Economy of Third Reich was a socialist economy

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
16,417
Welsh Marches
Errata :

I directly translated the locution "forced labour" into English, without checking a dictionary. It's always a bad idea and I acknowledge, coming from me, it's unforgivable. But I did it, I can't undo it.

It seems that in English "forced labour" covers something else.

It seems the closest term in English to what I was referring to would be "penal labour".

Example:

French: travaux forcés (=> forced labour)

" La peine de travaux forcés est une peine de détention assortie de travail obligatoire qui peut être infligée aux individus condamnés à l'emprisonnement pour des crimes ou des délits. La peine de travaux forcés est encore en vigueur dans certains pays."*

(trad: The sentence of forced labor is a punishment of detention subject to work mandatory that can be imposed on individuals sentenced to imprisonment for crimes or offenses . Forced labor is still in force in some countries.
N.B. not mine)

Russian: Принудительные работы (=>forced labour)

"Принудительные работы — вид уголовного наказания, связанный с привлечением осуждённого к оплачиваемому труду в местах, определяемых органами уголовно-исполнительной системы, с вычетом из его заработной платы определённой денежной суммы. "*

(trad : " Forced labor is a type of criminal punishment related to the conviction of a convicted person in paid labor in places determined by the penitentiary system, with deduction of a certain amount of money from his salary. " N.B. not mine)

Lost in translation, one might say ...

That being clarified (my apologies for the confusion, again) I remain on the position I expressed in the two posts.

Of course, I will not start to point out my disagreement with Your posts, as You were mislead by the inappropriate use of the verbal locution in question.

________
* both definitions are from the inevitable Wiki.
The term 'forced labour' is often used in English for strenuous work ('hard labour') that prisoners were often forced to carry out in the past, so there is no need whatever to apologize here! Stalin assuredly didn't invent the practice, and it has been carried to similar extremes elsewhere.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,848
Europix
The term 'forced labour' is often used in English for strenuous work ('hard labour') that prisoners were often forced to carry out in the past, so there is no need whatever to apologize here! Stalin assuredly didn't invent the practice, and it has been carried to similar extremes elsewhere.
Well, I have to, as it totally changed the sense of my post.

Worse thing is that I even can't ask forgiveness: I'm well aware how much the legal systems (and the concepts and the words denominating them) are different in the Anglo-sphere and on the continent, so I should have checked it before!
 
Dec 2011
1,386
Belgium
deaf tuner said:
I think I will be always against any form of propaganda, even propaganda against self-evident evils, because of (I underlined wherefrom my issues with propaganda come from):

"Propaganda is information that is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information ... " *

"Propaganda is the more or less systematic effort to manipulate other people's beliefs, attitudes, or actions by means of symbols ..." **

" the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person" ***



And I'm sorry, I don't think that a discourse that is selective, leading, is more acceptable just because is targeting a self-evident evil.

One doesn't fight evil through partial views and emotional analysis but trough in-depth knowledge based on a rational analysis. If one does not keep a cool head, the rationality, it might very well end in finding "arguments" to apologise right-wing dictatures as they're fighting Communism or vice-versa, apologising left-wing dictatures as they're fighting Nazism. We're seeing plenty of that around us on "social media".
_______
the definitions are from: * Wikipedia, **Britannica, *** Merriam-webster
deaftuner,

re your message 529.

I started a thread on another English language forum about propaganda due to a Canadian documentary...

I wished I had found this useful information myself...thank you...

Kind regards, Paul.
 
Dec 2019
81
Fryslân, Netherlands
I haven’t read most of the thread
Dr. Friedrich Hayek wrote a book Road to serfdom during WW2. In the book he is talking about National socialism and fascism as forms of socialism and trying to warn also his opponents to rethink their positions about state planned economies which lead to totalitarian regimes even if maybe their proponents at first did not really want that outcome. The definition of socialism is that it is a sistem based on the state ownership of former private property or state controling previous private property.

