movements, and in January 1933 German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed him chancellor.]
The German Empire has been practising State Socialism since 1883. Even the conservatives, nationalists and even the monarchists were on the economic left in the political spectrum.
[That July Hitler banned all political parties other than his own, and prominent members of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps. Lest there be any remaining questions about the political character of the Nazi revolution, Hitler ordered the murder of Gregor Strasser, an act that was carried out on June 30, 1934, during the Night of the Long Knives. Any remaining traces of socialist thought in the Nazi Party had been extinguished.]
Lenin and Stalin also purged the Mensheviks, the Anarchists, the Syndicalists, the Trotskyists, and the Kronstadt rebellion. Millions more leftists that Stalin disagreed with were purged during the great purge if killing/purging different leftist groups would disqualify anyone as a socialist. So as even Lenin, Stalin and Mao.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@willnash7907 1. Cheap points and carefully hand-picked scholarship doesn't mean fraudulent. You still need to prove them wrong in order to dismiss them.
2. Rather welfare systems and instituted central planning was the General Tendency or not, it won’t change the fact that those
3. Again, I started with 1930 federal election, the total seats of the Centre Party, DNVP and DVP in each election were 139.
4. Hitler lied about the Enable Act :
”The Centre Party, whose vote was going to be decisive, was split on the issue of the Enabling Act. Chairman Kaas advocated supporting the bill in parliament in return for government guarantees. These mainly included respecting the President's Office retaining veto power, religious liberty, its involvement in culture, schools and education, the concordats signed by German states and the existence of the Centre Party. Via Papen, Hitler responded positively and personally addressed the issues in his Reichstag speech but he repeatedly put off signing a written letter of agreement.”
5. How much and what scholarship? Even tons of money flooded into Germany by 1940, how do you know that it flooded to the pocket of the industrialist, instead of the state? I on the other hand able to prove that at least 80% of that billions would be channeled to the state via Tax. Would all those money go to social programs. I think unlikely, I presume they would mostly go to rearmament. But that Militarism was still not able to refute Nazi German from being Socialist. As USSR was also constantly preparing for war, with more than 15% of its national expenditures in the Military (a similar amount of national expenditures Nazi Germany used in 1938) for most of the time in the Cold War.
6. Great narrative, however even after ditching Otto Strasser, Nazi economic system did able to achieve social ownership of means of production.
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")
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 a 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)
4
-
4