Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OF COURSE they "believed" the state should control the economy and private property. It's called total war. If you plan on launching a total war, you better control everything you can possibly control. That's not called "socialism", that's called preparation for mass murder. I'm sick and tired of people arguing the Nazis were "socialist". There was a reason why they did all this. Not because they believed in any of this, but, as I already said, because it was absolutely essential for the war effort.
The people who controlled Krupp, Thyssen, I.G. Farben, Skoda, Fokker etc made billions during the war. Finding where they had it hidden took years after the war. That wasn't Socialism, it was the Same Corporate Fascism we have now
I can never escape the sense that for some posters, the whole idea of what they say is to demonize socialism from a modern political standpoint, rather than a strict clinical approach where one isn't here to apply it as a demon word, just to assess what is and what is not definable as socialism.
OF COURSE they "believed" the state should control the economy and private property. It's called total war. If you plan on launching a total war, you better control everything you can possibly control. That's not called "socialism", that's called preparation for mass murder. I'm sick and tired of people arguing the Nazis were "socialist". There was a reason why they did all this. Not because they believed in any of this, but, as I already said, because it was absolutely essential for the war effort.
The definition of socialism...
A political and/or economic theory that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the state.
...ergo, the Nazi's were socialists, at least in terms of economics. The problem is that "socialism" spans a wide array of practices and beliefs and is generally not definable as a single system, more of a general belief. I proselythized in great detail previously about why they were socialists, or are at least considered socialists by political scientists and economists.
Necessity for accomplishing war aims or not, Nazi ideology in terms of economic theory was very much socialist and was very different from Mussolini's system, despite both Hitler and Mussolini being fascists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k
I can never escape the sense that for some posters, the whole idea of what they say is to demonize socialism from a modern political standpoint, rather than a strict clinical approach where one isn't here to apply it as a demon word, just to assess what is and what is not definable as socialism.
Thank you. People hear the word "socialism" and have been conditioned to think of this...
...this...
...and this...
The reality is that "socialism" is really a broad term for any economic policy that lies left-of-center in the modern (19th Century to now) political spectrum, at least as defined by political scientists and economists. Socialism in this way is used as a term analogous to "state control" and what we are measuring is the degree of control exercised by the state. It is not an inherently negative term. Most modern European countries are "socialist" states and are not too indifferent from the general Nazi economic system (though they are radically different in terms of social and political ideology).
Ya know something? Though we may differ in detail, we seem to be in what I call "strident agreement".
I have had RECENT, direct, personal experience with "socialized medicine" in the European Union -- in short, and in an emergency situation, they saved my life. Surprisingly, they actually apologized to me for how much it cost.
I have also had RECENT, direct, personal experience with the "American Plan" of medical care. To be quite accurate, though my situation was not life-threatening, the standard of care I received was significantly less than that which I experienced in the EU. In addition, my out-of-pocket expenses were significantly more.
Folks can "yes-but", "you-just-don't-understand", and "not-the-same" all they want. My experience is that, in many instances, true socialism is not the Booger-Bear that many would have you believe. Even Christ, in the New Testament, states a preference for socialist viewpoints over capitalist ones.
===============
For the general readership: Do you not believe me? Then all ya gotta do is prove me wrong (facts and data only, please).
Whether Nazi Fascism was socialism or not (official definition of Germany in the Nazi era) is not really the question. What is , is a sound definition of Fascism. Fascism or Corporatism as Mussolini states he should have called it, is the newest ideology to guide nations. This year we are celebrating (if you can use that word), just the 90th birthday of this enigmatic ideology and brain-child of Benito Mussolini.
There have only been four major Fascist governments to date. Italy (1922-43), Germany (1933-45), Spain (1936-1975) and Japan (1936-45). Well one might also include the Fascist government of Portugal under Antonio Salazar but it played only a minor role in the development of the ideology. The thing is there are as many differences between these first four governments and that makes a real definition very difficult. Italy and Germany were governments more in the camp of the larger Corporations, Spain was a military dictatorship with the ultimate power lying not with the political party (the Falange) but rather with a separate military government. Japan was similar to Spain in that respect but it also favored the Zaibatsu or corporate empire like the Germans and the Italians. Japan, Germany and Italy favored overseas expansion but Spain did not, even divesting itself of some old colonies during the Franco era.