Economic policy of National socialists started with big public spending ( big public works and re-armament industry ). This caused big inflation and in 1936 Nazis started to control wages and prices of goods, which lead to rationing of the goods by state. State was setting up rents, bank interests, farmland was proclaimed heriditary and should not be sold anymore and mortgages can not be put on it, state was controling what should be produced in factories and where money should be invested etc. German owners lost their rights over property as they are considered in the normal capitalist sistem and democracy. They still owned the property but the state controled it. Many owners were even quite happy with it being blinded by the Nazis because at the same time they also banned worker strikes.
For the Jewish owners it was even much worse because according to racial ideology of National socialists they could not be socialised being corrupt and selfish by their nature. So their property was nationalized 'for the benefit of Aryan socialist society'.

Hitler explained his plan for the elimination of class struggle in a letter to G. Strasser in 1930 where he said that nationalization of the property of German owners would not be needed if they will be put under his strick discipline and thus 'socialised'. For the Germans which were a superior race for Hitler it was not neccessary to have a civil war in the sense like Marx, Lenin or Stalin wanted because by their nature their inclined to work for their nation. According to Hitler that is the greatest racial benefit of Germans.


Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | George Reisman

Summary from the book Road to serfdom

- Is there a greater tragedy imaginable than that in our endeavour consciously to shape our future in accordance with high ideals we should in fact unwittingly produce the very opposite of what we have been striving for?

- The contention that only the peculiar wickedness of the Germans has produced the Nazi system is likely to become the excuse for forcing on us the very institutions which have produced that wickedness.

- Totalitarianism is the new word we have adopted to describe the unexpected but nevertheless inseparable manifestations of what in theory we call socialism.

- In a planned system we cannot confine collective action to the tasks on which we agree, but are forced to produce agreement on everything in order that any action can be taken at all.

- The more the state ‘plans’ the more diffi cult planning becomes for the individual.

- The economic freedom which is the prerequisite of any other freedom cannot be the freedom from economic care which the socialists promise us and which can be obtained only by relieving the individual at the same time of the necessity and of the power of choice: it must be the freedom of economic activity which, with the right of choice, inevitably also carries the risk and the responsibility of that right.

- What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not.

- We shall never prevent the abuse of power if we are not prepared to limit power in a way which occasionally may prevent its use for desirable purposes.

- We shall all be the gainers if we can create a world fi t for small states to live in.

- The first need is to free ourselves of that worst form of contemporary obscurantism which tries to persuade us that what we have done in the recent past was all either wise or unavoidable. We shall not grow wiser before we learn that much that we have done was very foolish.


Book road to serfdom in pdf form:

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Road to serfdom.pdf

Some basic informations about dr. Hayek:

Friedrich Hayek - Wikipedia

W
I’m not trying to insult anyone and unlike the much rest of this thread I’m not trying to push a political agenda.

