Economy of Third Reich was a socialist economy

Sep 2019
486
Slovenia
Fascist congress of Verona in November 1943 made a document called Manifesto of Verona with 18 points of future program of Republican facists. With this program they returned to the early fascism before it made a pact with Italian monarchy. Now when monarchy was on the side of their enemies and fascists felt liberated by Germans of its influence they became again even more anti-capitalistic then before.

We are interested here mostly in economic points of Manifesto. In point 8 b fascists called for abolishment of capitalism in Italy and for fighting against so called plutocracy in the world. Little family bussiness should remain in private hands but state was setting up prices.

Point 11 says:

In the national economy, everything that comes out of the single interest to enter into the collective interest by size or function belongs to the sphere of action that is proper to the State.
Public services and, as a rule, war fabrications must be managed by the State through parastatals.


Point 12 says:

In each company (industrial, private, parastatal, state) the representatives of the technicians and workers will cooperate intimately - through a direct knowledge of management - to the fair fixing of wages, as well as to the fair distribution of profits between the reserve fund, the fruit to share capital and profit sharing for part of the workers. In some companies this may occur with an extension of the prerogatives of the current factory commissions. In others, replacing the Boards of Directors with Management Boards composed of technicians and workers with a State representative. In others, in the form of a parasindacal cooperative.

This point was later in 1944 applied in before mentioned law of socialisation of factories. Under this law Mussolini bigger factories would be run by workers loyal to fascism or nationalized and smaller would be run by commities were owners would be subordinated to representatives of fascist syndicates and state. Workers in such smaller factories would vote half of the members of commitie which would lead such factory. Leading manager could be named by state.


Point 17 is talking about strickt control of wages and prices and death penalty for speculators on black market. As we said before this is yet another clear demonstration how planned economy is connected with severe repression and big repression apparatus.

In line with the current situation, the Party estimates a salary adjustment for workers through the adoption of national minimums and local reviews, and even more so for small and medium-sized employees both state and private. But because the provision fails ineffective and ultimately harmful to all it is necessary that with cooperative stores, company stores, extension of the tasks of the "Provvida" include, requisition of the shops guilty of infractions and their parastal or cooperative management, so that the result of paying is obtained. This is the only way to contribute to price and currency stability and market recovery. As for the black market, it is asked that speculators - like traitors and defeatists - fall within the jurisdiction of extraordinary courts and are liable to death.


 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
6,162
Fascism and Nazism were both totalitarian, but certainly not socialist. The totalitarianism was the common feature with the Stalinist Soviet system, not socialism.

Totalitarianism made both have at least a theoretical preference for national autarky in economic matters, but the Soviets actually largely achieved that through a planned (socialist) economy, will Nazism and Fascism went with state capitalism.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2019
486
Slovenia
@Larrey of course Nazis and fascists were using planned economy too and in the way which they interpreted as beneficial for society and this fits the definition of socialism, state/public control or state/public ownership of ( former ) private property like for the benefit of society . And all communist regimes were also totalitarian with bigger or smaller amount of terror but usually very big amount of it. In Nazi Germany they had even a four year plan for German economy between 1936-40.

Hitler extended to Göring the power to make law simply by publishing decrees, which enabled him to create other plenipotentiaries in overall charge of various industries. Göring constantly expanded the scope of the plan until he became the de facto master of the German economy. The Four Year Plan favoured both the protection of agriculture and the promotion of autarky (economic independence) for Germany. Göring was put in charge of the Four Year Plan at its inception and given plenipotentiary powers. He had complete control over the economy, including the private sector, especially after the Minister of Economics, Hjalmar Schacht, had began to lose favour with Hitler for opposing the growing military expenditures at the expense of civilian economic growth. During the following years, the state, under Göring, began building refineries, aluminium plants, and factories for the development of synthetic materials.

Nazis knew that even German capitalists will probably not like their socialist plan in economy so they used state apparatus to intimidate them:

Fearful of the reaction by industrialists and financiers over the increasing nationalisation of Germany's economy, Hitler's 1936 "Four-Year Plan Memorandum", also called for the Reichstag to enact "A law providing the death penalty for economic sabotage.


You can see from the above mentioned fascist law of socialisation that workers loyal to fascism would run bigger factories or they would be nationalized and smaller would be run by commities were owners would be subordinated to representatives of fascist syndicates and state. Workers in such smaller factories would vote half of the members of commitie which would lead such factory. Leading manager could be named by state. Manifesto of Verona says in point 15 also that the right to an appartment should be guaranteed by the state. The Party enters in its program the creation of a national body for the housing of the people, which, absorbing the existing Institute and broadening its action to the maximum, will provide the house to the families of the workers of each category, through direct construction of new dwellings or gradual redemption of existing ones ( they will stop paying rents ).
 
