Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments" video.
-
23
-
14
-
13
-
and Read the history of USSR, PRC, and Khmer Rouge, then you will discover Communist states and their leaders' ideology can still be regarded as Socialist States and Socialism despite they committed every single atrocity that Nazi commited.
In Mein Kampf Hitler also wanted to end class inequality too, he claimed that is one of the "obligations on our shoulders" in Mein Kampf:
"(6) By incorporating in the national community the masses of our people who are now in the international camp we do not thereby mean to renounce the principle that the interests of the various trades and professions must be safeguarded. Divergent interests in the various branches of labour and in the trades and professions are not the same as a division between the various classes, but rather a feature inherent in the economic situation. Vocational grouping does not clash in the least with the idea of a national community, for this means national unity in regard to all those problems that affect the life of the nation as such.
To incorporate in the national community, or simply the State, a stratum of the people which has now formed a social class the standing of the higher classes must not be lowered but that of the lower classes must be raised. The class which carries through this process is never the higher class but rather the lower one which is fighting for equality of rights. The bourgeoisie of to-day was not incorporated in the State through measures enacted by the feudal nobility but only through its own energy and a leadership that had sprung from its own ranks.
.....
A worker certainly does something which is contrary to the spirit of folk-community if he acts entirely on his own initiative and puts forward exaggerated demands without taking the common good into consideration or the maintenance of the national economic structure. But an industrialist also acts against the spirit of the folkcommunity if he adopts inhuman methods of exploitation and misuses the working forces of the nation to make millions unjustly for himself from the sweat of the workers. He has no right to call himself 'national' and no right to talk of a folk-community, for he is only an unscrupulous egoist who sows the seeds of social discontent and provokes a spirit of conflict which sooner or later must be injurious to the interests of the country."(Mein Kampf)
On the other hand, while Clerical Socialism was religious, and Utopian Socialism predated the invention of class theory, Karl Marx still regarded them as Reactionary Socialisms in the Manifesto. (Socialist and Communist Literature, Manifesto of the Communist Party)
Karl Marx also saw Proudhon's Anarchism as Reactionary Socialism and essentially equal to Conservative Socialism, which "sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government." (2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, III. Socialist and Communist Literature, Manifesto of the Communist Party)
By that definition, you don't need to be atheistic, using class theory, pro-working class, or aimming to abolish private property to be a Socialist.
Therefore, it is pretty impossible to ideologically exclude Nazism or fascism from Socialism while keeping both authoritarian Socialism ( like Marxist-Leninism and Maoism) and libertarian Socialism (like Anarchism and Democratic Socialism) within the Karl Marx's definition of Socialism.
Long Story Short, both ideologies were similar socialist ideologies; Nazism was based on race, and Communism was based on class.
While both did the same kinds of atrocities IRL, they were judged by different standards.
11
-
9
-
9
-
@JS-el3zm You are right, it just make the point Hilter is not Socislist because [they killed socialists in camp] invalid.
Other than the red terror of Lenin, Stalin also purged the Trotskyist “the socialist wing of the Bolshevik” too, did it disqualify both from being Socialist?
______________
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 (Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p71-74. Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Chapter 2.).
The profit gained by the company would redistribution to the worker ( to further 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)
Nazi was not selling the property right of the company, they were just selling the administrative right, which they can take it back if they want, of the company.
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
You are describing communism with their own ideology, while describing fascism with the observation of an outsider. Every villain is the hero of their own story. Like Communist, Fascist would not used negative description to sell their ideologies.
Here is the Fascism in their own narrative illustrated in "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Prof Zeev Sternhell:
1/
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)
8
-
7
-
Saying public companies are not publicly owned is valid when you define “public” in “publicly owned” only as government and state, which we would usually do in daily life.
However, suppose you only define "public ownership" as government and state ownership when discussing Socialism. In that case, you are going to exclude Anarchism (not An-Cap) from Socialism, as the production units(cooperatives) of Anarchism are not owned nor controlled by the state/government ( not in the public sector).
Using the Anarchist Collective of Revolutionary Catalonia as an example.
"Michael Seidman observes that in contrast to the Soviet experience, many collectives were voluntary and bottom-up. However, there was also an element of coercion - the terror and upheaval encouraged reluctant individuals to obey radical authorities. In addition, it was not uncommon for collectives to effectively boycott non-members, compelling them to join unless they wished to face a great deal of struggle otherwise.
…
Seidman argues that while collectives may have encouraged solidarity internally, on a local scale they contributed towards organised selfishness. Collectives encouraged autarky and self-sufficiency, refusing to share with other collectives." (Seidman, Michael, "Agrarian Collectives during the Spanish Revolution and Civil War")
The "public" of the collective just means the members of the collective, not the state, everyone in Spain, or even everyone in that legislation area.
Under the same logic, the public in the publicly owned cooperation only means the owner of the shares of that cooperation, just like the "public" of the Anarchist Collective just means the members of that Collective.
7
-
@nickdipples8562
[I haven't defined "public" as "government". What are you talking about?]
That is your old argument. Don’t you remember?
[No, the apple is nit publicly owned, it is jointly (privately) owned. Public, in the sense of public ownership...]
[it's absolutely not publicly owned in the socialist sense, and it has nothing to do with "the public sector"...]
______________________________________________________________________
[Are you still claiming an anarchist workers' collective is the same as a privately owned company with private shareholders?]
They are different in many ways, but not in terms of the type of their ownership. Whether members actually work there or not would not change the fact that those collectives/cooperatives were collectively owned by those members.
Using Robert Owen New Lanark socialist experiment commune as an example. Regardless how the MOP was in the hand of the workers/members, the New Lanark would still be considered as private property of the members of the commune.
___________________________________________________
[And that Hitler wanted an end to inequality?!]
He did claim that is one of the "obligations on our shoulders" in Mein Kampf:
"(6) By incorporating in the national community the masses of our people who are now in the international camp we do not thereby mean to renounce the principle that the interests of the various trades and professions must be safeguarded. Divergent interests in the various branches of labour and in the trades and professions are not the same as a division between the various classes, but rather a feature inherent in the economic situation. Vocational grouping does not clash in the least with the idea of a national community, for this means national unity in regard to all those problems that affect the life of the nation as such.
To incorporate in the national community, or simply the State, a stratum of the people which has now formed a social class the standing of the higher classes must not be lowered but that of the lower classes must be raised. The class which carries through this process is never the higher class but rather the lower one which is fighting for equality of rights. The bourgeoisie of to-day was not incorporated in the State through measures enacted by the feudal nobility but only through its own energy and a leadership that had sprung from its own ranks.
.....
A worker certainly does something which is contrary to the spirit of folk-community if he acts entirely on his own initiative and puts forward exaggerated demands without taking the common good into consideration or the maintenance of the national economic structure. But an industrialist also acts against the spirit of the folkcommunity if he adopts inhuman methods of exploitation and misuses the working forces of the nation to make millions unjustly for himself from the sweat of the workers. He has no right to call himself 'national' and no right to talk of a folk-community, for he is only an unscrupulous egoist who sows the seeds of social discontent and provokes a spirit of conflict which sooner or later must be injurious to the interests of the country."(Mein Kampf)
7
-
@nickdipples8562
[Where did I define "public" as "government"? ]
You never directly define what public mean in the previous comments (AFAIK), but you surely associated the meaning of those two concept together.
[it's absolutely not publicly owned in the socialist sense, and it has nothing to do with "the public sector"...]
"The public sector, also called the state sector, is the part of the economy composed of both public services and state-owned enterprise." (wiki)
_____________________________
[Let alone make the argument that state ownership is the only form of socialism.]
I never said that you make such argument. I stated if you equalise "public" with "public(state/government) sector", all other social ownership of MOP would be classified as private ownership of MOP. Thus, by defining “public” as “government” and “state” as we would typically do, you will exclude any kind of socialism but the statist one from the definition of socialism.
"However, suppose you only define "public ownership" as government and state ownership when discussing Socialism. In that case, you are going to exclude Anarchism (not An-Cap) from Socialism, as the production units(cooperatives) of Anarchism are not owned nor controlled by the state/government ( not in the public sector). "
"As regardless it is collective ownership, group ownership, worker ownership, or social ownership of MOP, they will all fall into the definition of private ownership of MOP if we are using the definition that public is only equal to “government” or “state”."
“by defining “public” as “government” and “state” as we would typically do, you will exclude any kind of socialism but the statist one from the definition of socialism.”
______________________________
[Rest of your nonsense binned unread, given there is no sensible argument that can equate a worker owned cooperative with a private company owned by investors]
Again there are many difference between the investers owned cooperation and workers owned cooperative, but not in term of ownership.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
According to Karl Marx, State is a 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 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)
6
-
6
-
@andyknowles772
Saying public companies are not publicly owned is valid when you define “public” in “publicly owned” only as government and state, which we would usually do in daily life.
However, suppose you only define "public ownership" as government and state ownership when discussing Socialism. In that case, you are going to exclude Anarchism (not An-Cap) from Socialism, as the production units(cooperatives) of Anarchism are not owned nor controlled by the state/government ( not in the public sector).
Using the Anarchist Collective of Revolutionary Catalonia as an example.
"Michael Seidman observes that in contrast to the Soviet experience, many collectives were voluntary and bottom-up. However, there was also an element of coercion - the terror and upheaval encouraged reluctant individuals to obey radical authorities. In addition, it was not uncommon for collectives to effectively boycott non-members, compelling them to join unless they wished to face a great deal of struggle otherwise.
…
Seidman argues that while collectives may have encouraged solidarity internally, on a local scale they contributed towards organised selfishness. Collectives encouraged autarky and self-sufficiency, refusing to share with other collectives." (Seidman, Michael, "Agrarian Collectives during the Spanish Revolution and Civil War")
The "public" of the collective just means the members of the collective, not the state, everyone in Spain, or even everyone in that legislation area.
Under the same logic, the public in the publicly owned cooperation only means the owner of the shares of that cooperation, just like the "public" of the Anarchist Collective just means the members of that Collective.
6
-
@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.
6
-
6
-
6
-
@nickdipples8562
[He didn't "nationalise" trade unions, he abolished them.]
We have been that several times already:
Either Hitler and every Communist country nationalized trade unions, or Hitler and every Communist country abolished trade unions. No matter which narrative you prefer, Nazis treated Trade Unions the same way every Communist Country treated their Trade Unions.
__________________________________________
[How are price controls or "infiltrating companies" Socialist?]
"Infiltrating companies" is a peaceful means to socialize the private MOP to the state. A similar scheme was done by the PRC in 1956 with the "Public-Private Partnership" (公私合营) campaign. Both "infiltrating companies" and "Public-Private Partnership" (公私合营) focused on tightening the state control on the MOP of private firms while not explicitly mentioning the property ownership status of said private firms. While the PRC did it more thoroughly and dictated the control of the private firm's MOPs, Nazis reserved their power to intervene or take over until they deemed it necessary.
Nevertheless, infiltrating companies and price-controlled both fit the socialist way of running a society, as stated in Das Kapital V3.
"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.)
_____________________
[The companies remained in private ownership for private profit, so clearly private property was not abolished.]
1. Those companies did not remain private because of the 1933 fire decree. Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. If Nazis suspended the Articles that guaranteed the right to own property, Private property didn’t exist de jure.
The property seized of Heinrich Lübbe, Professor Junker, and Fritz Thyssen proved that the right to property of even Aryan was not de facto guaranteed.
2. Yet 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. Not all socialism required the abolition of private property. Private property is still permitted in Proudhon anarchism. (“What is Property?”, 131.)
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
Good luck trying to refute state control of means of production from the definition of Socialism.
As the idea that socialism is achieved by state ownership of means of production was proposed by no one 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
-
@Kriegserinnerungen
[No, as I stated in my comment, I have a problem with many of his sources in general, I used Zitelmann as an example. There is a motive behind this video, and looking at the sources for it show that. Of course Hitler is going to look like a socialist when you use outdated right-wing historians and political scientists who have been largely discredited since the 80s. Those such as Tikhistory will find the fringe sources which go against common consensus, and use them in videos such as these to try to "teach you the truth," as if they have some forbidden knowledge, a truth, that the world's most accredited experts don't have. It's his motive.]
Edit 3: Your argument was not even based on truth.
Regarding the discrediting, Andreas Hillgruber was not discredited, not to mention Zitelmann.
Hillgruber was not fired from his post at the University of Cologne after Historikerstreit.
Historian Eberhard Jäckel paid tribute to Hillgruber in a foreword to his memorial with the words: “The fact that German research reconnected with international research after the Second World War is probably […] the merit of […] those conservative historians who expressed their judgment against enforced their prejudice and thus helped the initially reluctant public opinion to have an unobstructed view of reality. […] The first and most important of them was Andreas Hillgruber, and that will remain his honor.” [13]
Der Spiegel honored Hillgruber in 1989: “With his sober, technically sound work on the Second World War, he was one of the first class of German historians; his habilitation thesis on Hitler's politics and warfare ("Hitler's Strategy") became an internationally recognized standard work . n] step” of research towards a better understanding of Hitler’s “racial ideologically oriented expansion policy”. His study is a “standard work that is still essentially valid today”. [15]
Hillgruber was a full member of the Historical Commission at the Bavarian Academy of Sciences (from 1982) and the North Rhine-Westphalia Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Shortly before his death, Hillgruber received the Federal Cross of Merit, 1st Class. [13]
Edit 1:
Wait, Your whole argument is because Zitelmann defended a historian who wrote "wrote that historians should "identify" with the Wehrmacht fighting on the Eastern Front and asserted that there was no moral difference between Allied policies towards Germany in 1944 and 1945 and the genocide waged against the Jews.", which is just a subjective statement and not even denying the existence of holocaust, which I think should be discredited, so that Zitelmann should be discredited?
Discrediting a historian not because of what he wrote but because of whom he defended is a very far-stretched accusation. In your logic, shouldn't you also discredit every historian who had defended any communist regime, especially Noam Chomsky, because of his stand on the Bosnian genocide, just because of the actual atrocities those communist regimes those historians supported?
Edit 2:
How about those who defended Israel or Palestine? They both committed atrocities against people from the other side. Should all of those who defended either side be discredited too? Otherwise, are you implying that defending someone saying something controversial, in your point of view at least, is more worthy of being discredited than those defending someone who killed people?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
As I can find from the script, most of the Zitelmanns’ quotes were used to support the ideology and mentality and the point of view of the Nazis and Fascists behind their policies instead of proof of historical economic data or the existence of any policy.
What would be the degree of inaccuracies you would get to quote of fascist’s and Nazi’s mentality even from a “proto-fascist” if no factual evidence their arguments based on was refuted.
If those narratives have been discredited, would you kindly provide the discrediting reviews? If those narratives have been discredited just because of their point of view instead of fault evidence, why should they be dismissed?
For example, there are two narratives regarding the reason behind the Chinese Great Famine: the Western narrative would blame the failed socialist policies. In contrast, the Eastern narrative would blame Mao for being an incapable ruler as some Emperor in the previous Chinese Dynasty. As long as both narratives fit historical facts, both narratives are valid.
5
-
Socialist regimes often burned other socialist books. Surely you can refute Hitler and his Nazism from being a Socialist and Socialism by the fact that he burned other socialist books, but under the same standard, you must also refute Stalin and MaoLenin and their Marxist Leninism and Maoism from being Socialists and Socialisms.
Books written by Fyodor Raskolnikov( an Old Bolshevik), Bukharin, Zinoviev, Trotsky, and other 651 authors were banned and burned in the USSR during the Stalin Era. Other than Communist Books, Anarchist Books by Bakunin was also deemed as “large poison grass” during the Cultural Revolutions in the PRC. Once discovered by the public, they would be destroyed imminently by burning or remaking into new paper.
Other socialist burning socialist books included SPD Weimar Germany burning political comics made by left-wing German cartoonist George Grosz.