I haven’t read most of the thread up to this point but to discuss whether some place is socialist one needs the correct definition of socialism. There seems to have been only one attempt at establishing it on the first few pages finding the overarching pattern in ideologies of which no one disputes their socialist nature and which follower’s call themselves socialists, after that I got kind of tired of the misconceptions and the focusing on details in undefined disputes and decided to just place this reply and leave.
The term socialism was created by followers of Saint-Simon to describe his and their ideology. In Saint-Simonianism specialists plan the economy, specialists as in people from that particular field, representatives one could say. In Marxism (these following statements are especially clear in Leninist forms) socialism is the first stage of communism, the workers gather voluntarily and on their own initiative into communes, council, whatever name one prefers. As these cooperate, trade and organize they form a central leadership, a state. In such a system the people directly control the local economic activity directly (I know the Sovjet Union was not actually organized in such a way). There are so called market-socialists who want the people to control the means of production through democratically run enterprises, such people were among the Narodniks for example. There are state-socialists, also called state-capitalists, who want the state to take this role. Many anarchists identified as socialists. There were also the monarchist socialists who pushed for a system that allowed the monarch to keep power politically but the people to gain control of the economy. The thing that connects these groups, makes to them applicable the single umbrella term socialism, is that they want popular control of the economy, that may be through private ownership but without a way to organize into companies (as some anarchists prefer), through representatives (like in Saint-Simonianism), through connectively owned market undertakings (like in market socialism, some Narodniks argued this) or directly, without bureaucracy or currency that is, (like in many forms of Marxism including Leninism), through democratic votes of collectives that only exist on a voluntary basis for example, a system often promoted by Marxists. Sometimes the terms social-democrat or just democrat were used instead. One Jordan Drischler uses this definition (the people controlling the economy) in his anti-socialist article “Self-identified socialists don’t know what they’re talking about,” a source used for the book “the case against socialism.” Drischler is right when he says this is the generally accepted definition of the word. Whether you use the original definition, the definition used by the biggest group using the label (Marxian scientific socialists) or the generally accepted definition (which is not mutually exclusive with the Marxist one), one must come to the conclusion that the dilemma boils down to the next question: Was Nazi Germany democratic? (I won’t even bother to answer this one)
One might also argue that the “layman’s” definition of socialism is the true definition, many people mistake the word to mean planned economy, but in that case the term does not apply to the vast majority of the people and ideologies who refer to themselves and are referred to a socialism by its followers as socialist and socialism respectively. In that case one is arguing against virtually no one (maybe a Stalinist or Neo-Saint-Simonianist or two). Using the same logic insecticide and pesticide are synonyms and when you’re in North Korea that country suddenly turns democratic (because its inhabitants believe it to be because of propaganda).
As for Von Hayek, he seems to like redefining words that already have a definition. Words like liberty and socialism received new definitions. If you apply the terminology of some socialist groups in the same way the George Reisman’s article would be: Why Nazism Was democracy and Why democracy Is Totalitarian. The result is nearly as inaccurate as Von Hayek’s definition of socialism. If one accepts the vocabulary of political groups with the definition they stipulated into one’s dictionary, in the same way that many accept the wrong definition of socialism, set dictionary would become a virtually unintelligible mess.
“Totalitarianism is the new word we have adopted to describe the unexpected but nevertheless inseparable manifestations of what in theory we call socialism.” Those “we” who adopted that definition were the same societies that were in that era plagued by, among others, Nazism and McCarthyism. Quite obviously Von Hayek was not a Nazi, I’m not trying to claim he was, I’m just saying that he grew up in the same world with the same social climate. Quite obviously this “we” would not adopt an accurate definition.
When the same mechanism is used to define a word in other situations some very strange conclusions would be reached (as I pointed out in the second paragraph). Let’s use the same logic in another, though fictional, though not entirely unrealistic, scenario. Let’s suppose there is a village (or other community) of Holocaust survivors somewhere where, as most Germans were Christian, Christians are [partly] blamed for the Holocaust. There were actually such communities, I watched an interview with someone from such a community who converted to Christianity (I do not base my information on socialism on just one book or interview, this is just one hypothetical scenario). So let’s suppose that someone from such a community comes across a priests and asks: Why do you support the Holocaust? I literally quote the non-existent priest when I say the reaction would be “?”
Dictators have called themselves socialist in the past but these same dictators often also claimed their system was democratic and they spread all kinds of racist and otherwise objectionable ideas which should not be taken at face value. For example North Korea even has rigged elections to keep up the illusion of democracy. If one was to believe the claim that North Korea is democratic and cite other examples, such as the War in the Vendée and the Darfur genocide, to argue that the definition of democracy is committing genocide against ones own people, did that person use a correct new definition of democracy or is he/she simply wrong? I would say he/she is wrong.
Now for something on Mussolini. While he did use some concepts from socialism for fascism many modern groups, including capitalists, have also done so. The words sexism and neocolonialism quite possibly found their origins in the theories of Marxian scientific socialists. Still the Netherlands is not a socialist state tough I know neocolonialism is taught at some schools and sexism is a generally accepted term and concept now. This does not turn all who study or believe in the existence of these concepts into a socialist or a Marxist or whatever.
I’m not going to once again make such a rant about “economic socialization.” Capitalism is also a system that does it though. Socialization in such a context just refers to more people being interdependent on one another during the production process aka more specialization or planning (if one considers planning to be part of the production process, one could also argue that it initiates it, stands aside and above the production process) or whatever adds more steps executed by a separate person to the production process.