Sep 2019
486
Slovenia
Some thoughts about the connections between socialism and racism in the case of national socialists. As i demonstrated nazi economy was socialist and planned economy however nazis were not internationalistic socialists. Imperial Germany wanted to become a colonial power in the second part of 19th century and in early 20th century. The propaganda of German nationalists was very much based on racism. Foreign policy of Bismarck which was responsible for uniting Germany was soon seen as to much concentrated on Europe. German press was soon full of calls for conquests. So called Weltpolitik was accepted. That was foreign policy adopted by the Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany in 1891, which marked a decisive break with former “Realpolitik.” The aim was to transform Germany into a global power through aggressive diplomacy, the acquisition of overseas colonies, and the development of a large navy. In south Africa German racism was put in practice. Under German colonial rule, natives were routinely used as slave labourers, and their lands were frequently confiscated and given to colonists. When some natives rebelled, rebellion was crushed with cruel massacres and then captives were put in concentration camps where they worked as slaves in very bad conditions.

Nazis indeed took many things from this propaganda and early examples of conquest. However Hitler was also afraid that capitalism will at the end make other races stronger and they will like try to rule over Aryans then. Because according to nazis there is a constant fight between races. Hitler hated the free market because it brings nations closer together and can lead also to race mixing. It reduces poverty and it can make poor rich. This is in many ways true but there is no real reason to see it as a bad thing. Foreign trade so important in liberal capitalism is also pretty much bad because it is like making the race weaker. Nation state should be more or less self sufficient. Jews as the worst race according to National socialists are in favour of race mixing because with that they are like destroying other races in biological competition. Germans however are like inclined to work for their nation as i demonstrated before - because of biology but strong central power should also lead them on this path. Again we can see both racism and socialism. Germans are biologicaly inclined toward socialism. So than the confiscation of the property of Jews in Third Reich was also both the result of socialism and racism.

Socialism and planned economy was thought to be totalitarian from the very begginings. According to dr. Friedrich von Hayek, the term “socialism” was coined in the 1800s by French philosopher Henri de Saint-Simon, who believed that industrialization and the Scientific Revolution called for a complete rearrangement of government and society. Writing in the aftermath of the French Revolution, Saint-Simon envisioned a totalitarian society ruled by a technocratic elite made up of industrialists, academics, businessmen, and scientists. So early socialists were primarily concerned with improving society through central organization and scientific discovery. That was even before Marx and Lenin and their totalitarian models of socialism and communism.

In the 25 points program of National socialists point ten is saying: The activity of individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the framework of the whole for the benefit for the general good which is typical socialism. So it is not so much surprising that Nazi Party’s chief and propagandist, Joseph Goebbles, even once remarked that he would sooner live under bolshevism than capitalism.





 
Jan 2016
332
Boland
Fascism and Nazism were both totalitarian, but certainly not socialist. The totalitarianism was the common feature with the Stalinist Soviet system, not socialism.

Totalitarianism made both have at least a theoretical preference for national autarky in economic matters, but the Soviets actually largely achieved that through a planned (socialist) economy, will Nazism and Fascism went with state capitalism.
Hitler declared himself a Socialist. Not a Marxist, but indeed a Socialist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AnonymousProfesor

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
6,162
He declared himself Führer. "Der Führer denkt für uns" and "das Völkerwillen" is expressed through the "Führerswillen".

Until the totalitarianism is accepted as the deciding factor, this thread will just chew the cud of its particular incomprehension of Nazism.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
15,055
Europix
Hitler declared himself a Socialist. Not a Marxist, but indeed a Socialist.
"... Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one. ... "


Adolf Hitler, 1923


Socialist, indeed?
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
15,055
Europix
Until the totalitarianism is accepted as the deciding factor, this thread will just chew the cud of its particular incomprehension of Nazism.
I doubt it will ever accepted. At least by some.

On of the basic "logic" of this thread is

1. Socialism = planified economy.
2. Hitler = planified economly

ergo

Hitler (Nazism) = socialism.

Now, that all that logic sounds like:

"-Dady, all carnivores have so big teeth?
- Ofcourse!
- So elephants are carnivores too, right, daddy?"



doesn't exactly matter.

What matters is the new black is the old red: communism.

So, any totalitarian, criminal, extreme regime/ideology is surely Marxist or related to it ...
 