Besides, the Nazis didn’t burn all Socialist books. They mostly burned the Marxist Books. The books from other Socialists like Robert Owen, Proudhon and Bakunin were not on any list I can find.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@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
-
@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
-
4
-
4
-
@eduard.joestar
More leftists were killed in the great Purge of USSR and PRC 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.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
1/2
It is quite amateur to say fascism is just about power and stealing.
Despite scattered, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" illustrated the Socialism origin of Fascist 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)
4
-
2/2
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)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Kriegserinnerungen
[ Any contrarian point of view against the common consensus is naturally going to be brought to question. If I am to be cast as incorrect for personally discrediting these conclusions due to their narratives, why then are those allowed to see the conclusions of these narratives (that the Nazis were socialist), as an objective fact? ]
So those historians were just discredited by you instead of "being largely discredited" in your previous statement.
It is because your discrediting is based on your own subjective bias/dislike against right-wing economists and Misesean, not through historical facts or logic.
Besides, narratives are not objective facts and should never seen as one. If the conclusions of these narratives are seen as objective facts. TIK would not need to make an almost 5 hours video to prove Nazism was socialism.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
[The factual substance and place of these conclusions in common consensus came up to questioning during the Historikerstreit in the 80s, and they lost to their opposition. Zitelmann and many others within his side which shared similar points of view continued to write books from their positions after this, many of which still provided great substance in their respective areas. However, for the reasons I have just mentioned, the conclusions of this video, remain and stay exactly that, a conclusion made in a YouTube video. This same conclusion stays within the realm of YouTube videos and the followers of these historians, instead of being common knowledge taught in our public schools. The existence of such differing opinions regarding the Nazis, shows how difficult and convoluted of a subject it is, and the creators of videos with this narrative stand as a testiment to that, however, not as fact.]
Firstly, you lied; no one has been largely discredited because of Historikerstreit.
Secondly, Historikerstreit is about "normalisation" of the nation's Nazi past, was about "the Holocaust was not unique and therefore Germans should not bear any special burden of guilt for the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question".[3][4] Nolte argued that there was no moral difference between the crimes of the Soviet Union and those of Nazi Germany, and that the Nazis acted as they did out of fear of what the Soviet Union might do to Germany.[5]”
Historikerstreit is not about the classification of Nazism. You can be both left communist and guilty at the same time. Look up what happened in the Cambodian Genocide. Putting the Nazi on the left had nothing to do with the Nazi Guilt.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
[You're right about my point with Zitelmann, I must admit. The validity of a historian is judged upon their ability to report on that which is objective. I however disagree that the point of view of a historian cannot be brought into question, or condemned when it comes to historical validity. You must admit, that the narratives of the historians cited in this video, those such as: Rothbard, Manish, Reiman, etc., draw conclusions from their points of view which is precisely that which shapes their narratives. These historians share something in common, they are right-wing economists or Miseseans. Their points of view, lead them to conclusions which differ from the consensus that the NSDAP were far-right fascists. If this were not the case, this video, highlighting this alternate point of view, would not exist. Points of view, and the political opinions of the author, shape their narratives and conclusions.]
In the same video, he quoted Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, George Orwell, Joseph Stalin and Rosa Luxemburg. All of them are on the left of the spectrum.
He also quoted historians like Richard J. Evans, Avraham Barkai, Guenter Reimann, Germa Bel, Götz Aly and Adam Tooze, which stated that Nazism is a right-wing fascist ideology.
I would say the sources TIK used in this video are quite politically diversified.
Shouldn't your accusation of [ Points of view, and the political opinions of the author, shape their narratives and conclusions] applied to everyone?
Why only the sources from right-wing economists or Miseseans were in question and condemned?
What authority are you basing on when questioning or condemning the historical validity based on their authors' points of view?
Is there any academic rule or regulation that forbids the use of right-wing economists or Misesean sources like the retracted Andrew Wakefield's MMR Lancet paper?
People with points of view different from yours don't mean they are dishonest or lying (which you did). If you want to question or condemn the historical validity of this video or source, please use historical evidence to debunk it.
Otherwise, what you are saying now is just Ad hominem with fancy words.
[This has been the case since written history, and it plays a vital role in the process of what is submitted into historiography. The differing view of not only TIK, but the authors which he cites, led to the creation of this video, and its contrarian nature. ]
Even if there is a great conspiracy of a bunch of white historians wanting to revise the "common consensus" historical narrative, what is the problem? There is freedom of speech as long as the narrative doesn't contradict any historical facts and does not advocate for any harm to anyone ( even though there are a lot of exceptions). Those narratives should be objectively viewed as moral and valid and should be respected.
______________________
[The difference between that, and which is here in this video, is that the narratives provided in the video leads to a re-classification of the popular conclusion of a historical fact.]
Firstly, no, they are not. Communism is the antithesis of feudalism. A Communist State should not be run as a Feudalist state—one on the left, one on the right.
Secondly, what is the problem of "reclassification of the popular conclusion of a historical fact".
The facts would not change. Regardless if Nazism and Fascism were Left Socialism or Right Capitalism, the holocaust still happened, Germany still started and lost the war and every policy the Nazis implanted was not refuted, including privatisation ( short answer: it was a nazi scam, Nazis stripped all company share right with Cooperation Law of 1937 {1}) and the killing of thousand Socialists (short answer: Soviet and PRC killed hundreds thousands, just killing Socialists is not enough to refute Nazism from Socialism).
Regarding the reclassification of the popular conclusion, everyone should have the right and freedom to believe or not to believe what narratives or conclusions they want, including Nazism is socialism, right-wing or Misesism. It is called freedom of thought.
Again, as long as the narrative doesn't contradict any historical facts and does not advocate for any harm to anyone ( even though there are a lot of exceptions), those narratives should be objectively viewed as moral and valid and should be respected.
{1}: "right to vote on dividend policy and on the dismissal of directors (Mertens, 2007: 95-96) and empower the government 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)
4
-
@@DiotimaMantinea-gr6rx
Good luck trying to refute Marxism from the definition of Socialism.
As the idea that socialism is achieved on the state, not in the workplace, level was proposed by no one 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)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@spudrph Toshiba and Metropolitan-Vickers profited from having business with the USSR in 1987 and 1933, respectively.
If Hilter can be classified as Capitalist just because American capitalism “supported” him, Hitler would also be a Communist, because not only did Foreign Capitalist “supported” Nazi, Soviet Union also “supported” Nazi Germany with 1,600,000 tons of grains, 900,000 tons of oil, 200,000 tons of cotton, 140,000 tons of manganese, 200,000 tons of phosphates, 20,000 tons of chrome ore, 18,000 tons of rubber 100,000 tons of soybeans, 500,000 tons of iron ores, 300,000 tons of scrap metal and pig iron, 2,000 kilograms of platinum though German–Soviet Credit Agreement (1939).
At the same time, Nazis entailed Soviet obligations to deliver 180 million Reichsmarks in raw materials and German commitment to provide the Soviets with 120 million Reichsmarks of German industrial goods.
Fascist Italy also provided the USSR with the ship design blueprint of the Kirov-class cruiser and even helped them build the destroyer Tashkent.
Soviet communists were “supported” by Nazi German, Fascist Italy, not to mention the supported by lend-lease from the Capitalist USA during WWII.
With that logic USSR communism would just be the Nazism, Fascism, and Capitalist.
4
-
4
-
It seem it is not very convincing to state that German Capitalist elite was so for profit that:
They made Nazi levied most of the taxes 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.)
Force Nazi to implement 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.)
And heavy social regulations were imposed on every industry, including regulations on the hiring and firing of workers, working hours, work habits, accidents, wages, vacation time, etc.
(Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Chapter 2.)
Force Nazi to establish DAF which used ‘Labour Book’ to prevent employers from hiring people they liked.( “The Vampire Economy,” p109. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327.)
Made Nazi abolished the private property rights, which enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution, in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933. (Text of the Reichstag Fire Decree, 28 Feb 1933. Text of the Weimar Constitution.)
Control Nazi to forced themselves to join the Nazi party. If the “leaders” refused to join the Nazi Party or cooperate, the factories that they supposedly owned were taken off them. Heinrich Lübbe, Hugo Junkers, and Fritz Thyssen were thrown out from their own business because they refused to join or cooperate. (Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Kindle Chapter 2. Temin, “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” p576-577. Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," p111-113.)
Force Nazi to implement “higher corporate tax rates, special war excess taxation, and by changing accounting rules, the Nazi regime substantially increased the tax burden for businesses, extracting up to 80% of the profits (see Banken 2018). At the same time, companies continued to pay the wealth tax. We estimate the corresponding wealth reduction to amount to 0.6% of net private wealth." (Wealth and its Distribution in Germany, 1895-2018, Thilo N. H. Albers, Charlotte Bartels, Moritz Schularick)
3
-
3
-
@Kernverstand Nope, the end goal of Nazism was the formation of the folk community that serves the interests of the individual, which is able to satisfy popular demands in long run by “supplying goods to meet the individual needs of daily life and by so doing create the conviction that, through the productive collaboration of its members” (Mein Kampf)
Is it totally BS for sure, but it also shows that Nazism ideology is about the creation of an equal society with just the Aryan race. Again, there is no hierarchy if you have only one level. Similarly, Marxism is about the creation of an equal society with just the proletariat, while all other classes will be eliminated from the society.
Regarding democracy, Marxism is not built around democracy. Democracy is just merely a tool of the dictatorship of the proletarian.
"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." ("Communist Confession of Faith")
Besides, socialism can coexist with race superior mentality and still be considered as leftist. Labor Zionism still believes that the Jews are the chosen people and Israel is the God-given land while being regarded as Left Wing Socialist ideology.
Furthermore, Nationalism very often coexisted with Communism. Milovan Đilas popularized the term "national communism" in his New Class (1957), where he wrote: "No single form of communism ... exists in any other way than as national communism. In order to maintain itself it must become national." A few years earlier, ex-communist Manabendra Roy said: "Communism in Asia is essentially nationalism painted Red."
3
-
3
-
@Kernverstand
[wow, you are coping so hard i literaly explained why nazis were still hierarchal and you have once again come to ask me the same question, just check above comment for how the end goal doesnt matter, would have been authoritharian, state capitalist and still hierarchal (not to mention the previous example on how a murderer who cant kill anyone because everyone is dead is still a murderer or the antrophocentrist earth government)]
Your argument was just contradictory.
How can you conclude that Communism [was built around equality and democracy], while you said that [the end goal doesnt matter] and admitted that [ no, one of the first things that lenin ever did was establish a secret police to spy on the populace and there weren't even any proper elections nevermind the worker class having any power over the country]?
If we are using the logic you used on Communism. As Nazi Germany didn't run as the impossible Utopia Hitler envisioned, therefore Nazi Germany was not practising Nazism,[ this is like the united kingdom being a democracy (not even really a constitutional monarchy anymore) but being called a kingdom, is there an all powerfull monarchy?]
In reality, both ideologies are all blank-check and end up with an authoritative state capitalist regime.
Again, if you can separate Communist ideology from their practice, why can’t you separate Nazi ideology from their practices?
How can you point out Nazism is right and Marxism is left?
You are comparing the practices of Nazism with the theory of Communism. That is just double standards.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[and the "supplying goods to meet the individual needs of daily life and by so doing create the conviction that through the productive collaboration of its members" isnt about equality but is about socialism, there is nothing about equality of people only about "certain supplies" which then you can count europe as communist]
The example of the Volks Community is to show you that Nazism ideology was not about building any hierarchy systems within the society.
Regarding equality in Nazism, remember the first quote:
“To incorporate in the national community, or simply the State, a stratum of the people which has now formed a social class the standing of the higher classes must not be lowered but that of the lower classes must be raised. The class which carries through this process is never the higher class but rather the lower one which is fighting for equality of rights.” (Mein Kampf)
___________________________________________________________________________________
[and oh my god you are ignorant and biased, the communist confession of faith is literaly talking about modern democracies not the idea of democracy, literaly look at wikipedia bro https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Marxism]
Regarding Democracy in Marxism:
In theory, Karl Marx never described what is a proper democracy. It is good when it can achieve the proletarian revolution.
In reality, most of the cases were just heavily rigged, with a 90 % approval rate in North Korean-style democracy. By the Communist's own standard, Hitler's election results and the duration between Nazi elections (12 years until the end of the Reich) were very justifiable, given that the second election of the USSR was hosted in 1937, about 19 years after its formation.
____________________
[and for corruption we need to define what it is, its when people with high power abuse it for their own gain and satisfaction, stalin killing millions in ukraine simply for a bit more industrial growth is corruption, an ss officer killing jews simply because he thinks that they are inferior is also corruption, and i do not know when you came up with the idea that it isnt corruption]
Regarding the “corruption” in Communist Genocides.
Marxism also has that superiority mentality. Historically, they put the proletarian as the superior class and purged the bourgeois, even after their property had been stripped. Many Communist Genocides were ideologically driven. Mao purged the landlord during the land reform campaign, “Five Black Categories” during the Four Cleanups Movement, Lenin purging the kulak, and Pol Pot purging everyone all have their own ideological reasoning.
If this superiority mentality in Communism can be just dismissed into corruption as you suggested, you can also dismiss the race superiority mentality within Nazi Germany as corruption, it has nothing to do with Nazism, just like what you said about communist states and Communism.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@hobbso8508 Yet, democracy is just one of the means to achieve dictatorship of proletarian. In countries in which workers can not "attain their goal by peaceful means" the "lever of our revolution must be force", stating that the working people had the right to revolt if they were denied political expression.
"You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries – such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland – where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means. This being the case, we must also recognise the fact that in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to which we must some day appeal to erect the rule of labour." La Liberté Speech delivered by Karl Marx on 8 September 1872, in Amsterdam
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@hobbso8508
1. [Marxism is the belief that everyone should be one class, the proletariat, they are advocating for universal suffrage.]
That is just wrong. What kind of Marxism are you studying? There are two classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
"By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour. By proletariat, the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live. "(Manifesto of the Communist Party (1888))
2. [ Yes, in countries where democracy is restricted or outright banned a revolution may be necessary to stop authoritarianism. Just look at France as they threw off the chains of their authoritarian royal oppressors. Or did you think the French revolution was a bit too violent and they should have just let the monarchy there continue to rule over the people without any democracy at all? This is also in reference to the pre-socialist state. Once socialism has been given the opportunity to be considered for election there is no need for a revolution.]
You are just repeating my point. Democracy was just one of the means to achieve the Communist Revolution. Violent revolution has always been a permitted option. Even if the communists choose to do it democratically, they are still permitted to do it with North Korean-style ragged election because
a. Karl Marx never specified what is a proper election and;
b. He said :
"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." ("Communist Confession of Faith").
By no means I would say your 2nd point was wrong because it is your interpretation of Marxism, but just by the Karl Marx literature we quote in this thread, you also cannot claim that the Marxist Leninist theory contradicted the theory of Karl Marx.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@hobbso8508
1. Again, according to Karl Marx, the abolishment of private property would not complete until the Communist Society has been archived, it won't happen in pre or post-Socialist state , as according to Karl Marx:
"Communist society will, in this way, make it possible for its members to put their comprehensively developed faculties to full use. But, when this happens, classes will necessarily disappear. It follows that society organized on a communist basis is incompatible with the existence of classes on the one hand, the very building of such a (communist) society provides the means of abolishing class differences on the other.” (Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith)
2. Please kindly provided your definition of democratic election and rigging. Otherwise, we are unable to continue the discussion.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Using Karl Marx standard, most of the modern countries nowadays are running a (reactionary) socialist system in a free market environment ( which Karl Marx still acknowledged that is still a kind of socialism).
A democratic state ran by a capitalism believer ,that did everything you said in the comment, fit the following segment of Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism in Manifesto “A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations”(2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, III. Socialist and Communist Literature, Manifesto of the Communist Party)
However, If we are using historical definition of Socialist State, which are mostly anchored to Communists Dictatorship regimes. Nazi German economic system were very similar to that of the Soviet Union and PRC, after 1980, and Cube and Vietnam, after 2000 Even North Korea has abandoned the old direct controlled economy.