(For anyone who was wondering, I refer to Lenin as Ulyanov too, just like I refer to Hayek as Von Hayek)
 
Dec 2019
81
Fryslân, Netherlands
I haven’t read most of the thread

I’m not trying to insult anyone and unlike the much rest of this thread I’m not trying to push a political agenda.

I haven’t read most of the thread up to this point but to discuss whether some place is socialist one needs the correct definition of socialism. There seems to have been only one attempt at establishing it on the first few pages finding the overarching pattern in ideologies of which no one disputes their socialist nature and which follower’s call themselves socialists, after that I got kind of tired of the misconceptions and the focusing on details in undefined disputes and decided to just place this reply and leave.
The term socialism was created by followers of Saint-Simon to describe his and their ideology. In Saint-Simonianism specialists plan the economy, specialists as in people from that particular field, representatives one could say. In Marxism (these following statements are especially clear in Leninist forms) socialism is the first stage of communism, the workers gather voluntarily and on their own initiative into communes, council, whatever name one prefers. As these cooperate, trade and organize they form a central leadership, a state. In such a system the people directly control the local economic activity directly (I know the Sovjet Union was not actually organized in such a way). There are so called market-socialists who want the people to control the means of production through democratically run enterprises, such people were among the Narodniks for example. There are state-socialists, also called state-capitalists, who want the state to take this role. Many anarchists identified as socialists. There were also the monarchist socialists who pushed for a system that allowed the monarch to keep power politically but the people to gain control of the economy. The thing that connects these groups, makes to them applicable the single umbrella term socialism, is that they want popular control of the economy, that may be through private ownership but without a way to organize into companies (as some anarchists prefer), through representatives (like in Saint-Simonianism), through connectively owned market undertakings (like in market socialism, some Narodniks argued this) or directly, without bureaucracy or currency that is, (like in many forms of Marxism including Leninism), through democratic votes of collectives that only exist on a voluntary basis for example, a system often promoted by Marxists. Sometimes the terms social-democrat or just democrat were used instead. One Jordan Drischler uses this definition (the people controlling the economy) in his anti-socialist article “Self-identified socialists don’t know what they’re talking about,” a source used for the book “the case against socialism.” Drischler is right when he says this is the generally accepted definition of the word. Whether you use the original definition, the definition used by the biggest group using the label (Marxian scientific socialists) or the generally accepted definition (which is not mutually exclusive with the Marxist one), one must come to the conclusion that the dilemma boils down to the next question: Was Nazi Germany democratic? (I won’t even bother to answer this one)
One might also argue that the “layman’s” definition of socialism is the true definition, many people mistake the word to mean planned economy, but in that case the term does not apply to the vast majority of the people and ideologies who refer to themselves and are referred to a socialism by its followers as socialist and socialism respectively. In that case one is arguing against virtually no one (maybe a Stalinist or Neo-Saint-Simonianist or two). Using the same logic insecticide and pesticide are synonyms and when you’re in North Korea that country suddenly turns democratic (because its inhabitants believe it to be because of propaganda).
As for Von Hayek, he seems to like redefining words that already have a definition. Words like liberty and socialism received new definitions. If you apply the terminology of some socialist groups in the same way the George Reisman’s article would be: Why Nazism Was democracy and Why democracy Is Totalitarian. The result is nearly as inaccurate as Von Hayek’s definition of socialism. If one accepts the vocabulary of political groups with the definition they stipulated into one’s dictionary, in the same way that many accept the wrong definition of socialism, set dictionary would become a virtually unintelligible mess.
“Totalitarianism is the new word we have adopted to describe the unexpected but nevertheless inseparable manifestations of what in theory we call socialism.” Those “we” who adopted that definition were the same societies that were in that era plagued by, among others, Nazism and McCarthyism. Quite obviously Von Hayek was not a Nazi, I’m not trying to claim he was, I’m just saying that he grew up in the same world with the same social climate. Quite obviously this “we” would not adopt an accurate definition.
When the same mechanism is used to define a word in other situations some very strange conclusions would be reached (as I pointed out in the second paragraph). Let’s use the same logic in another, though fictional, though not entirely unrealistic, scenario. Let’s suppose there is a village (or other community) of Holocaust survivors somewhere where, as most Germans were Christian, Christians are [partly] blamed for the Holocaust. There were actually such communities, I watched an interview with someone from such a community who converted to Christianity (I do not base my information on socialism on just one book or interview, this is just one hypothetical scenario). So let’s suppose that someone from such a community comes across a priests and asks: Why do you support the Holocaust? I literally quote the non-existent priest when I say the reaction would be “?”
Dictators have called themselves socialist in the past but these same dictators often also claimed their system was democratic and they spread all kinds of racist and otherwise objectionable ideas which should not be taken at face value. For example North Korea even has rigged elections to keep up the illusion of democracy. If one was to believe the claim that North Korea is democratic and cite other examples, such as the War in the Vendée and the Darfur genocide, to argue that the definition of democracy is committing genocide against ones own people, did that person use a correct new definition of democracy or is he/she simply wrong? I would say he/she is wrong.
Now for something on Mussolini. While he did use some concepts from socialism for fascism many modern groups, including capitalists, have also done so. The words sexism and neocolonialism quite possibly found their origins in the theories of Marxian scientific socialists. Still the Netherlands is not a socialist state tough I know neocolonialism is taught at some schools and sexism is a generally accepted term and concept now. This does not turn all who study or believe in the existence of these concepts into a socialist or a Marxist or whatever.
I’m not going to once again make such a rant about “economic socialization.” Capitalism is also a system that does it though. Socialization in such a context just refers to more people being interdependent on one another during the production process aka more specialization or planning (if one considers planning to be part of the production process, one could also argue that it initiates it, stands aside and above the production process) or whatever adds more steps executed by a separate person to the production process.