Both Hitler and Mussolini were founders of their parties (NAZI, PNF), Franco was never an official member of the puppet Falange founded by Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera and Japan merged all parties into a very strange organization that was called the "Imperial Rule Assistance Association". To which General Tojo was the leader from 1940 until the end of the war. Each of these governments instituted things that looked socialist, like national health plans. But they also instituted laws that favored private corporations over people. Japan's was official and it was called the Zaibatsu made up of major companies they could dictate national policy in conjunction with the military that favored the corporations. One could go on for hours listing things that look socialist and others that are anti-socialist so it's a toss up except for the fact that in all four countries known socialist and communists were imprisoned as subversive and more often than not, executed as traitors.
In Italy and Spain the Catholic Church was all powerful in collusion with the government. The official religion under the military in Japan was Nichiren Buddhism. I don't think Germany had an official religion with any power. If anyone knows please comment on it. But you can see that three of these countries recognized religion as something important to their nation whereas the socialist and communist do not and may even be called "anti-religious" political ideologies.
The one area that looks very socialist was the complete government control of the transportation sector railroads, airlines and shipping but that also ties up to the military because that is the way you move troops and equipment.
Boompa makes a really good point about the difference. When the communist countries collapsed the state run industries and businesses disappeared but when the Fascist fell in Germany for example Krupp, Bayer, Mercedes -Benz, Mengele continued (even to this day) right on producing and making money and even under the same families. Also true of Mitsubishi, Kawasaki, Sumitomo in Japan and in Italy the same with companies like Alfa-Romeo, Ducatti etc.
Of course I never lived under the Italian Fascists nor the NAZIs but I did live as a civilian under the Franco dictatorship from 1968 until his death in 1975. I will tell you one thing, at that time if you walked into a bookstore and asked for a copy of the "Communist Manifesto" before you could bet out of the store you would probably find yourself confronted by a couple of agents from "La Brigada Social" the nice name for the Secret Police of the era. One thing was certain you didn't have to worry about getting mugged or beaten by thugs. No crime under Franco. Proof of what. If you want total security be ready to give up a lot of your freedoms we all seem to take for granted these days.
Many political scholars etc are saying in very low voices, say that the 21st century will be the century of Fascism. What do you think of that?
Who cares about the definition of Socialism? It still is not anything close to Socialism. There were several times where Hitler didn't have Jews killed because he needed them for propaganda purposes. Does this make him not an anti-Semite ? No. Of course not. He did it because he had to, not because he liked them so much. He wanted to control everything because he had to, in order to launch a total war. That is completely different. The ends justify the means. It's as simple as that.
Anyone trying to properly understand the political, philosophical, economic and ideological ideals that drove Hitler and the Nazi's, especially when one is trying to compare that to other systems.
You can end the discussion at "Hitler and the Nazi's were evil and bent on world domination and everything they did was to further that purpose", but that doesn't mean that further investigation and discussion isn't warranted.
In an age where many countries aren't too far off from extolling Nazi ideals under a different name, I think actually understanding what their philosophy was all about and how it was different from other systems is important.
Whether Nazi Fascism was socialism or not (official definition of Germany in the Nazi era) is not really the question. What is , is a sound definition of Fascism. Fascism or Corporatism as Mussolini states he should have called it, is the newest ideology to guide nations. This year we are celebrating (if you can use that word), just the 90th birthday of this enigmatic ideology and brain-child of Benito Mussolini.
I believe Fascism is hard to define when we must make it both a political and economic system. I believe, as do political scientists, that Fascism is first and foremost a social ideology and political system.
I posted it earlier, but I think Mussolini's definition of "What is Fascism?" that he wrote in 1935 encapsulates it best:
Quote:
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The "Liberal State" is not a directing force, guiding the play and development (both material and spiritual) of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results. On the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious, and has itself a will and a personality - thus it may be called the "ethical" State...
The individual in the Fascist State is not annulled but rather multiplied, just in the same way that a soldier in a regiment is not diminished but rather increased by the number of his comrades. The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...
The Fascist State is an embodied will to power and government, the idea of force in action. According to Fascism, government is not so much a thing to be expressed in territorial or military terms as in terms of morality and spirit. It is an empire - that is to say, a nation which directly or indirectly rules other nations without the need of conquering a single square yard of territory.
Quote:
In Italy and Spain the Catholic Church was all powerful in collusion with the government. The official religion under the military in Japan was Nichiren Buddhism. I don't think Germany had an official religion with any power. If anyone knows please comment on it. But you can see that three of these countries recognized religion as something important to their nation whereas the socialist and communist do not and may even be called "anti-religious" political ideologies.
The difference is not as stark philosophically as it was in practice, the difference was the degree to which the institution of the church could be attacked in the places these political ideologies existed.