If the Soviet Union and PRC, after 1980, and Cube and Vietnam, after 2000, were/are still considered to be Socialist States, Nazi Germany should still be counted as a Socialist State.
3
-
TIK never claimed that Nazi German was a full Socialism State from 36:18. TIK claimed that Nazism is a socialism ideology, with the proof of Hitler attempted to centrally organise the economy in 26:29. (As Hitler’s action was aim to serve its socialised entity the race 32:44 instead of maximising profit, the ideology can still consider as Socialism instead of state Capitalism.)
But as the lowest boundary of Socialist state is set by how unfaithful those Cold War/ Contemporary Communist State economic policies to socialism. It is very likely that Nazi Germany is still valid to be classified as Socialist State.
Use Soviet Union as example, they used Slave Labor, in gulag and build the road of bones.
Soviet also tried to let free market economic incentives to improve economic growth with NEP, and permitted household plots since it foundation from 1922 to 1928, Kosygin reform from 1965 to 1970, permission of private garden markets since 1971, the expansion of the khozraschyot in 1985 and countless economic reforms.
And they have a Hyperinflation in 1917-1924.
If USSR can still be classified as Socialist State while broke multiple criteria that you set, I believe Nazi Germany can also be classified as Socialist State under the same standard.
Furthermore, how can you tell the the “capital gain” of the firm and the firm itself were the private property of those industrialist right before the Nazi regime ended. The private ownership of those firms of those Industrialists were rectified and guaranteed by West Germany Government not the Nazi Regime.
3
-
@confusedarmchairphilosopher
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”).
PS: lowest in 1932.
Privatisation was a Nazi Scam.
Nazi renationalised all the state property that was previously sold to private sector as stock listed in Against the Mainstream 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)
Regarding private bank
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.
Regarding Trade Union and labour strike
Historically, Fascists and Communist Regime had the same approach toward trade union—nationalisation as an Organ of the State. Nazi nationalised all Labor Union into DAF like Cuba nationalised all Union into CTC, USSR to ACCTU, and Italy to Fascist 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)
Use the CTC of Cuba as an example.
None of them have the 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)
But unlike the Nationalised trade union in Communist State, DAF did have great power in Nazi Germany. It is the organisation enforcing forced profit redistribution, fixed wage and fix employment.
3
-
The general definition of Socialism is just social ownership of the mean of production, which includes the ideology of those "so-called socialists" like Clerical Socialism, Utopian Socialism, Syndicalism, Anarchism, and Anaro-Syndicalism. The socialized entity can be race (Arab Socialism, Labor Zionism), class (Marxism, Social Democrat), or even Religion (Islamic Socialism, Clerical Socialism). While Socialist Ideologies like Arab Socialism and Social Democrat don't aim to abolish private ownership of the means of production, they are still regarded as Socialism.
The definition of socialism can be different for everyone, if it is not based on any reference. However, it is quite impossible to ideologically exclude fascism or Nazism from Socialism without excluding either authoritarian Socialism ( like Marxist-Leninism and Maoism), libertarian Socialism (like Anarchism and Democratic Socialism) or non pure class based Socialism (Arabic Socialism, Maoism and Labor Zionism) from the definition of Socialism, as fascism or Nazism are just authoritarian, free market tolerating (liberal socialism) , and non pure class based Socialism.
3
-
@nickdipples8562
The definition of Socialism used here is "Soical (including State which Marxism advocated) ownership (even as limited as modern Social Democrat) of mean of production".
———————————————————
The "Private Sector"
Private property rights (enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution) were abolished in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933. (Text of the Reichstag Fire Decree, 28 Feb 1933. Text of the Weimar Constitution.)
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.)
Every bank and firms were legally put under the Nazi Control though the Corporate Law in 1937 and Bank Act of 1934.
________________________________________________________________
The Workers
The following references illustrate how Nazi practicing their Social ownership by appropriating "the surplus product, produced by the means of production, or the wealth that comes from it, to society as a whole". (Wiki-Social ownership).
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) 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.)
The profit gained by the company would redistribution to the worker ( to further 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)
No one could fire, hire, or even change the wages of workers without the permission of DAF with the control of "Labour Book". ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.).
___________________________________________________________________
The Markets
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.
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 wage. The only parts of society with competition were between the firms.
What Buchheims described here 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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@hobbso8508
I used the proper term, even with your own narrative, 5 months ago, you said:
"Marx on the other hand drew a strong distinction between private property (capitalist owned businesses) and personal property. "
[ @oscartang4587u3 It's not my fault you choose lie about the democracy index. It measures democracy, plain and simple. Here:
"The Democracy Index is an index measuring democracy"
See.
Nope. They do not have universal suffrage because universal suffrage isn't just voting, it is voting to decide the governance of the nation. When you don't have a choice it's not a decision, therefore not universal suffrage, by definition.
I never said anything about my personal views. Marx on the other hand drew a strong distinction between private property (capitalist owned businesses) and personal property. And no, changing how businesses work would not negatively effect civil liberties, in the same way that banning businesses from wage theft and pollution are not negative factors on civil liberties.
Yes, under your imaginary definition, not under any definition used by literally anyone else. Democracy is a system of government by the whole population, end of story.
Hang on, while we give you another 20 yards.]
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@hobbso8508
Private property rights, as enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution, were abolished in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933.
The top leader was replaced with Nazi member. Every business owner were mandated to redistribute their surplus profits among the workers ( to further the Nazi goal) by the DAF, the party subordinates, or directly by the Nazi Government with most notably force employment, fixed wage, price controls and heavy social subsidies to the workers. (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.) It was really those policies characterised the socialist nature of Nazism.
The firms can't cut costs for the workers by firing them or reducing their salaries without DAF approved. Even when the firm went bankrupt or was forcefully changed hand by the Nazi, a private property right was abolished in the fire decree of 1933, the State could do whatever was necessary to remove the weak firm by the Corporation Law of 1937. The workers would still have their jobs and wage. The only parts of society with competition were between the firms, which mostly controlled by the Nazi.
Regarding remained private after the war. Again private property rights, as enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution, were abolished in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933.
The private ownership of those firms of those Industrialists were rectified and guaranteed by West Germany Government not the Nazi Regime. On the other hands, Polish Government stripped all the Nazi properties in Silesia. (Against the Main Stream) It was not the Nazis who gave the postwar owners private ownership. It was the West German Government.
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
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jakovvukelic4797
Nazism was not just a Hitler’s ideology. There is another branch of Nazism from Gregor and Otto Strasser.
Besides, the original text from Karl Marx permitted violent revolution.
“If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise 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.” ('The Manifesto of Communist Party')
“the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.” (The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna, 1848)
Can you kindly point out what Lenin and Stalin did really contradicted what Karl Marx said?
And again why can't “Real Nazism has never been tried” just like Marxism.
For the rest of your comment, your grammar was so bad that I cannot understand what you’re saying. Please kindly rewrite the comment.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@andyknowles772 Nope, 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.
3
-
@JS-el3zm No, in. 1945, by the atrocities USSR has already done, their totalitarian ruling for more than 20 years, and the existence of Eduard Bernstein’s Revision Marxism since 1899, you can firmly place Nazism within the spectrum of Socialism.
Indeed, the Nazis and Fascists hated communism and killed many Marxists. In the meantime, Marxist Leninists also hated and killed many more revisionists, anarchists and revolutionary Socialists.
USSR and PRC both sent more socialists into concentration camps and caused more socialists' death than the Nazis.
However, USSR and PRC and their ideology were regarded as the pinnacle of Socialism, while the Nazis and Fascists were regarded as the opposition of socialism.
I believe this double standard is more laughable than discarding the historical fact that the Nazi killed Marxists.
3
-
3
-
@brandonmorel2658
Regarding Nationalised Trade Union:
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)
Regarding arresting opposition:
More leftists were killed in the great Purge of USSR and PRC 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
-
@saphy45-uu8rd It seems you missed the great purge in your History class.
More leftists were killed in the great Purge of USSR and PRC 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.
In PRC: In Sufan movement of 1955-1957 which targeted the counter revolutionary within the party and the government, 53,000 abnormal death.
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.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@andyknowles772
Here is your up to 80% profit tax reference. This is the fourth time I posted it.
"Through higher corporate tax rates, special war excess taxation, and by changing accounting rules, the Nazi regime substantially increased the tax burden for businesses, extracting up to 80% of the profits (see Banken 2018). At the same time, companies continued to pay the wealth tax. We estimate the corresponding wealth reduction to amount to 0.6% of net private wealth." (Wealth and its Distribution in Germany, 1895-2018, Thilo N. H. Albers, Charlotte Bartels, Moritz Schularick)
_________________________
Private property rights, as enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution, were abolished in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933. (Text of the Reichstag Fire Decree, 28 Feb 1933. Text of the Weimar Constitution.)
Krupp AG was owned by the state and co-controlled by Gustav von Bohlen und Halbach under the name of Bertha Krupp up until Lex Krupp of 1943. By Lex Krupp of 1943, the ownership of Krupp AG was transferred to Alfried Krupp, an SS member since 1931.
Again, regardless of who owned the property of Krupp AG, it still doesn't change the fact that the surplus product produced by means production of Krupp AG, 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)
3
-
@andyknowles772
As long as Krupp was a German company subject to the German Constitution, its private property status would be gone along with every private property in Nazi Germany with the enshrinement of articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution.
For the rate of taxes, I also provided the general cases in which the German tax law should be applied universally among all companies within Nazi Germany. And I never claimed any Nazi Germany taxed Krupp at any specific rate. It is just like your defamation against TIK, you made up imaginary arguments and even videos that people never made, and then you argue against those points instead of the points people actually made.
If you believe and argue what happened in Nazi Germany was precisely opposed to the sources I provided, the least you can do is provide your own sources to prove your points. Would you kindly provide those sources so that this discussion can be carried on meaningfully way?
Socialism is the social ownership of the means of production, which can be achieved by appropriating the surplus product produced by the means of production, or the wealth that comes from it, to society at large or the workers themselves. (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).
____________________________________________
Keep running from the request of sources that you have never been able to provide!😂😆
Where are the timestamps for
[The entire video argues that anything with the word "public" in it is socialist.] and
[Thik argues that anything with the word "public" in it is socialism. This, a company with an IPO is, as he has argued, socialist]
Where is the link for
[Oh, Thik absolutely argues that anything with the word "public" in it is socialism.
He even made a four hour video on Roman building codes to support it!]
Where is the reference for
[The Nazis didn't strip ownership of the means of production.
The vast majority of the means of production remained in private hands, for private profit.] and
[Oh, and you're ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the means of production was in private hands for private profit under the NSDAP...]
3
-
@andyknowles772
Nazi Germany didn’t have the features of capitalist mode of production.
Under the capitalist mode of production:
1.Both the inputs and outputs of production are mainly privately owned, priced goods and services purchased in the market.
Production is carried out for exchange and circulation in the market, aiming to obtain a net profit income from it.
Inputs and outputs of production are State owned (German businessman to American businessman, from Reimann, "The Vampire Economy,”)
2.The owners of the means of production (capitalists) constitute the dominant class (bourgeoisie) who derive its income from the exploitation of the surplus value.
No free Market in Nazi Germany (The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry)
Surplus value was controlled and regulated by the state.
3.Surplus value is a term within the Marxian theory which reveals the workers' unpaid work.
“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) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
4. A defining feature of capitalism is the dependency on wage-labor for a large segment of the population; specifically, the working class, that is a segment of the proletariat, which does not own means of production (type of capital) and are compelled to sell to the owners of the means of production their labour power in order to produce and thus have an income to provide for themselves and their families the necessities of life.
There was no wage-labor, because work were guaranteed, and the wages or salaries in Nazi Germany were fixed by DAF instead of market-determined. ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.).
____________________________________________
Keep running from the request of sources that you have never been able to provide!😂😆
Where are the timestamps for
[The entire video argues that anything with the word "public" in it is socialist.] and
[Thik argues that anything with the word "public" in it is socialism. This, a company with an IPO is, as he has argued, socialist]
Where is the link for
[Oh, Thik absolutely argues that anything with the word "public" in it is socialism.
He even made a four hour video on Roman building codes to support it!]
Where is the reference for
[The Nazis didn't strip ownership of the means of production.
The vast majority of the means of production remained in private hands, for private profit.] and
[Oh, and you're ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the means of production was in private hands for private profit under the NSDAP...]
3
-
If the Nazi system was just something [where all production was rolled into a military industrial complex which made the interests of the capitalists coterminous with the interests of the governing dictatorship], why would they:
The Nazi just only take at most 15% (1938) of its national expenditures in the Military, which the USSR would meet or exceed for most of the time in the Cold War years, before the war?
Levied most of the taxes 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. ( 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.)
Implement 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.)
Imposed heavy social regulations on every industry, including regulations on the hiring and firing of workers, working hours, work habits, accidents, wages, vacation time, etc.
(Reimann, "The Vampire Economy," Chapter 2.)
Established DAF, which used the 'Labour Book' to prevent employers from hiring people they liked.("The Vampire Economy," p109. Shirer, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," p327.)
Abolished the private property rights, which enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution, in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933. (Text of the Reichstag Fire Decree, 28 Feb 1933. Text of the Weimar Constitution.)
Forced capitalists to join the Nazi party. If the "leaders" refused to join the Nazi Party or cooperate, the factories that they supposedly owned were taken off them. Heinrich Lübbe, Hugo Junkers, and Fritz Thyssen were thrown out from their own business because they refused to join or cooperate. (Reimann, "The Vampire Economy," Kindle Chapter 2. Temin, "Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s," p576-577. Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," p111-113.)
Force implementing “higher corporate tax rates, special war excess taxation, and by changing accounting rules, the Nazi regime substantially increased the tax burden for businesses, extracting up to 80% of the profits (see Banken 2018). At the same time, companies continued to pay the wealth tax. We estimate the corresponding wealth reduction to amount to 0.6% of net private wealth." (Wealth and its Distribution in Germany, 1895-2018, Thilo N. H. Albers, Charlotte Bartels, Moritz Schularick)
3
-
TIK could be right as long as he didn't deliberately say that "Amazon is Socialist" under the socialists' narratives. Amazon indeed is the Share/Public/Worker ownership of means of production, but it is not Socialist.
The social/public entity of "social/public of means of production" under the Marxist or Marxist Leninism narrative usually refers to the nation, state or government. However, the same social/public entity can mean cooperation, syndicate, or commune, depending on whether you ask Market Socialists, Syndicalists or Anarchists. As long as Amazon is owned by its shareholders, which includes its workers, it is a Share/Public(of the shareholder) and workers ownership. At the same time, Amazon can centrally distribute all means of production within the cooperation, making it control its own means of production.
Yes, Amazon workers don't have much power to change or alter the direction of Amazon, compared to the workers cooperative under the Market Socialism narrative. However, according to Anti-Dühring by Friedrich Engels, how that entity works or who controls or regulates that entity is not correlated with how socialised (owning the means of production) that particular entity is.
According to [1], joint-stock companies are a product of the socialisation of private means of production. While [2] and [3] indicated that the Social/Public (State in that particular quote) ownership of means of production doesn't necessarily guarantee the abolishment of exploitation or the end of the Capitalist Mode of Production, it is the Proletarian Revolution bring forth the Socialist Mode of Production and the abolishment of exploitation and Capitalist Mode of Production.
[1] “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 )
[2] “But the transformation, either into joint-stock companies, or into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies this is obvious. And the modern state, again, is only the organisation that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers – proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.”(Friedrich Engels , Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring, p.176 )
[3] "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. But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the state, that is, of an organisation of the particular class, which was pro tempore the exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage-labour)." (Friedrich Engels , Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring, p.177 )
2
-
More leftists were killed in the great Purge of USSR and PRC 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.
In PRC: In Sufan movement of 1955-1957 which targeted the counter revolutionary within the party and the government, 53,000 abnormal death.
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.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
IPO company is publicly owned in certain point of view.