(For anyone who was wondering, I refer to Lenin as Ulyanov too, just like I refer to Hayek as Von Hayek)
I haven’t read most of the thread

I’m not trying to insult anyone and unlike the much rest of this thread I’m not trying to push a political agenda.

I haven’t read most of the thread up to this point but to discuss whether some place is socialist one needs the correct definition of socialism. There seems to have been only one attempt at establishing it on the first few pages finding the overarching pattern in ideologies of which no one disputes their socialist nature and which follower’s call themselves socialists, after that I got kind of tired of the misconceptions and the focusing on details in undefined disputes and decided to just place this reply and leave.
The term socialism was created by followers of Saint-Simon to describe his and their ideology. In Saint-Simonianism specialists plan the economy, specialists as in people from that particular field, representatives one could say. In Marxism (these following statements are especially clear in Leninist forms) socialism is the first stage of communism, the workers gather voluntarily and on their own initiative into communes, council, whatever name one prefers. As these cooperate, trade and organize they form a central leadership, a state. In such a system the people directly control the local economic activity directly (I know the Sovjet Union was not actually organized in such a way). There are so called market-socialists who want the people to control the means of production through democratically run enterprises, such people were among the Narodniks for example. There are state-socialists, also called state-capitalists, who want the state to take this role. Many anarchists identified as socialists. There were also the monarchist socialists who pushed for a system that allowed the monarch to keep power politically but the people to gain control of the economy. The thing that connects these groups, makes to them applicable the single umbrella term socialism, is that they want popular control of the economy, that may be through private ownership but without a way to organize into companies (as some anarchists prefer), through representatives (like in Saint-Simonianism), through connectively owned market undertakings (like in market socialism, some Narodniks argued this) or directly, without bureaucracy or currency that is, (like in many forms of Marxism including Leninism), through democratic votes of collectives that only exist on a voluntary basis for example, a system often promoted by Marxists. Sometimes the terms social-democrat or just democrat were used instead. One Jordan Drischler uses this definition (the people controlling the economy) in his anti-socialist article “Self-identified socialists don’t know what they’re talking about,” a source used for the book “the case against socialism.” Drischler is right when he says this is the generally accepted definition of the word. Whether you use the original definition, the definition used by the biggest group using the label (Marxian scientific socialists) or the generally accepted definition (which is not mutually exclusive with the Marxist one), one must come to the conclusion that the dilemma boils down to the next question: Was Nazi Germany democratic? (I won’t even bother to answer this one)
One might also argue that the “layman’s” definition of socialism is the true definition, many people mistake the word to mean planned economy, but in that case the term does not apply to the vast majority of the people and ideologies who refer to themselves and are referred to a socialism by its followers as socialist and socialism respectively. In that case one is arguing against virtually no one (maybe a Stalinist or Neo-Saint-Simonianist or two). Using the same logic insecticide and pesticide are synonyms and when you’re in North Korea that country suddenly turns democratic (because its inhabitants believe it to be because of propaganda).
