Economy of Third Reich was a socialist economy

Jan 2016
332
Boland
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!
I understand, however are democrats also not divided between conservatives or liberals? If we understand socialism as a function of social cohesion among a given group, then we can say the means by which they achieve that cohesion can be brought through different means. Those being either through national identity or class identity. Just a thought.
Heck, most Westerners today throw around the word 'socialist' and 'communist' without understanding the term, its embarrassing.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,930
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!
Absolutely agree.

Analytic definitions, while logical, are the bane of historical understanding. They produce a lot of text and hot air, but in the end mostly end up further confusing matters needlessly. What analytic definitions at best end up doing is define various historic phenomenon in such a fashion that it can be said they did NOT live up to the definition, allowing the declaration that they weren't something or another. But all that does is reframe the question of "So what was going on then?".

What's going on with trying to make Nazism out as socialism is the political right wing feeling iffy about the number Nazism did on traditional values of nationalism and racism. If it can instead be foisted onto the left, then some of the stigma of these traditional values can be lifted and a whole range of political options can become acceptable again.
 

At Each Kilometer

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
4,062
Bulgaria
"... 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?
It is the beginning of AH interview by George Sylvester Viereck.

https://www.nationalists.org/library/hitler/interviews/NOT COMPLETE - INTERVIEW WITH ADOLF HITLER. MU - GEORGE SYLVESTER VIERECK.pdf
 
Last edited:

Frank81

Ad Honorem
Feb 2010
5,149
Canary Islands-Spain
Hitler's particular definition of Socialism is like a Christian asserting people have made wrong interpretion of Jesus, because God does not exist and Jesus was not a real person
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,930
Hitler's particular definition of Socialism is like a Christian asserting people have made wrong interpretion of Jesus, because God does not exist and Jesus was not a real person
According to the Aryan suprematists of the "Sozialanthropologie" and "Völkisch" movements that inspired Nazism, Jesus was an Aryan anyway...
 
Jan 2016
332
Boland
Though I completely understand why you would dismiss Hitler's or Spengler's versions of 'Socialism', I feel that Socialism had some changes and differed between many factions before experimenting with it into practice. Mensheviks, Bolsheviks; Rosa Luxemburg disagreed with Lenin on some points as did Trotsky and Stalin, all of these did not exactly follow Marx's doctrine tit for tat. So if Hitler felt that his version of Socialism worked for his country I won't go to say he is not a "true" Socialist (but not a Marxist), after all prior to the start of WW2 he did accomplish quite a bit for Germany. Spengler to be fair to his point, socialism is a German idea.

We don't say there is only one right path to capitalism do we? Policies differ from countries like the US and Norway for example. It has also changed from what it was when capitalism first began, so I don't see why we stubbornly hold on to the idea that socialism can only be Marxist socialism. If we are to talk about founding fathers of a Socialist society aren't we overlooking the Spartans?
 
Sep 2019
403
Slovenia
Leaders of national socialism were talking about their revolution and their form of socialism to the very end. In April 1945 so just before the collapse of Third Reich Nazi radio under dr. Joseph Goebbles declared to German public:

Revolution has no end, revolution ends only when people who are making it stop being revolutionaries. Together with cultural monuments also last obstacles for our revolutionary duties are falling. Now when everything is in ruins we will be forced to rebuilt Europe. In the past we were bound by private property in restricting citizens ( ! ). But now bombs instead of killing all Europeans just demolished the prison walls in which people were living... Enemy which tried to destroy the future of Europe just destroyed its past and with it all old and unworthy disappeared.

Goebbles diary, published in 1981, Maribor, page 56.
 
  • Like
Reactions: macon

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,671
Europix
We don't say there is only one right path to capitalism do we?
But we don't imagine Marx saying that capitalists were not real capitalists, that had just stolen and distorted the idea of capitalism, the real capitalism being the one Marx and Marxists are promoting, do we ?
 
Last edited:

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,930
Though I completely understand why you would dismiss Hitler's or Spengler's versions of 'Socialism', I feel that Socialism had some changes and differed between many factions before experimenting with it into practice. Mensheviks, Bolsheviks; Rosa Luxemburg disagreed with Lenin on some points as did Trotsky and Stalin, all of these did not exactly follow Marx's doctrine tit for tat. So if Hitler felt that his version of Socialism worked for his country I won't go to say he is not a "true" Socialist (but not a Marxist), after all prior to the start of WW2 he did accomplish quite a bit for Germany. Spengler to be fair to his point, socialism is a German idea.

We don't say there is only one right path to capitalism do we? Policies differ from countries like the US and Norway for example. It has also changed from what it was when capitalism first began, so I don't see why we stubbornly hold on to the idea that socialism can only be Marxist socialism. If we are to talk about founding fathers of a Socialist society aren't we overlooking the Spartans?
Marx invented the term "utopian socialists" to differentiate his theories from the others – coming up with that derogatory label for them. (He claimed his version was scientific, unlike theirs.) We don't call either Marx, St Simon, Fourrier or any of the rest "capitalists". We don't call them "liberals" either, despite Marx claiming that all he knew about "class struggle" he learned from the liberal historians the brothers Thierry. The "reform socialists", the Social Democrats, also did not follow Marx, and for that ended up labeled "social Fascits" by the Soviet-led Comintern, with the directive the "real" enemy wasn't the Fascists or Nazis, but the Social Democrats.

The connecting bit between the USSR and Nazi Germany, or Fascist Italy, was always the totalitarian dictature aspect, ahead of any other ideological considerations. It's something derived from fetishizing the all-importance of The State, which made both at least theoretically very keen on autarky, economic included. But then the Soviet ideology was universalist in character (shared feature with Liberalism and Conservatism), while the Nazi and Fascist ideologies were parochially nationalist in character, with the Nazis upping the ante with blatant racism.

And it's still a salient feature that as racist, nationalist and autarchic the Nazis and Fascists went, they never abolished private property (subject to their ideological considerations of race of course) of expropriated the assets of their capitalists, rather co-opting them under the umbrella of the expanding powers of the race-based increasingly autarchic state – which otoh was supposed to grow through military conquest, which in turn was set up so as to let the politically loyal, racially acceptable German capitalists to grown their businesses at the expense of defeated nations and races. That certainly wasn't how the Soviets did it, or how Marx envisioned anything.
 
Sep 2019
403
Slovenia
Well for Soviets there was apparently no problem to use slave labour for socialist totalitarian state. There were 30 milion slaves under Stalin working in gulags for example. But also after 1945 in satellite states in eastern Europe and in Balkans Soviet union was using policy similair to that of colonialism. By the end of 1951 for example over 90% of Bulgarian trade was with USSR, Czechoslovakia 60%, Poland 57%, Rumania 80% etc. Clear intention was to make captive states fully dependent on USSR. To make this system even stronger Soviets introduced so called mixed or joint companies. Both USSR and captive state had equal number of shares in such company but manager represented Soviet interests and he was able to acquire or dispose assets of company without permission from the Board of Directors. In the case of oil fields of Rumania for example this meant that Soviet union had them under their effective control because they were controling production norms and policies.

After clash between Tito and Stalin in 1948 communists of Yugoslavia published so called White book in which they claimed that joint companies were the biggest problem in relations between Yugoslavia and USSR. Tito's court historian Vladimir Dedijer made quite some efforts to influence western social-democrats how they are now their allies claiming that democracy is suitable for the west but not for other countries like Yugoslavia. And indeed Yugoslavia received a lot of economical help from the west but money was spent badly because of mismanaged socialist economy.


 
  • Like
Reactions: macon