The ownership of that cooperative is available to the public sector.
However, in reality it usually controlled by the a very small sections of people, just like Soviet Union and other Communist States were.
In Das Kapital, Engels also said that in a Socialist 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.)
It seems that under Marxism, ownership doesn’t necessarily guarantee control.
If both Marxism and USSR can be classified as Socialism and Socialist State. Then yes, IPO is publicly owned by the owners of its share, but in not public controlled.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Allow me to help you put some references here.
That's why "National' comes first in National Socialism, they were racist first and foremost, THEN they were socialists. Hitler called himself a socialist on numerous occasions in his speeches and writing. (Adof Hitler, "Zweites Buch", p50)
Marxist style socialist (generally) don't have that nasty racist foundation. Instead, they believe in a class system. And believe in an international social state. "Workers of the World UNITE!" (Karl Marx, "Manifesto of the Communist Party")
Fascist start with a foundation of Marx style socialism but swap out the international parts for a more inward-looking National ideology. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p51-52, p66, p143-145, p147)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nickdipples8562
Actually I did not find any evidance that Thyssen has been charged for any crime. Can you provide any evidance, or are you make fictional history again to further your point again?
________________________________________________________________________
As the Nazi economic system was nearly identical with the Communist States' reformed economy systems with the addition of capitalistic incentive.
If you still consider the vast majority of the MOP remained in private ownership in Nazi Germany, even
1.the only buyer and seller was also the State (BUCHHEIM, CHRISTOPH & SCHERNER, JONAS. (2006). The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry.)
2.the demand and supply were regulated by the State[1] ,
3.the employment and wage were also regulated by the Stae though the DAF( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.)., and
4.the only competition within the whole economic system was just between firms, which were mostly controlled by Party members(which is not in private sector).
5.the Nazi Party have the power to remove any firm administrator from their position without reasoning.
Then even the Soviet Union and PRC, in 1980s would have vast majority of the MOP remained in private ownership, and should be disqualified as Socialist State together with Nazi Germany.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Furthermore, the vast majority of the MOP remained in private ownership is not indicator to indicate whether a state practicing Socialism or not.
Not all all variants of Socialism have the concept of Communal ownership of the means of production.
The Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism described in Manifesto is one of the example.
"A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations”(2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, III. Socialist and Communist Literature, Manifesto of the Communist Party)
Communal ownership is not a necessary requirement of Socialism, as proven by Marxist Socialism, which prefers total state ownership of MOP, and Conservative/Bourgeois Socialism, which prefers partial state and partial private ownership of MOP.
When Karl Marx acknowledged Conservative/Bourgeois Socialism, a socialist system in a capitalist country without the defined goal of reaching a Communist Classless Stateless Society and having any concept of Communal ownership, as reactionary Socialist( which is still a kind of Socialism), what merit are you based on to declare that Social Democrat is not a kind of Socialism?
[1]
"The difference between this and the Russian system is much less than you think, despite the fact that officially we are still independent businessmen." "Some businessmen have even started studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system." "How can we possibly manage a firm according to business principles if it is impossible to make any predictions as to the prices at which goods are to be bought and sold? We are completely dependent on arbitrary Government decisions concerning quantity, quality and prices for foreign raw materials." "You cannot imagine how taxation has increased. Yet everyone is afraid to complain about it. The new State loans are nothing but confiscation of private property, because no one believed that the Government will ever make repayment, nor even pay interest after the first few years." "We businessmen still make sufficient profit, sometimes even large profits, but we never know how much we are going to be able to keep..."
(German businessman to American businessman, from Reimann, "The Vampire Economy,")
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nickdipples8562
Beside Nazi German also didn’t fit the symptoms of capitalist mode of production (Ernest Mandel, The Laws of Motion of the Capitalist Mode of Production)
Under the capitalist mode of production:
1.Both the inputs and outputs of production are mainly privately owned, priced goods and services purchased in the market.
Production is carried out for exchange and circulation in the market, aiming to obtain a net profit income from it.
Inputs and outputs of production are State owned (German businessman to American businessman, from Reimann, "The Vampire Economy,”)
2.The owners of the means of production (capitalists) constitute the dominant class (bourgeoisie) who derive its income from the exploitation of the surplus value.
No free Market in Nazi Germany (The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry)
3.Surplus value is a term within the Marxian theory which reveals the workers' unpaid work.
“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) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
4. A defining feature of capitalism is the dependency on wage-labor for a large segment of the population; specifically, the working class, that is a segment of the proletariat, which does not own means of production (type of capital) and are compelled to sell to the owners of the means of production their labour power in order to produce and thus have an income to provide for themselves and their families the necessities of life.
There was no wage-labor, because work were guaranteed, and the wages or salaries in Nazi Germany were fixed by DAF instead of market-determined. ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.).
2
-
@nickdipples8562
Karl Marx did said he want to “eliminate all classes” ( the original quote from OP). In the other word Marxism did want to make everyone within the society the same class.
While Hitler want to build a nation of same race, and use the social entity of race and total state control to eliminate exploitation and discrimination caused by the social function differences(workers vs lawyer) of different people, like Marxism wish to do with classes and total state control.
"When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise 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.” ('The Manifesto of Communist Party')
2
-
@nickdipples8562 The Vocabulary of Karl Marx literature often have meaning different from the common one. "Statless Society" in Marxism meant being ruled by a ruling entity without "repression and class conflicts" but same as state functionally (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
“... 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)
The last sentanse, "the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production." Indicated economic activity of individuals are still going to be regulated, planned and enforced by the the administration of things, which is funtionally no difference then a totalitarian government.
2
-
@nickdipples8562 Both Hitler and Karl Marx were not planning to achieve equality among the society by ending discrimination, encouraging cooperation or encouraging tolerance. Nazism and Marxism both aimed to achieve the "equal society" by eliminating all the groups in their socialised entities (Race for Nazism and Class for Marxism) other than the ones their ideologies promoted (The Aryan for Nazism, and Proletarian for Marxism) from their society( The Aryan Nation for Nazism and The "Stateless Society" for Marxism) through elimination or conversion.
The following quote from the Manifesto show, one of the criterias to achieve the "stateless society" was to removing all but one class (proletariat).
“When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character.
……
If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise 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.” ('The Manifesto of Communist Party')
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hobbso8508
“Lenin was a great politician, much greater than his socialist contemporaries,”
“his socialist contemporaries” = other socialists in his time, if you don’t know what contemporaries means check a dictionary.
Your quote doesn't mean Lenin [was not a socialist in his eyes]. It said he was a better politician than other socialists in that era.
Pannekoek's assessment can be wrong. With contemporary historical sources, we can determine the economic policy of Nazi Germany did able to make its economic system ascend from capitalist mode of production under Marxist theory.
Under the capitalist mode of production:
1.Both the inputs and outputs of production are mainly privately owned, priced goods and services purchased in the market.
Production is carried out for exchange and circulation in the market, aiming to obtain a net profit income from it.
Inputs and outputs of production are State owned (German businessman to American businessman, from Reimann, "The Vampire Economy,”)
2.The owners of the means of production (capitalists) constitute the dominant class (bourgeoisie) who derive its income from the exploitation of the surplus value.
No free Market in Nazi Germany (The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry)
Surplus value was controlled and regulated by the state.
3.Surplus value is a term within the Marxian theory which reveals the workers' unpaid work.
“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) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
4. A defining feature of capitalism is the dependency on wage-labor for a large segment of the population; specifically, the working class, that is a segment of the proletariat, which does not own means of production (type of capital) and are compelled to sell to the owners of the means of production their labour power in order to produce and thus have an income to provide for themselves and their families the necessities of life.
There was no wage-labor, because work were guaranteed, and the wages or salaries in Nazi Germany were fixed by DAF instead of market-determined. ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@houndoftindalos9580
That is only first half of the story, according to “FROM PUBLIC TO PRIVATE:
PRIVATIZATION IN 1920'S FASCIST ITALY”, Fascist Italy later introduced intervention into private sectors.[1]
Similarly, Privatisation in Nazi Germany 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)
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)
TL;DR, Nazi sold the stocks to private sectors, and voided every right come with every stock in Germany, a dick move, but certainly went against privatisation. Even if banks were privately owned in the forefront, they were still under the control of the Nazi party.
[1]:On the economic front, on January 23, 1925 the Gran Consiglio del Fascismo (Fascism Grand Council), the PNF’s highest body, announced that all the economic forces of the nation would thereafter be ‘integrated into the life of the State’. New legislation was passed on April 3, 1926 regarding the functioning of markets to empower the Fascist State to direct the economy, and thus introduced a trend towards strong interventionism. The two main bases for State intervention were (1) the institutes and corporations that were created in the mid-1920s, through which the Fascist State regulated the economy, and (2) the Carta del Lavoro (Chapter of Labour), declared in April 1927, which made it explicit that private enterprise was subordinate to the State whenever political interests were involved. The corporative system was based on intervention in economic activity and its regulation. In this way, an anti-market government came to accept privatization, because it was able to retain control over private ownership through ever stronger regulation. (FROM PUBLIC TO PRIVATE:
PRIVATIZATION IN 1920'S FASCIST ITALY)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Aria-Invictus May I know where is your reference, Private property seems to mean much more than [tool for the employee to use to make a profit] according to Karl Marx.
“Private property has made us so stupid and one-sided that an object is only ours when we have it - when it exists for us as capital, or when it is directly possessed, eaten, drunk, worn, inhabited, etc., - in short, when it is used by us. Although private property itself again conceives all these direct realisations of possession only as means of life, and the life which they serve as means is the life of private property - labour and conversion into capital.” (Private Property and Communism, 1844, Karl Marx)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Aria-Invictus Yes it did, because in
“Private property has made us so stupid and one-sided that an object is only ours when we have it - when it exists for us as capital, or when it is directly possessed, eaten, drunk, worn, inhabited, etc., - in short, when it is used by us. Although private property itself again conceives all these direct realisations of possession only as means of life, and the life which they serve as means is the life of private property - labour and conversion into capital.” (Private Property and Communism, 1844, Karl Marx)
The action of “directly possessed, eaten, drunk, worn, inhabited “ can be apply to every object owner and the object they owned, not just for the [ the tools and infrastructure workers used that a business owner owned for sake of the business owner's profit] as you suggested.
2
-
2
-
@Aria-Invictus
If you really read your source. The first sentence of it already said that private property not only covered [ the tools and infrastructure workers used that a business owner owned for sake of the business owner's profit] it covered all objects.
It also answer your second question, which is yes. It also predated state and capitalism.
{Private property is the right of an individual to exclude others use of an object, and predates the rupture of society into classes. In its undeveloped form private property is the simple relation of the individual to the natural world in which their individuality finds objective expression. Private property is essentially the denial of the private property of others and finds its ultimate expression only in the relation of wage-labour and capital.
“The antithesis between lack of property and property, so long as it is not comprehended as the antithesis of labour and capital, still remains an indifferent antithesis, not grasped in its active connection, in its internal relation, not yet grasped as a contradiction. It can find expression in this first form even without the advanced development of private property (as in ancient Rome, Turkey, etc.). It does not yet appear as having been established by private property itself. But labour, the subjective essence of private property as exclusion of property, and capital, objective labour as exclusion of labour, constitute private property as its developed state of contradiction - hence a dynamic relationship driving towards resolution.” [Private Property and Communism]}
The answer of you first question is
no for Socialism, as Robert Owen predated Karl Marx as mentioned in the Manifesto.
And yes for Marxist Communism, but no for Communism as a whole because Christian Communism was a thing.
For the third question. The quote already said why Private property made people stupid and one sided.
“Private property has made us so stupid and one-sided that an object is only ours when we have it - when it exists for us as capital, or when it is directly possessed, eaten, drunk, worn, inhabited, etc., - in short, when it is used by us. Although private property itself again conceives all these direct realisations of possession only as means of life, and the life which they serve as means is the life of private property - labour and conversion into capital.”
2
-
@Aria-Invictus
Seems you need a pair of glasses.
“The answer of you first question is
no for Socialism, as Robert Owen predated Karl Marx as mentioned in the Manifesto.
And yes for Marxist Communism, but no for Communism as a whole because Christian Communism was a thing.”
That quote also answers your question in English. Karl Marx thought private property has made people so stupid and one-sided because it makes people believe an object is only ours when we have it - when it exists for us as capital, or when it is directly possessed, eaten, drunk, worn, inhabited, etc., - in short, when it is used by us. Although private property itself again conceives all these direct realisations of possession only as means of life, and the life which they serve as means is the life of private property - labour and conversion into capital.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Aria-Invictus
Means of production is another term Karl Marx used, if Karl Marx used two terms to describe different concepts. Why would it means the same concept? It seems that it is you who equivocated the definition of Private Property and Means of production within Marxism.
{Means of Production
The tools (instruments) and the raw material (subject) you use to create something are the means of production.
If we examine the whole process from the point of view of its result, the product, it is plain that both the instruments and the subject of labour, are means of production, and that the labour itself is productive labour.
Karl Marx
Capital: The Labour-Process And The Process Of Producing Surplus-Value}(Encyclopedia of Marxism)
Again, here is the whole flow of logic in this discussion.
You said that two months ago.
You then concluded [rights ultimately is an agreement.]
I was not disagree with you.
I then said
“And the abolishment of such agreements was the characteristic of early Marxist Leninist Socialist regimes and what Marxism advocated to do. While Nazi German happened to abolish it with the fire decree in 1933. I still don’t understand what you are actually trying to argue against. Something doesn’t need to actually exist to be a foundational concept of sociology.”
Whether that the idea is true or not, it didn’t refute the fact that Marxist sociology and ideology which was built on the concept of private property, private ownership, and rights.
Two months later, you tried to refuted Marxist sociology and ideology did relied on the belief of private property by claimed that the definition of private property was different in Marxism. Then you proved a source that proved that your “Marxist definition” of private property was wrong.
That make the Marxist definition of Private Property relevant to the discussion.
Then you provide referencing definition that claimed that Private property covered all object.
According to “Encyclopedia of Marxism”the [18] of your wiki source.
{Private property
Private property is the right of an individual to exclude others use of an object, and predates the rupture of society into classes. In its undeveloped form private property is the simple relation of the individual to the natural world in which their individuality finds objective expression. Private property is essentially the denial of the private property of others and finds its ultimate expression only in the relation of wage-labour and capital.}
(Encyclopedia of Marxism)
It is you who restarted a two months old conversation by claiming that I was not using the Marxist Definition, than provide a source that proven that I was using a Marxist Definition.
If you want to claim private property [only covers objects being used by the workers with the intent of making the business owner a profit] is the correct Marxist definition please provide a correct Marxist source to prove your point.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Aria-Invictus Sure that is not a Capitalist Society. That is private ownership exist without a state.
If the word “Similar to ownship” give you sour taste. Let look at another source.
“private ownership was firmly established for such things as horses, tools for hunting and gathering, food, weapons, materials used in the construction of mobile shelters, clothing, and various kinds of body ornaments that were used for religious ceremonies and other activities. Cooperative production (group raids to take horses from enemy tribes or group hunts ) did not imply communal ownership. The product of such cooperative activities was divided among participants according to their contributed effort. Individuals might share such things as food at times, but they did so out of generosity. Food could be given but not taken because it was private property not communal property. “ (”Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights”, Tom Flanagan, Christopher Alcantara, André Le Dressay)
2
-
@Aria-Invictus If the word “Similar to ownship” give you sour taste. Let look at another source.
“private ownership was firmly established for such things as horses, tools for hunting and gathering, food, weapons, materials used in the construction of mobile shelters, clothing, and various kinds of body ornaments that were used for religious ceremonies and other activities. Cooperative production (group raids to take horses from enemy tribes or group hunts ) did not imply communal ownership. The product of such cooperative activities was divided among participants according to their contributed effort. Individuals might share such things as food at times, but they did so out of generosity. Food could be given but not taken because it was private property not communal property. “ (”Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights”, Tom Flanagan, Christopher Alcantara, André Le Dressay)
2
-
@Aria-Invictus
Nope, you didn't talk about [private property in a capitalist society that's requires a state.]