As for Von Hayek, he seems to like redefining words that already have a definition. Words like liberty and socialism received new definitions. If you apply the terminology of some socialist groups in the same way the George Reisman’s article would be: Why Nazism Was democracy and Why democracy Is Totalitarian. The result is nearly as inaccurate as Von Hayek’s definition of socialism. If one accepts the vocabulary of political groups with the definition they stipulated into one’s dictionary, in the same way that many accept the wrong definition of socialism, set dictionary would become a virtually unintelligible mess.
“Totalitarianism is the new word we have adopted to describe the unexpected but nevertheless inseparable manifestations of what in theory we call socialism.” Those “we” who adopted that definition were the same societies that were in that era plagued by, among others, Nazism and McCarthyism. Quite obviously Von Hayek was not a Nazi, I’m not trying to claim he was, I’m just saying that he grew up in the same world with the same social climate. Quite obviously this “we” would not adopt an accurate definition.
When the same mechanism is used to define a word in other situations some very strange conclusions would be reached (as I pointed out in the second paragraph). Let’s use the same logic in another, though fictional, though not entirely unrealistic, scenario. Let’s suppose there is a village (or other community) of Holocaust survivors somewhere where, as most Germans were Christian, Christians are [partly] blamed for the Holocaust. There were actually such communities, I watched an interview with someone from such a community who converted to Christianity (I do not base my information on socialism on just one book or interview, this is just one hypothetical scenario). So let’s suppose that someone from such a community comes across a priests and asks: Why do you support the Holocaust? I literally quote the non-existent priest when I say the reaction would be “?”
Dictators have called themselves socialist in the past but these same dictators often also claimed their system was democratic and they spread all kinds of racist and otherwise objectionable ideas which should not be taken at face value. For example North Korea even has rigged elections to keep up the illusion of democracy. If one was to believe the claim that North Korea is democratic and cite other examples, such as the War in the Vendée and the Darfur genocide, to argue that the definition of democracy is committing genocide against ones own people, did that person use a correct new definition of democracy or is he/she simply wrong? I would say he/she is wrong.
Now for something on Mussolini. While he did use some concepts from socialism for fascism many modern groups, including capitalists, have also done so. The words sexism and neocolonialism quite possibly found their origins in the theories of Marxian scientific socialists. Still the Netherlands is not a socialist state tough I know neocolonialism is taught at some schools and sexism is a generally accepted term and concept now. This does not turn all who study or believe in the existence of these concepts into a socialist or a Marxist or whatever.
I’m not going to once again make such a rant about “economic socialization.” Capitalism is also a system that does it though. Socialization in such a context just refers to more people being interdependent on one another during the production process aka more specialization or planning (if one considers planning to be part of the production process, one could also argue that it initiates it, stands aside and above the production process) or whatever adds more steps executed by a separate person to the production process.

(For anyone who was wondering, I refer to Lenin as Ulyanov too, just like I refer to Hayek as Von Hayek)
The bit about political agendas is not an assumption of bad intent but some of the users see the discussion as a useful political discussion, taking quite clear positions. My intent is just to show what is to be the accurate, neutral and useful definition of socialism.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,692
Sydney
the whole discussion is pointless , some see socialism as any government dirigism of the economy
they would rank the Japanese ministry of trade and industry as a socialist actor
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dorgedrogt