Jan 2016
332
Boland
"... Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one. ... "


Adolf Hitler, 1923


Socialist, indeed?
Like I said, not a Marxist. We have to first agree that the methods imposed by Hitler and the ones dictated by Marx differed greatly. For one Hitler, like Stalin believed in socialism in one country.

In the book by Alan Brown, "How 'Socialist' was National Socialism?", he writes in the introduction,

Hitler was as much a socialist as Marx. They both shared the same ultimate goal - the socialisation of the people into a harmonious community free of exploitation - but they differed significantly in the methods required to achieve it.

Hitler used both socialism combined with nationalism to attain his goals. This was largely born from the belief that minorities and jews specifically were responsible for the 'stab in the back' that led to the Versailles treaty and the devastating position Germany found itself after the war.

I guess it all depends on what we agree is the definition of socialism. From the same book I mentioned earlier they cite an article from 1937 from Der Angriff, that

defined 'true socialism' as the commitment to hard work and the fulfilment of duty to the state and the nation, whereas Marxism socialism was "collectivism based on the materialistic view of history" that served only the proletariat at the expense of society's best elements. [18] Capital was redefined to emphasise its relationship to the state, not its owners. Capitalism would remain intact, but the close monitoring of employers' activities would ensure that the worker or the farmer was not excluded from the process or unfair treatment. Schoenbaum tells the story of a servant girl who complained officially about her employer's treatment of her. At the subsequent hearing, the girl's female employer was sternly reprimanded for contravening her responsibilities to the Volksgemeinschaft, told to raise the girl's wages substantially, and then instructed to accompany her home. The Economist in 1937 tackled the complexity of 'German socialism' by suggesting that it was in reality quite undefined: The Party that rejects all known brands of Socialism has no idea what its own Socialism is. In Germany it is therefore practicable, and is indeed necessary, to be pro-Capitalism and Socialistic at the same time; and no wise man neglects to assert that he is both.[19]

This is a very similar to what Oswald Spengler was talking about his 'Prussian Socialism':

Our marxists show strength only when they are tearing down; when it comes to thinking or acting positively they are helpless. By their actions they are confirming at last that their patriarch was not a creator, but a critic only. His heritage amounts to a collection of abstract ideas, meaningful only to a world of bookworms. His "proletariat" is a purely literary concept, formed and sustained by the written word. It was real only so long as it denied, and did not embody, the actual state of things at any given time. Today we are beginning to realise that <arx was only the stepfather of socialism. Socialism contains elements that are older, stronger, and more fundamental than his critique of society. Such elements existed without him and continued to develop without him, in fact contrary to him. They are not to be found on paper; they are in the blood. And only the blood can decide the future.[...]

Hence we now face the task of liberating German socialism from Marx. I say German socialism, for there is no other. This, too, is one of the truths that no longer lie hidden.

Perhaps no one has mentioned it before, but we Germans are socialists. The others cannot possibly be socialists.


I'll post two more citations, these from the book "Hitler's Revolution by Richard Tedor.

Certain reforms Bismarck managed to legislate fell short of his goals and labors' expectations. The inexorable radicalization of labor ultimately found expression in the doctrines of Karl Marx. Banned form Germany in 1848, Marx formulated his political-conomic program in England. He based his conclusion, published in Das Kapital, mainly on the findings of government commissions surveying labor conditions in English factories. His ideas found a receptive audience among working Germans. Whereas early socialist reformers like Wilhelm Weitling had fought for labor's acceptance into the German national community, Marx propagated class warfare. The exploited labor stratum, Marx preached, owed no allegiance to its nationality, but should seek solidarity with oppressed workers, the so-called proletariat, of other countries.

[...]

Ganzer wrote that Marx hoped to drive the working people "into a current that carries them further form the society they once wanted to be a part of." He also pointed out an important distinction between National Socialist and Marxist perceptions of labor. The NSDAP honored it. Hitler publicly stated that "No German should be ashamed of this name, but should be proud to be called a worker." Ganzer described the denigration of labor as "perhaps the worst crime of Marxist teachings. This class awareness Marx did not base on a sense of value but on a psychosis of worthlessness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AnonymousProfesor

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
15,055
Europix
I guess it all depends on what we agree is the definition of socialism
True.

Personally, I generaly do not start from definitions gave by others, nor on analyses made by others. I prefer to start with the subject's own definition, own position: in this case, Hitler's.

If we accept him as socialist, as he declared itself, I'm afraid than the majority of other socialists aren't ones.

__________
PS: thank You for the post: it's good to read good post!