You said:
[p1: private property rights is an agreement between a state and it's citizens. this agreement entails currency and who owns what based on the laws of the land to settle disputes of ownership.]
My first source said, "Native Americans relied on incentives quite similar to ownership." As long as private property is not an incentive, that statement doesn't indicate that Native Americans only had a concept similar to private property.
My second source said that "the concept of private ownership was firmly established".
Those examples are more than enough to prove that private property can exist without the existence of the state.
Btw, horses, tools for hunting and gathering, weapons, materials used in the construction of mobile shelters are means of production, private property in your definitions.
food, clothing, and various kinds of body ornaments are not means of production, personal property in your definitions.
The private property applies to both private property and personal property under your definition.
If just off-limiting something for private ownership in a Society is admitting that it is not a capitalist society. You can also say that the USA is not a capitalist society just because nuke is off-limited for private ownership.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Aria-Invictus
Tribe is not a state
The term (state) therefore includes city-states, empires, theocracies, and many other forms of government but excludes tribes, lineages, firms, and
churches as such. ("Coercion, Capital, and
European States, AD 990-1990", CHARLES TILLY)
2
-
@Aria-Invictus but again tribe is not a state
“The term (state) therefore includes city-states, empires, theocracies, and many other forms of government but excludes tribes, lineages, firms, and
churches as such. ("Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1990", CHARLES TILLY)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Aria-Invictus Precolonial Africa ubiquitous Markets is a free market exist in a tribal system.
Markets were ubiquitous in precolonial Africa. Two types were distinguishable: the periodic (weekly) rural markets and the large regional markets. Some of these regional markets grew into large towns such as Timbuktu, Kano, Salaga, Sofala, and Mombasa. They served as exchange points for long-distance trade. Timbuktu and Kano, for example, served the long-distance caravan trade over the Sahara and the long-distance trade from the coastal areas. Free-trade routes crisscrossed the continent. Goods and people moved freely along them. Men dominated the long-distance trade while women held sway over the rural markets, which largely involved trade in agricultural produce.
Prices on Africa’s markets were not controlled or fixed by chiefs or tribal governments. They have always been determined by bargaining in accordance with the laws of demand and supply. For example, when corn is scarce, its price rises, and the price of fish generally tends to be higher in the morning than in the evening, when fishmongers are anxious to return home.
2
-
2
-
@Aria-Invictus Are you implying that p3 have no contradiction with the following statement.
“Free market can exist without the existence of (the European) capitalism.
I am adding (the European) here because Capitalism as an economic system cannot be artificially invented. While the term “Capitalism” was indeed invented to discribe an economic system characterized by private actors own and control property in accord with their interests.
It can describe any economic system that have that characteristic.
Like that pre-conlonial economic system was being described as Peasant Capitalism
The system described above may be called “peasant capitalism.” It differs from Western capitalism in two respects. First, as noted, the operating unit was the clan, not the individual. Second, profit was shared. Regardless, the clan was free to engage in whatever economic activity it chose. It did not line up before the chief’s palace for permission to engage in trade, fishing, or cloth-weaving. If an occupation or a line of trade was unprofitable, African natives switched to more profitable ones and always enjoyed the economic freedom to do so. In modern parlance, those who go about their economic activities on their own free will are called “free-enterprisers.” By this definition, the kente weavers of Ghana; the Yoruba sculptors; the gold-, silver-, and blacksmiths; as well as the various indigenous craftsmen, traders, and farmers were free-enterprisers. The natives have been so for centuries. The Masai, Somali, Fulani, and other pastoralists who herded cattle over long distances in search of water and pasture also were free-enterprisers. So were the African traders who traveled great distances to buy and sell commodities—a risk-taking economic venture. The extended family system offered them the security and the springboard they needed to launch and take the risks associated with entrepreneurial activity. If they failed, the extended family system was available to support them. By the same token, if they were successful, they had some obligation to the same system.
2
-
2
-
Here is the Socialism in loosest sense that Karl Marx still recognised in the Manifesto. This very loose definition of Socialism that can basically fit every country nowadays has already existed at least since the Manifesto.
“A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government.
Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expression when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.
Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois socialism.
It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois — for the benefit of the working class.”(2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, III. Socialist and Communist Literature, Manifesto of the Communist Party)
2
-
2
-
@andyknowles772
[Incorrect, Socialism is an economic mode of production, nothing more...]
Yes you are right, Socialism is "Soical (including State which Marxism advocated) ownership (even as limited as modern Social Democrat) of mean of production".
______________________________________________________
The "Private Sector"
Private property rights (enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution) were abolished in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933. (Text of the Reichstag Fire Decree, 28 Feb 1933. Text of the Weimar Constitution.)
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.)
Every bank and firms were legally put under the Nazi Control though the Corporate Law in 1937 and Bank Act of 1934.
________________________________________________________________
The Workers
The following references illustrate how Nazi practicing their Social ownership by appropriating "the surplus product, produced by the means of production, or the wealth that comes from it, to society as a whole". (Wiki-Social ownership).
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) 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.)
The profit gained by the company would redistribution to the worker ( to further 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)
No one could fire, hire, or even change the wages of workers without the permission of DAF with the control of "Labour Book". ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.).
___________________________________________________________________
The Markets
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.
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 wage. The only parts of society with competition were between the firms.
What Buchheims described here 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.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nickdipples8562
[.which just goes to prove what I already told you - that Social Democrats are not equivalent to Socialists.
Reimann points out the REALITY that the economy was based on private property and private enterprise, which disproves your claim that private property was abolished.]
Again, Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. If Nazi suspended the Articles that guaranteed the right to property. Private property didn’t existed de jure. The property seized of Heinrich Lübbe, Professor Junker and Fritz Thyssen, proven that the right to privitely own property of Aryan was also not guaranteed.
Furthermore, private property not being abolished is not indicator to indicate whether a state practicing Socialism or not.
[Communal ownership of the means of production is a factor in all variants of Socialism, not just Marxism.]
Not in the Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism described in Manifesto
"A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations”(2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, III. Socialist and Communist Literature, Manifesto of the Communist Party)
Communal ownership is not a necessary requirement of Socialism, as proven by Marxist Socialism, which prefers total state ownership of MOP, and Conservative/Bourgeois Socialism, which prefers partial state ownership of MOP.
What merit are you based on to declare that Social Democrat is not a kind of Socialism when Karl Marx acknowledged Conservative/Bourgeois Socialism, a socialist system in a capitalist country without the defined goal of reaching a Communist Classless Stateless Society, and have any concept of Communal ownership, as reactionary Socialist( which is still a kind of Socialism).
2
-
2
-
@nickdipples8562
[...and Engels referred to them as "so called socialists". I don't regard them as socialists, frankly and neither do they fulfill the dictionary definition. ]
That is why you excluded all other Socialism except Marxism from your definition of Socialism. In "The Principles of Communism," Engels used "The so-called socialists" to refer to all the non-communist socialists when being asked, "How do communists differ from socialists?" Which included Reactionary Socialists(Clerical Socialism, Utopian Socialism), Bourgeois Socialists (including Proudhon's Syndicalism and Anarchism, being used as an example of Bourgeois Socialism in the Manifesto), and Democratic Socialists.
If you disregard those "so-called socialists" from Socialism, the only Socialism left in your description is Marxist.
TIK has already said that National Socialism was not Marxism. 8:14 You unknowingly repeat one of the TIKs, because of your ambiguous definition of Socialism.
Turn out that the definition of Socialism you keep trying to describe is just Marxism. The general definition of Socialism is just social ownership of the mean of production, which includes the ideology of those "so-called socialists" like Clerical Socialism, Utopian Socialism, Syndicalism, Anarchism, and Anaro-Syndicalism. The socialized entity can be race (Arab Socialism, Labor Zionism), class (Marxism, Social Democrat), or even Religion (Islamic Socialism, Clerical Socialism). While Socialist Ideologies like Arab Socialism and Social Democrat don't aim to abolish private ownership of the means of production, they are still regarded as Socialism.
Therefore, the existence of private ownership is not a necessary requirement of Socialism, as proven by Marxist Socialism, which prefers total state ownership of mean of production, and Conservative/Bourgeois Socialism, Arab Socialism, and Social Democrat, which prefer mixed ownership of mean of production.
[Private ownership of the MOP was not abolished. This is proven by the indisputable fact that the majority of the MOP was under private ownership..]
This is just an meaningless Circular definition which is a Fallacies of definition. What are you trying to say?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nickdipples8562 No that statement excluded Proudhon's Syndicalism, Anarchism and Owen’s Utopia Socialism.
As Karl Marx classified Proudhon's Syndicalism and Anarchism, and Owen’s Utopia Socialism as Bourgeois Socialism in the Manifesto.
All three mentioned Socialisms were about having socialism under a capitalist mode of production.
______________________________
USSR, PRC, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea during Cold War
Actually which Communist States had better working conditions then that of the Western European Capitalist Counterparts in the Cold War era?
______________________________
Again, Nazi German didn’t fit the characteristic of capitalist mode of production.
Under the capitalist mode of production: (Ernest Mandel, The Laws of Motion of the Capitalist Mode of Production)
1.Both the inputs and outputs of production are mainly privately owned, priced goods and services purchased in the market.
Production is carried out for exchange and circulation in the market, aiming to obtain a net profit income from it.
Inputs and outputs of production are State owned (German businessman to American businessman, from Reimann, "The Vampire Economy,”)
2.The owners of the means of production (capitalists) constitute the dominant class (bourgeoisie) who derive its income from the exploitation of the surplus value.
No free Market in Nazi Germany (The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry)
3.Surplus value is a term within the Marxian theory which reveals the workers' unpaid work.
“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) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
4. A defining feature of capitalism is the dependency on wage-labor for a large segment of the population; specifically, the working class, that is a segment of the proletariat, which does not own means of production (type of capital) and are compelled to sell to the owners of the means of production their labour power in order to produce and thus have an income to provide for themselves and their families the necessities of life.
There was no wage-labor, because work were guaranteed, and the wages or salaries in Nazi Germany were fixed by DAF instead of market-determined. ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.).
2
-
@nickdipples8562
I know Proudhon was very much against private property, but it was classified as Conservative/Bourgeois Socialism, the "so-called Socialists", by Karl Marx in the Manifesto.
"2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism
A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society. To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.
We may cite Proudhon’s Philosophie de la Misère as an example of this form..."(2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, III. Socialist and Communist Literature, Manifesto of the Communist Party)
_______________________
The definition of "Communist State" is a one-party state that is administered and governed by a communist party guided by Marxism–Leninism.
Are you trying to say that Marxism–Leninism is also not Socialism?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nickdipples8562 You are the one who is doing the semantic shuffle, distorting the history and definition to further your own narrative here.
[Yes, Dachau was not an extermination camp, which rather proves my point, yet it still killed 40,000 or so people.]
Factually wrong again, can you at least do some fact check.
"Over the 12 years of use as a concentration camp, the Dachau administration recorded the intake of 206,206 prisoners and deaths of 31,951."
[Of course, history shows that the vast majority of the means of production was in private hands, for private profits.... this..]
Again, Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. If Nazi suspended the Articles that guaranteed the right to property. Private property didn’t existed de jure. The property seized of Heinrich Lübbe, Professor Junker and Fritz Thyssen, proven that the right to privitely own property of Aryan was also not guaranteed.
2
-
@nickdipples8562
What is your point, Thyssen not being persecuted by Hitler?
About 200000 German Socialists/Communists were captured and send to concentration camp for re-educated in 1933.By July 1934 only around 4,700 prisoners remained. The other communists but 600 which died in the camp, were set free in 1934. (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p 147-148, 158, 167 )
Most of the Communists/Socialists captured in 1933 were even being prosecuted in a lesser degree than Thyssen. Using your point, would it make most of those Socialists/Communists also got sent to the nice concentration camp and survived, and made those released Socialists/Communists not being persecuted?
_______________________________
Again, Nazi German didn’t fit the characteristic of capitalist mode of production.
Under the capitalist mode of production: (Ernest Mandel, The Laws of Motion of the Capitalist Mode of Production)
1.Both the inputs and outputs of production are mainly privately owned, priced goods and services purchased in the market.
Production is carried out for exchange and circulation in the market, aiming to obtain a net profit income from it.
Inputs and outputs of production are State owned (German businessman to American businessman, from Reimann, "The Vampire Economy,”)
2.The owners of the means of production (capitalists) constitute the dominant class (bourgeoisie) who derive its income from the exploitation of the surplus value.
No free Market in Nazi Germany (The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry)
3.Surplus value is a term within the Marxian theory which reveals the workers' unpaid work.
“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) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
4. A defining feature of capitalism is the dependency on wage-labor for a large segment of the population; specifically, the working class, that is a segment of the proletariat, which does not own means of production (type of capital) and are compelled to sell to the owners of the means of production their labour power in order to produce and thus have an income to provide for themselves and their families the necessities of life.
There was no wage-labor, because work were guaranteed, and the wages or salaries in Nazi Germany were fixed by DAF instead of market-determined. ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.). 0:01
2
-
@nickdipples8562
[The majority of the MOP was in private hands, dude.]
Your Statement was factually wrong.
Private property rights, enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution, were abolished in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933. (Text of the Reichstag Fire Decree, 28 Feb 1933. Text of the Weimar Constitution.)
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 with the control of "Labour Book". ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.).
The profit gained by the company would redistribution to the worker ( to further 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)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alessiosandro123
Yeah the property got more “public”, as in stocks holders for joint-stock cooperations mentioned in Anti-Dürhing, proletarian in Marxism, and Aryan in Nazi ideology. For the latter two the means of production of the “people outside of the public” (Jews and bourgeoisie) within the land owned by the society ( the communist State or the Third Reich) were
socialised (taken) back to the society of the proletarian and the Aryan.
And even in Marxist theory, getting more public doesn’t necessarily mean that the right of making decisions would scatter among the public. As Karl Marx also said:
“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.)
Just a "socialized man," not a "democratically elected man."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lukedaniels7750
National socialists appropriated means of production to the society as a whole.
"Workers had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State." (Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," see Chapter 2.)
"The employment and wage of workers were also regulated by the DAF."
"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."(Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
2
-
@BurtReynolds-qp1jk
According to Karl Marx, State is a 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 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)
If Marxism is considered as a Socialist theory, then State can be a synonymous with the society/public.
Due to the fact that Nazi’s economic system was very similar to the reformed Communist States' economic systems.
As long as the Soviet Union and PRC, before 1989, and Cube and Vietnam, after 2000, were still considered to be Socialist States, Nazi Germany should still be counted as Socialist State.
2
-
@LeeZaslofsky
Maybe you should do some comparative reading between Marxist, Fascist, and Nazi Literature. All three ideologies want to end the "Problem of Capitalistic Monopoly" through the regulation of state-size entities.
Ideologically, Fascists want to achieve a free-market society in which 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) through the regulation of a totalitarian dictating government, which is created in the "highest form of democracy"( Forcefully representing "the people", like the North Korean one, the one from Marxist Leninism, which is not disallowed by any Literature of Karl Marx).
Basically, Fascism can be very similar to contemporary social democracy but in dictatorship. Therefore saying Nazism is closer to Fascism is not an indicator that Nazism is not Socialism.
2
-
@LeeZaslofsky
[I did look at his sources,and I commented on them earlier. He uses too many right wing sources,]
ad hominem.
_________________________________________________
[and though he mentions more reliable sources, he seems to ignore what they say. ]
Point out the specific timestamps, otherwise you are just slandering.
_____________________________________________________________________
[I certainly have substantiated my claim that Hitler was not a socialist, in various comments I have made.
You, on the other hand, seem determined to call Hitler a socialist, contrary to the almost universal consensus of historians on the matter. ]
Argumentum ad populum
_____________________________________________________________________
[The German people at the time knew very well that Hitler was not a socialist, but an extreme right wing nationalist and racist who regarded the Constitution and democracy with contempt,]
Anecdotal evidence
_____________________________________________________________________
[and ordered his goons to attack socialists.]
First Lenin came for Anarchist in 4/1918.
Then Lenin came for the Socialist Revolutionary in 7/1918.
Then Lenin came for kulak( peasants who owned over 8 acres of land) in 8/1918.
Then Lenin came for the striking and rioting industrial workers in 3/1919.
For the Priests, monks and nuns? 3,000 of them were put to death in 1918 alone.*
_____________________________________________________________________
[When he seized power, he moved immediately to destroy the socialist parties and trade unions and the democratic Constitution that upheld their rights.
Using massive violence and the full resources of the police, Hitler was able to smash the unions ad the parties of the working class. He abolished the right to strike or have independent unions, he banned all political parties other than his own.]
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)*
_____________________________________________________________________
[His economic policies were anything but socialist: his top priority was preparation for war, and he drove military spending from 2% of the economy when he seized power to 18& only six years later.]
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.*
_____________________________________________________________________
[He did not nationalize any corporations, he did not interfere with the banks, he did increase equality among the Master Race, he allowed massive corruption and benefited by it himself.
There was nothing socialist about Hitler except some rhetoric and the name of his party. ]
Private property rights (enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution) were abolished in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933. (Text of the Reichstag Fire Decree, 28 Feb 1933. Text of the Weimar Constitution.)
In 1934, Nazis enacted the Bank Act, which 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)
Regarding Privatisation, it was a Nazi Scam. Nazi renationalized all the state property previously sold to the 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)
Hitler and his party centralized Germany Economy and increased social welfare (Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," p36, p62, p71. Neumann, "Behemoth," p306. Overy, "Nazi Economic Recovery," p31. Reimann, "The Vampire Economy," p71.), workers had fixed wages, "private sector" could not fire or hire workers without the permission of DAF, and heavily subsidized by the State (Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," see Chapter 2.).
The profit gained by the company would redistribution to the worker ( to further 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)
The market in the economic system was regulated by the state 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 uncompetitive firm with corporate law in 1937. The workers would still have their jobs and wage. The only parts of society with competition were between the firms.
The Nazis constantly regulated/directed the market to induce firms to act accordingly, matching the socialist way of running a society described in Das Kapital V3.
"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.)
_____________________________________________________________________
[Nowadays some fascists, trying to whitewash that hated word to facilitate the fascist upsurge going on in some countries (like the US), have tried to push Hitler out of the fascist category and into the socialist one. Then they can denounce his crimes as "socialism" and pretend that they are just a bunch of fairiy radical folks trying to stop "wokeism" and make the borders secure,and make sure Trump gets to be the dictator of the US (etc).]
Anecdotal evidence.
It seems more like it is just a left wing version of "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory.
_____________________________________________________________________
*So as USSR/Communist Cuba is not a whataboutism. This is a logic gate that work like this, if Nazi did something horrible and a communist country did the same horrible thing and still being considered as a socialist state, then you cannot really used that horrible thing to prove Nazi German was not practicing Socialism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@beardedchimp
Nazism is a socialist ideology because:
1. Hitler wanted to end class inequality, too. He claimed that is one of the "obligations on our shoulders" stated in Mein Kampf.
2. Hitler attempted to organise the economy centrally and increase social welfare. Workers had fixed wages, the “private sector” could not fire or hire workers without the permission of DAF, and the State heavily subsidised them, and most of those “private sector” were controlled by Nazi members.
3. Hitler’s action aimed to serve its socialised entity, the race, instead of industrialising Russia demonstrates, clearly rejected the practice of capital export, which was characteristic of the phase of state (monopoly) capitalism.
4. Hitler wanted to solve his “Shrinking Market Problem” by agriculturalise the Lebensraum to create a constant supply and demand between the Reich for industrial products and the Lebensraum for agricultural products
Regarding Nationalised Trade Union:
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)
Regarding arresting opposition:
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.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ИванЕвдокимов-в4м It surely is a socialised entity, which the society only included the share holders , but it doesn’t mean its formation is initiated by any socialist ideology.
"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. " (Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring)
2
-
@miketomlin6040
The Political Compass's reasoning behind their decision was "Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector"
However, they failed to mention Hitler and his party centralized Germany Economy and increased social welfare (Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," p36, p62, p71. Neumann, "Behemoth," p306. Overy, "Nazi Economic Recovery," p31. Reimann, "The Vampire Economy," p71.), workers had fixed wages, "private sector" could not fire or hire workers without the permission of DAF, and heavily subsidized by the State (Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," see Chapter 2.). Most of the "private sector" was controlled by Nazi members.
Regarding Privatisation, it was a Nazi Scam. Nazi renationalized all the state property previously sold to the 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)
On the other hand, in 1934, Nazis enacted the Bank Act, which 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)
Regarding the tax, Nazis really didn't need to raise the tax directly to "get more money" from their citizen.
With party-controlled fixed wages (Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," see 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 organizations), plus scams against citizen like "Strength Through Joy Car" (Beetle Car) and "Privatisation", citizens had already been unknowingly "taxed" even before the get their wage.
Considering those facts, Nazis definitely "desired for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency, which can mean the State but also a network of communes, and should be on the left side of the Political Compas by definition.
For your questions :
[Socialists restrict income differentials. Usually tax high income at rates between 70-95%. For those on high incomes or wealthy that Hitler did not kill off, what tax rates did his regime seek.]
Nazis regulated their wages via DAF.
[In addition the semantic cell of Socialism is common/public ownership of essential services. Hosptials, Prisons, Military, Police, Schools/Universities, Gas, Electric, Water, Postal Services, Parks, etc etc. Were all or most of these Nationalised by the 3rd Reich?]
Yes, all those things were either under the control of the Nazi Party or the Government. ( Kershaw, “Hitler: Hubris,” p479.| Evans, “The Coming of the Third Reich,” Chapter 5, Part 4. |Bessel, “Life in the Third Reich,” p22. |Evans, “The Coming of the Third Reich,” Chapter 5, Part 4. |Bessel, “Life in the Third Reich,” p22, p25-29. |Evans, “The Coming of the Third Reich,” Chapter 5, Part 4.| Bel, "Against the mainstream," PDF p8-9.)
2
-
2
-
@saphy45-uu8rd Regarding Hilter can’t be a socialist as he saw Marxist Socialism was a Jewish ideology. The range of socialism is much more than Marxism and it's variations.
The definition of Socialism is Social (can be state or ruling party) 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")
As Nazi did appropriate the surplus products produced by means production, and the wealth derived from it to society as a whole by the State or to the workers by DAF. They did meet the definition of practising Socialism
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 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)
2
-
2
-
1. Saying public company is not publicly owned, make any sense when you define “public” in “publicly own” only as government and state which we common would in daily life. However, if you only definition “public ownership” as
government and state ownership, you are going to exclude Anarchism (not An-Cap) from Socialism, as the production units(cooperatives) of Anarchism are not owned nor controlled by the state/government ( not in the public sector).
Again your definition of “public” are going to exclude Anarchism (not An-Cap) from Socialism, as the production units(cooperatives) of Anarchism are not owned nor controlled by the state/government ( not in public sector).
Using the Anarchist Collective of in Revolutionary Catalonia as an example.
“Michael Seidman observes that in contrast to the Soviet experience, many collectives were voluntary and bottom-up. However, there was also an element of coercion - the terror and upheaval encouraged reluctant individuals to obey radical authorities. In addition, it was not uncommon for collectives to effectively boycott non-members, compelling them to join unless they wished to face a great deal of struggle otherwise.
…
Seidman argues that while collectives may have encouraged solidarity internally, on a local scale they contributed towards organised selfishness. Collectives encouraged autarky and self-sufficiency, refusing to share with other collectives.” (Seidman, Michael, "Agrarian Collectives during the Spanish Revolution and Civil War")
The “public” of the collective just means the members of the collective, not the state, everyone in Spain, or even everyone in that legislation area.
The public in the publicly own cooperation only means the owner of the shares of the cooperation, just like the “public” of the collective just means the members of the collective.
2. Here is the vision of Communist Society according to Karl Marx.
“communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”(‘The German Ideology’)
"When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise 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.” ('The Manifesto of Communist Party')
"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')
3. Hating Judaism constituted anti-Semitism, as Judaism is a great part of Jewish culture
2
-
Do you know that Soviet Union also annexed the part of Poland they took during 1939, entire Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine and Belarus. What internationalism of USSR you are trying to convince here.
Nazi Germany also didn't annex Slovakia, Croatia, Vichy French before Operation Tourch, Danmark, Northern Italy. Why it didn't make Nazism an international Ideology?
Besides USSR also blatantly exploited foreign Axis POWs and stripped many factories in occupied Germany. Why again does it only refute the Nazis but not the Soviets as Socialists?
If you are going to talk about the Nazi had “market”, private property, firms have the right to reject an order from the Nation or deal with foreign capitalists therefore not fit to be classified as Socialist.
Then why would modern Cuba still be classified as a Socialist State despite its opening for foreign investment and urge for foreign trade?
Or Vietnam since 1988, which abandoned its collective agriculture policy and go for privatisation?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nickdipples8562
Marxism did not have strict restrictions on where and how a Communist Revolution should take place. As mentioned in the Manifesto.
“However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II.”(Preface to The 1872 German Edition , Communist Manifesto)
Karl Marx also never said that the proletarian revolution cannot be started in Russia. Even in 1882, Karl Marx recognized the "rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants.". What makes you think Russia in 1918, 36 years later, was still not capitalistic enough to have a proletarian revolution?
Furthermore, in the Preface to The 1882 Russian Edition of Manifesto of the Communist Party, Karl Marx & Frederick Engels wrote.
"Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?
The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development."
Marxism also didn’t limit the definition of Socialist States to some particular kind of State. Socialist States can exist even before the proletarian Revolution, according to “Part III: Socialism, Anti-Dühring”.
“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. … “
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@andyknowles772
[The Nazis didn't strip ownership of the means of production.
The vast majority of the means of production remained in private hands, for private profit.]
Here is one academic publication that contradicted your narrative.
"Through higher corporate tax rates, special war excess taxation, and by changing accounting rules, the Nazi regime substantially increased the tax burden for businesses, extracting up to 80% of the profits (see Banken 2018). At the same time, companies continued to pay the wealth tax. We estimate the corresponding wealth reduction to amount to 0.6% of net private wealth." (Wealth and its Distribution in Germany, 1895-2018, Thilo N. H. Albers, Charlotte Bartels, Moritz Schularick)
Can you provide any reference to support your point? Until now, you are just plainly making baseless claims without evidence or live accounts.
I await you to provide any information to debunk the first-hand accounts from the "Vampire Economy" and the economic research from "Wealth and its Distribution in Germany, 1895-2018."?
2
-
@andyknowles772 Sorry, quote the wrong quote, I don’t expected you to straw man your own argument.
If you are now using the non absolute elimination of private property, private profit or mean of production IRL and in theory to refute Nazism as Socialism. Then congratulations, you refute the following Socialism from the definition of Socialism.
For all already practised Socialism, non were able to eliminate all private property, private profit or mean of production IRL.
On the other hand, private profit does permit to be generated via private property within certain version of Social Anachism.
“The first school of social anarchism was formulated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, whose theory of mutualism retained a form of private property,[38] advocating for enterprises to be self-managed by worker cooperatives, which would compensate its workers in labour vouchers issued by "people's banks".[39]”
Social Democrat don't aim to abolish private ownership of the means of production, they are still regarded as Socialism.
Last but not least, even Marxism permit the existence of class differences ( which is caused by the private ownership of the mean of production) and in a Socialist State, because it would only be eliminated in a Communist society.
"Communist society will, in this way, make it possible for its members to put their comprehensively developed faculties to full use. But, when this happens, classes will necessarily disappear. It follows that society organized on a communist basin okk s is incompatible with the existence of classes on the one hand, and that the very building of such a society provides the means of abolishing class differences on the other." (Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@andyknowles772
It seems you really don’t read those citations or even watched the video before typing comments.
Nazi German has the state ownership mean of production because again:
Even if every company were chasing private profit, their mean of production were still owned by the state through heavy taxes to the state, fixed employment fixed-wage of DAF and the controlled “market” of the State.
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)
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.)
Beside, 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 wage. The only parts of society with competition were between the firms.
———————————-
Here is your up to 80% profit tax reference.
"Through higher corporate tax rates, special war excess taxation, and by changing accounting rules, the Nazi regime substantially increased the tax burden for businesses, extracting up to 80% of the profits (see Banken 2018). At the same time, companies continued to pay the wealth tax. We estimate the corresponding wealth reduction to amount to 0.6% of net private wealth." (Wealth and its Distribution in Germany, 1895-2018, Thilo N. H. Albers, Charlotte Bartels, Moritz Schularick)
2
-
@andyknowles772
And here is why Nazi German has the state ownership mean of production. This is also the third time I posted it.
Even if every company were chasing private profit, their mean of production were still owned by the state through heavy taxes to the state, fixed employment fixed-wage of DAF and the controlled “market” of the State.
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)
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.)
Beside, 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 wage. The only parts of society with competition were between the firms.
2
-
@andyknowles772
I have provided multiple historical sources, and definition of social ownership of mean of production to proof that Nazi Germany didn’t have wage labour (because they have fixed employment and wages, thus no labour market ) and Nazi Germany did have social(state) ownership of means of production.
Beside, communal ownership of means of production is not the only way to achieve socialist mode of production, it can also be achieved through state and syndicate (DAF) ownership of means of production, which Nazi Germany had and with countless evidences, which I have repeatedly posted in this thread, to support it.
You didn’t know either Nazism or Socialism, you didn’t read, you didn’t research, you didn’t do anything but mindlessly barking your subjective believe repeatedly.
Where is your sources to support your claim of
[...and Germany had wage labour and largely private ownership of the means of production! It was also a mixture of free market and command
economy.]?
____________________________________________
Keep running from the request of sources that you have never been able to provide!😂😆
Where are the timestamps for
[The entire video argues that anything with the word "public" in it is socialist.] and
[Thik argues that anything with the word "public" in it is socialism. This, a company with an IPO is, as he has argued, socialist]
Where is the link for
[Oh, Thik absolutely argues that anything with the word "public" in it is socialism.
He even made a four hour video on Roman building codes to support it!]
Where is the reference for
[The Nazis didn't strip ownership of the means of production.
The vast majority of the means of production remained in private hands, for private profit.] and
[Oh, and you're ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the means of production was in private hands for private profit under the NSDAP...]
2
-
2
-
@beardedchimp Did you, or the OP mention the ultimate goal of Fascism?
Did you, or the OP cover the following narrative from the father of Fascism's own words?
"We have constituted a Corporative and Fascist state, the state of national society, a State which concentrates, controls, harmonizes and tempers the interests of all social classes, which are thereby protected in equal measure. Whereas, during the years of demo-liberal regime, labour looked with diffidence upon the state, was, in fact, outside the State and against the state, and considered the state an enemy of every day and every hour, there is not one working Italian today who does not seek a place in his Corporation or federation, who does not wish to be a living atom of that great, immense, living organization which is the national Corporate State of Fascism. (On the Fourth Anniversary of the March on Rome, October 28, 1926, in Discorsi del 1926, Milano, Alpes, 1927, p. 340).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@Rundstedt1
[Fascist revolution sought to change the nature of relationships between the individual and the collectivity WITHOUT destroying the impetus of economic activity - The profit motive or its foundation - private property or its necessary framework - the market economy. This was one aspect of the novelty of fascism; the fascist revolution was supported by an economy determined by the laws of the market." - Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p7 ]
"The Birth of Fascist Ideology" is a very good book. It 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
[The Nazis were backed and allied with all the other right-wing parties such as the Stahlhelms and Nationalists. They were put in power by the traditional conservative forces, the Nazis fought the left at every turn and all the eminent historians such as Bullock and Shirer will tell you they are Right-wing, capitalist, and set apart from the left]
Yet Prussian Socialism is a traditional conservative concept in Germany. The conservative here didn’t mean the small government capitalist right in economic sense. Socialism seems to be an essence of Political Complex of interwar Germany . As both the old and new establishment was operated in Socialist Systems. Prussian Socialism created by Bismarck and Marxist Socialism. Conservative even the monarchist in Interwar Germany was economically left-leaning. Claiming that National Socialists converged with the conservative did not really indicate they were ideologically favour free market Capitalism, the opposite of Socialism.
["The government will not protect the economic interests of the German people by the circuitous method of an economic bureaucracy to be organised by the state, but by the utmost furtherance of private initiative and by the recognition of the rights of property." -- Adolf Hitler, addressing the Reichstag, March 23, 1933
He then went on like the Rightwinger he was, proposing a tax system that in modern parlance was 'trickle down.' He sounds almost like a modern Republican giving the so called 'job creators' a tax break while quietly moving those costs onto the worker.
"The proposed reform of our tax system must result in a simplification in assessment and thus to a decrease in costs and charges. In principle, the tax mill should be built downstream and not at the source. As a consequence of these measures, the simplification of the administration will certainly result in a decrease in the tax burden." - Ibid
And we know that he believed that because that how they acted and what he did.
"The government...eased the capital position of private business. Agriculture [and particularly the large land holders, the 'agribusiness'] was given a tax relief and a reduction of the burden of debt, while industry gained subsidies and tax relief for new investment and employment." RJ Overy, "War and Economy in the Third Reach" p55
And in the mean time, the cost of living for the average worker rose by taxing consumer items more.
"Hitler personally authorized increases on cinemas, travel, and theater-going...and the range of products covered by the sales tax expanded" - Overy, Ibid, p270
"Soon the lowest earners saw, their tax payments increase 20-55%” - Overy, Ibid, p271]
Hitler lie to the capitalist as any politician did, then transfer the ownership of mean of production from private to states, which was an economically left policy. The collected tax were than used in 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.)
PS: they cannot use Reichsmarks to rearmament as it would left paper trail and rearmament was against the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Nazi scammed those industrialist with MEFO bill that were not allow to exchanged for Reichsmarks and were never payoff. (Nuremberg Trials discussion of the mefo bill and Kopper, Christopher (April 1998). "Banking in National Socialist Germany, 1933–39". Financial History Review. No. 5 (1): p. 59-60 )
1
-
@Rundstedt1
Again the author didn’t do that, he only use “Fascism” in the start of the sentence. He used “Italian fascism” to refer your “Fascism”.
He literally said Nazism cannot combine with fascism, which is in lower case “f”.
“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.” - Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p5
The description of fascism reference from that book you are using was just used to describe fascism excluding Nazism.
Btw, you never answer what "critical components" make Nazi a fascist, that Fascists need a scapegoat for.
They have different political and economical believe. Most importantly, Facsist didn't erase groups of people with certain social status (not limited Jews or bourgeoisie) purely because of the implementation of their ideology like Nazi did.
Neglect all the different political and economical believe. The closest Ideology Governing System of Nazi System is the Communist system. Only countries in Communist system would did exactly the same thing; billions of people lost their lives also because of the implementation of their ideology.
So why wasn't Nazism Communism?
Why isn't classifying Nazism into fascism is the scapegoat that Communist needed?
[the rest of your post just goes on to show that Nazi Germany was capitalist. Lowing taxes on the upper classes while taxing the lower, keeping wages low while rising prices.
Thanks for making my case for me.]
Your claim on tax is one sided
Firstly, all those quotating from "War and Economy in the Third Reach" 270-271 were for war measure.
Secondly, you just mention the tax to the worker increased, put not in comparison to the "owner", and never mention how the taxed was used.
And furthermore, private property rights, as enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution, were abolished in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933. (Text of the Reichstag Fire Decree, 28 Feb 1933. Text of the Weimar Constitution.)
"The Nazis viewed private property as conditional on its use - not as a fundamental right. If the property was not being used to further Nazi goals, it could be nationalised.” (Temin, “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” p576.)
Those subsidies and tax relief for new investment and employment to those industries and the industries itself can just take it back from those owner without any repercussion like they did to Professor Junker of the Junkers aeroplane factory or send to concentration camp like Fritz Thyssen .
(Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Kindle Chapter 2. Temin, “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” p576-577. Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," p111-113. , Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p449. )
How capitalist is that, Nazi just tricked those industrialists to do it bidding to run its nationalised industry with subsidies and tax relief that never belongs to those industrialists.
In your way of saying, USSR took 100% of the farmer and industry production quota, but they still have much lower life expectancy than US, and spent 10%-20% of national income on the Military–industrial complex. How capitalist USSR was.
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. - Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.
1
-
1
-
@Rundstedt1
It is "internal cleansing and external expansion", you need both conditions true to make this statement true.
This definition really didn't really included NAZI Germany and the more important fascist countries with a further look.
"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." - Robert Paxton, "The Anatomy of Fascism" p218
Nazi Germany
didn't fit into this category, because they didn't collaboration with traditional elites.
"traditional elites—heads of state, party leaders,high government officials" - The Anatomy of Fascism" p13
"... state bureaucracy, industrial and agricultural proprietors, churches, and other traditional elites for power"- The Anatomy of Fascism" p212
Unlike the author claimed that Nazi expropriated or purge "as indeed the final cataclysm of the lost war began to do". Nazi started to expropriated or purge them all(including industrialists) since he got the power in 1933 and Hitler got attempted assassination for at least 21 times by Right wing industrialist and Wehrmacht officials.(- Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” Kindle Chapter 2. Temin, “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” p576-577. Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," p111-113. , Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p449., wiki-Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany, wiki-List of assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler)
Fascist Italy
Didn't fit into this category, because they didn't do internal cleansing before becoming a puppet state of Nazi German in 1943. Furthermore, he was kicked out from the Power by the King (traditional elites) by though the constitution and in a vote of internal council. So Fascist Italy was also bounded by ethical and legal restraints. (Why did Italy FLIP Sides in WW2? | Animated History- youtube, he didn't put any citation to the time stamp, I don't know which line referring which source)
Fascist Hungry, no internal cleansing until being occupied by NAZI, and I cannot find anything associating Gyula Gömbös with "by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity" even from the book - The Anatomy of Fascism"
Fanco Spain, no internal cleansing and external expansion
Imperial Japan, no internal cleansing
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nickdipples8562 I don’t know what are you trying to present with yo your point regarding the de facto crime as every victim of Stalin or Hitler were purge because of some de facto crime.
I also don’t know what in you mind to believe you still privately owned a firm, when the amount of raw material to purchase , the amount of product to produce, who to hire and fire with how much wage are all controlled by the state. While the state is the only buyer and seller and can remove you from your administrative position without any compensation.
————————————————
Party members administrated property was still state ownership, using Thyssen as an example, “his” property were still being expropriated by the state without any prosecution.
———————————————
In the mean time, the vast majority of the MOP remained in private ownership is not a indicator to indicate whether a state practicing Socialism or not.
Not all variants of Socialism have the concept of Communal ownership of the means of production.
The Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism described in Manifesto is one of the example.
"A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations”(2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, III. Socialist and Communist Literature, Manifesto of the Communist Party)
Communal ownership is not a necessary requirement of Socialism, as proven by Marxist Socialism, which prefers total state ownership of MOP, and Conservative/Bourgeois Socialism, which prefers partial state and partial private ownership of MOP.
When Karl Marx acknowledged Conservative/Bourgeois Socialism, a socialist system in a capitalist country without the defined goal of reaching a Communist Classless Stateless Society and having any concept of Communal ownership, as reactionary Socialist( which is still a kind of Socialism), what merit are you based on to declare that Social Democrat is not a kind of Socialism?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hobbso8508 Social ownership is a type of property where an asset is recognized to be in the possession of society as a whole rather than individual members or groups within it.[Brus, Wlodzimierz, The Economics and Politics of Socialism. Routledge. p. 88.] Social ownership of the means of production is the defining characteristic of a socialist economy,[Busky, Donald F. (2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. p. 2] and can take the form of state ownership, common ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, and citizen ownership of equity.[O'Hara, Phillip (2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. p. 71.]
1
-
@hobbso8508 Lenin, according to his interpretation of Marx's theory of the state, believed democracy to be unattainable anywhere in the world before the proletariat seized power.[Harding, Neil (1996). Leninism. pp. 154–155.] According to Marxist theory, the state is a vehicle for oppression and is headed by a ruling class,[Harding, Neil (1996). Leninism. pp. 154–155.] an "organ of class rule".[ Lenin, Vladimir (1918). "Class Society and the State". The State and Revolution. Vol. 25] He believed that by his time, the only viable solution was dictatorship since the war was heading into a final conflict between the "progressive forces of socialism and the degenerate forces of capitalism".[Harding, Neil (1996). Leninism. p. 155.]
…
Lenin had now concluded that the dictatorship of the proletariat would not alter the relationship of power between persons, but rather "transform their productive relations so that, in the long run, the realm of necessity could be overcome and, with that, genuine social freedom realised".[Harding, Neil (1996). Leninism. p. 159.]
….
[Because] the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, so corrupted in parts [...] that an organization taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard that has absorbed the revolutionary energy of the class.
— Lenin, explaining the increasingly dictatorial nature of the regime.[Lenin, The Trade Unions, The Present Situation and Trotsky’s Mistakes, (30 December 1920) ; Harding, Neil (1996). Leninism. p. 161. ]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hobbso8508
Let me be more enabling and put your claim to the test. Can you kindly point out which two of the following references that I used you believed are contradictory:
Brus, Wlodzimierz, The Economics and Politics of Socialism. Routledge. p. 88.
Busky, Donald F. (2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. p. 2
O'Hara, Phillip (2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. p. 71.
Harding, Neil (1996). Leninism. pp. 154–155.
Lenin, Vladimir (1918). "Class Society and the State". The State and Revolution. Vol. 25
Harding, Neil (1996). Leninism. p. 155.
Harding, Neil (1996). Leninism. p. 159.
Lenin, The Trade Unions, The Present Situation and Trotsky’s Mistakes, (30 December 1920); Harding, Neil (1996). Leninism. p. 161.
Public Ownership and Common Ownership, Anton Pannekoek
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@charleymount582 Seems you missed the word “Regulated” from your definition of Socialism.
Socialism can permit the existence of Private ownership.
“…
political and economic theory that advocated that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole”
Not to mentioned Privatisation in Nazi Germany 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)
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)
TL;DR, Nazi sold the stocks to private sectors, and voided every right come with every stock in Germany, a dick move, but certainly went against privatisation. Even if banks were privately owned in the forefront, they were still under the control of the Nazi party.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@charleymount582 Nazis did implement many socialist policies to appropriate the surplus products produced by means of production and the wealth derived from it to society as a whole by the State or to the workers by DAF.
Historical facts show that Nazi Germany gradually eliminated unemployment, and 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. ( 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 life 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)
1
-
1
-
@charleymount582
Are you trying to disguisedly replace the concept of nationalisation with Socialist policy?
You said [they (Nazi) never instructed any socialist policies]. I gave you their Socialist Policies.
Here are what the Nazi had nationalised since 1933.
The properties of Heinrich Lübbe , Professor Junker and Fritz Thyssen were seized by the State.
The Reichsbahn - the German railways - and the Reichsbank - the German Bank - officially nationalized in 1937 under the Act of “Gesetz zur Neuregelung der Verhältnisse der Reichsbank und der Deutschen Reichsbahn”.
Regarding the properties previously “privatised” to the private sectors.
All the state property that was previously privatized through selling stock was renationalized in 1937 by the 1937 corporate law, which removed the shareholder's "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)
The Bank Act 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)
TL;DR, Nazi sold the stocks to private sectors, and voided every right come with every stock in Germany, a dick move, but certainly went against privatisation. Even if banks were privately owned in the forefront, they were still under the control of the Nazi party.
Ideologically, the following quote from Mein Kampf, which I have previously posted, also showed that Nazism did advocate for the nationalisation of all means of production.
“In place of this struggle, the National Socialist State will take over the task of caring for and defending the rights of all parties concerned. It will be the duty of the Economic Chamber itself to keep the national economic system in smooth working order and to remove whatever defects or errors it may suffer from. Questions that are now fought over through a quarrel that involves millions of people will then be settled in the Representative Chambers of Trades and Professions and in the Central Economic Parliament. Thus employers and employees will no longer find themselves drawn into a mutual conflict over wages and hours of work, always to the detriment of their mutual interests. But they will solve these problems together on a higher plane, where the welfare of the national community and of the State will be as a shining ideal to throw light on all their negotiations.” (Mein Kampf)
1
-
1
-
@charleymount582
1. Those “private companies” were not privately owned. Private property rights, as enshrined by articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution, were abolished in the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933. -(Text of the Reichstag Fire Decree, 28 Feb 1933. Text of the Weimar Constitution. )
2. Furthermore, Social(State) ownership of means of production can co-exist with private property? What you stated about the “private companies” is irrelevant to whether a state is Socialist or not.
Within the context of socialist economics it refers particularly to the appropriation of 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")
When the state appropriates more surplus products, produced by the means of production, or the wealth that comes from it, to society at large, it equals more social (state) ownership of the means of production.
1
-
@charleymount582
All those Nazi atrocities you mentioned/ will mention were also committed by the Communists regimes. Under the same standard, neither every Communist State nor their Marxist Leninism and Maoism should be considered socialism.
Regarding Nationalised Trade Union:
Historically Nazi, 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.
“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)
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)
Regarding arresting leftist opposition:
More leftists were killed in the great Purge of USSR and PRC 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.
Historically Nazi, 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.
“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)
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)
1
-
@charleymount582
Hitler tolerated them didn't mean he can't legally strip administration right from anyone. The consequences of Hitler's intolerance were property seized and/or sent to concentration camps. Even Fritz Thyssen, one of the most prominent industrialists in Nazi Germany, was sent to a concentration camp in 1944. Private property ownership was not a fundamental right but just an allowance. (Temin, "Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s," P576.) Germans were allowed to keep their control to their property because that suited Hitler and the National Socialist State's ideology, but non-Germans, or Germans who weren't obeying the State, could have their property or businesses stolen from them. This view is backed up by contemporary sources, written in the 1940s by Neumann.
"The difference between this and the Russian system is much less than you think, despite the fact that officially we are still independent businessmen." "Some businessmen have even started studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system." "How can we possibly manage a firm according to business principles if it is impossible to make any predictions as to the prices at which goods are to be bought and sold? We are completely dependent on arbitrary Government decisions concerning quantity, quality and prices for foreign raw materials." "You cannot imagine how taxation has increased. Yet everyone is afraid to complain about it. The new State loans are nothing but confiscation of private property, because no one believed that the Government will ever make repayment, nor even pay interest after the first few years." "We businessmen still make sufficient profit, sometimes even large profits, but we never know how much we are going to be able to keep..."
(German businessman to American businessman, from Reimann, "The Vampire Economy," (no page number on Kindle).
"The decree of February 28, 1933, nullified article 153 of the Weimar Constitution which guaranteed private property and restricted interference with private property in accordance with certain legally defined conditions ... The conception of property has experienced a fundamental change. The individualistic conception of the State - a result of the liberal spirit - must give way to the concept that communal welfare precedes individual welfare. (Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz).”
(Jahrbuch des Oeffentlichen Rechtes der Gegenward, ed. by Otto Koellreuther (1935), p. 267. - Quoted from Reimann, "The Vampire Economy".)
So, he controlled the private properties legally. He was just more tolerant than the Marxists, as he knew the harm of removing competition would be greater than the benefit.
Workers had fixed wages , firms could not fire their workers (also from your source), and Nazi Germany had less than a 3% unemployment rate since 1934.
So the only parts being social darwinised were the firms. The firms can't cut costs from 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 wage. 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 Journal of Economic History. 66. 390-416. 10.1017/S0022050706000167. )
If the demand and supply were regulated, the employment and wage were also regulated, and the only competition within the whole economic system was just between firms, which were mostly controlled by Party members. The Nazi economic system was just reformed Communist States' economy systems. If the Soviet Union and PRC, after 1980, and Cube and Vietnam, after 2000, were still considered to be Socialist States, Nazi Germany should still be counted as one of them.
______________________________________________________________
1.5 "In that case, Hitler did not ban private property because he LIKES private property because he believes in social Darwinism, that you seem to not understand the principle.The price control, rant and wage control was here to protect the economy from the war and the great depression."
Germany has already started recovering from the depression since 1932. They don't need extra policy to protect the economy. Your narrative just dismissed all the social welfare policies of Nazi as necessary good for their evil.
Again, the workers had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidised by the State. (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.).
Btw, You see the highest welfare of the Germanic people from the quote in "The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry"?
1
-
1
-
@charleymount582 How about those property owners and ex-property owners (every Communist State), Jewish Doctors (USSR), Teachers (PRC), other socialist (USSR, PRC, Khmer Rouge), religion (every Communist State) intellectuals (USSR, PRC, Khmer Rouge), engineers (USSR, PRC), racial minorities ( Khmer Rouge, USSR), people speaking French ( Khmer Rouge), and people wearing glasses( Khmer Rouge) being stripped out of property and eliminated in the communist states? The victimhood of any victims are not a proof of any ideology being on the left or right.
1
-
1
-
@charleymount582 Sure regulating of the economy isn’t only a socialist thing, but socialising the ownership of means of production with the social entities of races surely does.
Again, the general definition of Socialism is just social ownership of the mean of production, which includes the ideology like Clerical Socialism, Utopian Socialism, Syndicalism, Anarchism, and Anaro-Syndicalism. The socialized entity can be race (Arab Socialism, Labor Zionism), class (Marxism, Social Democrat), or even Religion (Islamic Socialism, Clerical Socialism). While Socialist Ideologies like Arab Socialism and Social Democrat don't aim to abolish private ownership of the means of production, they are still regarded as Socialism.
1
-
@charleymount582 You still can’t point out the difference in how Nazi State and Communist States can rule in their lowest standard.
What you said also didn’t refute Nazi re-nationalisated the privatised property once they get the money they need.
Privatisation in Nazi Germany 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)
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)
TL;DR, Nazi sold the stocks to private sectors, and voided every right come with every stock in Germany, a dick move, but certainly went against privatisation. Even if banks were privately owned in the forefront, they were still under the control of the Nazi party.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@charleymount582 And again and again , Privatisation means nothing, as they later just took it back from the people they sold to.
Privatisation in Nazi Germany was a 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)
The Bank Act 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)
TL;DR, Nazi sold the stocks to private sectors, and voided every right come with every stock in Germany, a dick move, but certainly went against privatisation. Even if banks were privately owned in the forefront, they were still under the control of the Nazi party.
1
-
@charleymount582 I just show you at least Nazi Germany did renationalise the control of the “private property” they previously privatised with the related laws they enacted to do so.
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)
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)
TL;DR, Nazi sold the stocks to private sectors, and voided every right come with every stock in Germany, a dick move, but certainly went against privatisation. Even if banks were privately owned in the forefront, they were still under the control of the Nazi party.
The Reichsbahn - the German railways - and the Reichsbank - the German Bank - officially nationalized in 1937 under the Act of “Gesetz zur Neuregelung der Verhältnisse der Reichsbank und der Deutschen Reichsbahn.
The The properties of Heinrich Lübbe , Professor Junker and Fritz Thyssen were seized by the State.
1
-
@charleymount582 Regarding the reason you think that Nazi was not socialists because they send your Social Democrats grandpa to concentration camps.
Seems you neglected the very historical facts that Socialists did often kill other Socialists in human history.
Lenin and Stalin also eliminated the Mensheviks, the anarchists, the syndicalists, the Trotskyists, and the Kronstadt rebellion.
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.
In PRC: In Sufan movement of 1955-1957 which targeted the counter revolutionary within the party and the government, 53,000 abnormal death.
If eliminating different leftist groups would disqualify anyone as a socialist and their ideologies from Socialisms. Lenin, Stalin and Mao and their respective Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism, should also not be socialistic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@charleymount582
You can cover all “principles of fascism” with one or more Communist State ever existed.
Nationalism: Milovan Đilas popularized the term "national communism" in his New Class (1957), where he wrote: "No single form of communism ... exists in any other way than as national communism. In order to maintain itself it must become national."
________________________
Authoritarianism/Totalitarianism: Every Communist State was undemocratic in most of their time.
________________________
Militarism: USSR was 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 Wa. North Korea sacrificed the need of other sectors and used about 24% of the national expenditures in the Military while unable to self-reliance.
Leader Cult: Stalinism, Maoism
Hierarchy: You have Vanguardism in Marxist Leninism.
In PRC, Commissioners considered themselves upper class, and the proletarians considered themselves a different higher moral class of Five Red Categories compared to the lower classes of Five Black Categories, even if the property of those Five Black Categories had already been stripped.
Members of the Black Classes were systematically discriminated against, as one's classification could affect employment opportunities and career prospects and even marriage opportunities. This could also be passed onto their children. Over time this resulted in a victimized underclass that was treated as if it were still composed of powerful and dominant people.[2][3][4][5][9]
________________________
Corporatism: Cuba actively seeking investment from foreign capitalist companies.
PRC didn’t nationalise private firms not until“Public-Private Partnership"(公私合营) campaign in 1956, 7 years after they took the power.
Lenin used State Capitalism during the NEP period of USSR, where “a free market and capitalism, both subject to state control". (V. I. Lenin Draft Theses on the Role and Functions of The Trade Unions Under the New Economic Policy).
Soviet Union before 1922 and after 1980, Vietnam after 1988, PRC before 1956 and after 1980 and Cube after 2000 had all allowed the existence of private firms to run within their state regulated markets, the Corporatism system.
________________________
Anti-communism: Stalin views the Trotskyism as a threat to the nation and seek to suppress it.
Soviet Union hated Czechoslovak Communist, Chinese Communist hate Vietnam Communist , Vietnam Communist hate Khmer Rouge, Weimar Republic’s SPD hates Bavarian Soviet Republic. The former Communist had invaded the latter in every example I listed.
________________________
Anti-Liberalism: I don’t think I need to explain about it, most Communist state was Anti-Liberalism.
1
-
@charleymount582
[okay what's the source? They never instituted social ownership of anything. Cite your source. I haven't seen you post one except some bullshit from Mein Kampf, which said absolutely nothing about nationalizing ANY industries. Put up or shut up]
I posted the Nationalisation and Socialisation policies of Nazi Germany with reference for at least three times. If you still can’t see it, it is just you chose to turn a blind eye.
Nationalisation:
The properties of Heinrich Lübbe, Professor Junker (Bel, “Against the Mainstream,” P17.), and Fritz Thyssen were seized by the State.
The Reichsbahn - the German railways - and the Reichsbank - the German Bank - officially nationalized in 1937 under the Act of “Gesetz zur Neuregelung der Verhältnisse der Reichsbank und der Deutschen Reichsbahn”.
Regarding the properties previously “privatised” to the private sectors.
All the state property that was previously privatized through selling stock was renationalized in 1937 by the 1937 corporate law, which removed the shareholder's "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)
The Bank Act 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)
TL;DR, Nazi sold the stocks to private sectors, and voided every right come with every stock in Germany, a dick move, but certainly went against privatisation. Even if banks were privately owned in the forefront, they were still under the control of the Nazi party.
Socialisation:
"Workers had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State." (Aly, "Hitler's Beneficiaries," p36, p62, p71. Neumann, "Behemoth," p306. Overy, "Nazi Economic Recovery," p31. Reimann, "The Vampire Economy," p71.)
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.(Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
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)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@charleymount582 The means of production of every company in Nazi Germany was appropriated by the DAF or the Nazi State. So basically every firm in Nazi Germany was socialised.
If you really want a list just search the list of Germany companies that existed in the period of 1933-1945.
Here the ways how Nazi Germany socialised all companies in Germany with source and reference.
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 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)
1
-
1
-
@charleymount582 Regarding everything from “Against the Mainstream”
I can firmly tell you that, the historical facts that stated in the “Against the Mainstream” cannot support your point.
As Nazi Germany nullified the effect of privatisation with the Bank Act of 1934 and corporate law in 1937.
Here is the related Nazi Scam passage, that I have posted for at least three times, with source.
Privatisation in Nazi Germany 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)
The Bank Act 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)
TL;DR, Nazi sold the stocks to private sectors, and voided every right come with every stock in Germany, a dick move, but certainly went against privatisation. Even if banks were privately owned in the forefront, they were still under the control of the Nazi party.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@charleymount582 Again regarding everything from “Against the Mainstream”
I can firmly tell you that, the historical facts that stated in the “Against the Mainstream” cannot support your point.
As Nazi Germany later stripped the administration right entitled by companies shares and took control all private banks with the Bank Act of 1934 and corporate law in 1937.
Here is the related Nazi Scam passage, that I have posted for at least three times, with source.
Privatisation in Nazi Germany 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)
The Bank Act 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)
TL;DR, Nazi sold the stocks to private sectors, and voided every right come with every stock in Germany, a dick move, but certainly went against privatisation. Even if banks were privately owned in the forefront, they were still under the control of the Nazi party.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@charleymount582 Again and again. After the privatisation, Nazi Government pushed out many policies and regulations to make the “Privatisation” unable to diversify the ownership of public property from the state sector to the private sector and further consolidate the control of the property in the private sector to the hand of the state, hence nationalisation after the privatisation.
Notable examples would be:
1. The corporate law in 1937 that removed 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)
2. 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)
3. The Act of “Gesetz zur Neuregelung der Verhältnisse der Reichsbank und der Deutschen Reichsbahn” that officially nationalized the Reichsbahn - the German railways - and the Reichsbank - the German Bank - in 1937
1
-
1
-
@charleymount582 As stated for multiple time, there was no contradiction of facts between my argument and Against the Mainstream. If you tried to imply all those laws oppressive law I mentioned below were fake news/wrong/misinterpret/ alternated facts, you can kindly debunked it with supporting evidence.
After the privatisation as stated in “Against the Mainstream”, Nazi Government pushed out many policies and regulations to make the “Privatisation” unable to diversify the ownership of public property from the state sector to the private sector and further consolidate the control of the property in the private sector to the hand of the state, hence nationalisation after the privatisation.
Notable examples would be:
1. The corporate law in 1937 that removed 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)
2. 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)
3. The Act of “Gesetz zur Neuregelung der Verhältnisse der Reichsbank und der Deutschen Reichsbahn” that officially nationalized the Reichsbahn - the German railways - and the Reichsbank - the German Bank - in 1937
1
-
1
-
@beardedchimp
By your definition of Socialism, you are refuting Marxism from Socialism. As Marxism is also an ideology about State Control of mean of production.
The nation have absolute control over means of production is the way how Marxism achieved their Communist paradise.
"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', Marx)
“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. But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the state as state.” (Anti-Dühring, Frederick Engels)
1
-
@beardedchimp What makes Fascism not congruous with socialism under your definition then? Besides, if you were even unable to define what is "Social Ownership of means of production" and claim that [state control does or does not make something socialist]. What is the argument and merit of your statement?
"I don't know what is socialism?"
And yes more state control of means of production equalled more socialised regardless of who controls the state according to “Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring” by Engels.
“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.”
Besides, under Karl Marx classification of socialism. Workers or other tenants of the society having control over the means of production is not a necessary condition for the formation of Socialist States.
In the Manifesto of the Communist Party even Conservative Socialism, which "sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government." (2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, III. Socialist and Communist Literature, Manifesto of the Communist Party) were under the definition of (Reactive) Socialism.
1
-
@beardedchimp
Neither Nazism nor Fascism were pro-capitalism and would let the market and the profit of private industry (the surplus value) unregulated.
The profit of the administrated industry for Nazism or the private industry of Fascism will be appropriated to the needs of the nation by the states and the national syndicates. Those were parts of the 5 hours of that video and the summary of "The Birth of Fascist Ideology". You disagreed my points even before you read my post.
The economic policy of Fascism copied the theory of Revolutionary Syndicalism.
“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.”( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p143-145)
In fascism theory, the fascist is always the one who regulated both the worker and the bourgeoisie.
“If the bourgeoisie — I then said — believe that they have found in us their lightening-conductors, they are mistaken. We must go towards the people.... We wish the working classes to accustom themselves to the responsibilities of management so that they may realize that it is no easy matter to run a business... We will fight both technical and spiritual rear-guardism.... Now that the succession of the regime is open we must not be fainthearted.” (“The Doctrine of Fascism”)
The end goal of Fascism was to create a nation where the authorian government will share the net profit of the nation among every citizen of the nation. Therefore, Mussolini stated
"We have constituted a Corporative and Fascist state, the state of national society, a State which concentrates, controls, harmonizes and tempers the interests of all social classes, which are thereby protected in equal measure. Whereas, during the years of demo-liberal regime, labour looked with diffidence upon the state, was, in fact, outside the State and against the state, and considered the state an enemy of every day and every hour, there is not one working Italian today who does not seek a place in his Corporation or federation, who does not wish to be a living atom of that great, immense, living organization which is the national Corporate State of Fascism. (On the Fourth Anniversary of the March on Rome, October 28, 1926, in Discorsi del 1926, Milano, Alpes, 1927, p. 340).
Fascist Italy had no less control over the private sector than that of any contemporary social democratic state.
——————————————————-
Privatisation was a Nazi Scam.
Nazi renationalised all the state property that was previously sold to the 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 ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.).
The profit gained by the company would be redistributed to the worker ( 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)
Nazi was not selling the property right of the company, they were just selling the administrative right, which they can take it back if they want, of the company.
——————————————
While the line of socialism is subjective to everyone, it is quite impossible to ideologically exclude fascism or Nazism from Socialism without excluding either authoritarian Socialism ( like Marxist-Leninism and Maoism), libertarian Socialism (like Anarchism and Democratic Socialism) or non-pure class based Socialism (Arabic Socialism, Maoism and Labor Zionism) from the definition of Socialism, as fascism or Nazism are just authoritarian, free market tolerating (liberal socialism), and non-pure class based Socialism.
1
-
1
-
@JAMAICADOCK
Ever heard of Russification, Soviet did commit ethnic cleansing with force allocation of local people out of and Russians in to every occupied area.
___________
Pol Pot purged every foreigners and racial minorities groups during the Cambodian Genocide.
From August 1937 to October 1938, 353,513 people were arrested and 247,157 were shot in the national operations of NKVD. It is estimated that this would make up 34% of the total victims of the Great Purge.[3]
* Polish Operation of the NKVD ~111,091 killed[4]
* NKVD Order No. 00485
* German Operation of the NKVD ~41,898 killed[5]
* Greek Operation of the NKVD ~20,000[6]—50,000[7]
* Latvian Operation of the NKVD 16,573 killed[8]
* Korean Operation of the NKVD ~40,000 killed[9]
* Chinese Operation of the NKVD
* Estonian Operation of the NKVD 4,672 killed[10]
* Finnish Operation of the NKVD 8,000–25,000 killed or disappeared[11]
________________________
Again Soviet Union did commit mass murdering and ethnic cleansing against indigenous people like Crimean Tatars.
______________________
How can you used [securing border] to justify annexing land from satellite state or neutral countries next to you?
Btw Soviet Union was formed in 1922 and Russian SFSR had no claim over Finland, Poland and the Baltic States that Soviet Union tried to or successfully occupied in 1939 and 1940.
1
-
@andyknowles772 The Krupps family members that controlled Krupp were all Nazi members. They were not IPO too. Regardless how every company were chasing private profit, their mean of production were still owned by the state through heavy taxes to the state, fixed employment fixed-wage of DAF and the controlled “market” of the State.
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)
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.)
Beside, 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 wage. The only parts of society with competition were between the firms.
1
-
1