Communism as defined by Marx would reject religion as the "opiate of the masses". In this way the state was supreme and second to no other. Fascism espoused essentially the same thing. The state represented the highest order. The difference lies in the subtlety whereas Communism rejects spirituality all together, Fascism attempts to ingrain the state as a quasi-religion.
Hitler needed to reach accomodation with both the Catholic and Protestant churches in majority Christian Germany, however, the church did not have much influence over the general society. Hitler would have been perfectly happy to eliminate the institution of the church in favor of reinforcing the institution of the state, but this was not possible.
Mussolini had deep misgivings over the power and influence of the Catholic Church in Italy, but needed to make accomodation in order to not lose the nominal support of the church. One of the clearest examples of this was the battle over public education in Italy. Mussolini needed the education to be secular to reinforce Fascist ideology, but the church reacted strongly to their loss of influence. This led to a series of compromises to define the role. Overall, Mussolini would have been happy with the Catholic Church remaining if he could control it and it reinforced his ideology, something he never accomplished.
I don't necessarily agree with placing Japan in the Fascist camp, but on the religious aspect, it may actually be a good case study of the ultimate direction a Fascist government would take. The Emperor was the embodiment of the state and also the supreme religious figure. Japan represents the near perfect melding of state and religion that would have been tried on the Fascist model, essentially the state was the religion. I don't place Japan in the Fascist camp primarily because Fascism was the evolution of the "new right" whereas Japan embodied the ideals and structure that was held by the "old right". Japan was far closer to an Enlightened Absolutist state in the 18th century European mold then it was to a Fascist state.
Quote:
Boompa makes a really good point about the difference. When the communist countries collapsed the state run industries and businesses disappeared but when the Fascist fell in Germany for example Krupp, Bayer, Mercedes -Benz, Mengele continued (even to this day) right on producing and making money and even under the same families. Also true of Mitsubishi, Kawasaki, Sumitomo in Japan and in Italy the same with companies like Alfa-Romeo, Ducatti etc.
This was because the German model of socialism did not reject the ability of people to own property. The industrialists were very much allowed to retain control, but they ultimately became "state pensioners" under the Nazi's. The government instituted wage and price controls and exercised the de facto rights of ownership in place of the actual private owners. The state decided what was produced, how it was produced, how much was produced and how it would be distributed.
Hitler himself summed it up best:
Quote:
I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State ... The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners.
It didn't matter that the Krupp family owned Krupp, they didn't control Krupp, the state did. This is one of the defining lines between "right-socialism" and "left-socialism". The left absorbed all property into the state. The right believed in letting people retain property until that ownership interfered with the necessities of the state, at which point it would be taken or redirected as the state deemed fit. In Germany, this even led to the occasional complete takeover and nationalization of industries.
Mussolini's Fascism was different from Hitler's precisely for these economic reasons. Mussolini was a corporatist. He de-nationalized industry, attempted to setup systems for Italian industry to prosper on their own and created labor situations that beneffited the corporations. Mussolini's economic policies could be summed up in that the state existed to support the corporations. Hitlers believed in the strengths of the corporations being synthesized and controlled to support the state.
Quote:
Many political scholars etc are saying in very low voices, say that the 21st century will be the century of Fascism. What do you think of that?
I would say it's a very real possibility that we would see the rise of another fascist state. The worse economies are and/or the greater an external/internal threat real or imagined, the more people embrace Fascist ideology. One need look no further then America on 9/12/01 to see how easily a country could slip into fascism. Indeed often the only things standing in the way are free speech and freedom of the press.
The interesting piece though is how these systems evolve, while fitting into general categories, they are always flavored by the nation and it's particular culture, institutions and situation when they rise. Again, another strong reason to avoid lumping all systems political and economic into general classifications.
Anyone trying to properly understand the political, philosophical, economic and ideological ideals that drove Hitler and the Nazi's, especially when one is trying to compare that to other systems.
You can end the discussion at "Hitler and the Nazi's were evil and bent on world domination and everything they did was to further that purpose", but that doesn't mean that further investigation and discussion isn't warranted.
In an age where many countries aren't too far off from extolling Nazi ideals under a different name, I think actually understanding what their philosophy was all about and how it was different from other systems is important.
This has nothing to do with "proper understanding". No definition will make the Nazis "Socialists". People just want to blame the other side. I've seen enough people on here who called Hitler a "liberal".
This wasn't the Nazi their "philosophy". Their philosophy was the elimination of the Jewish community, and the take-over of much of Europe. This is why I said "The ends justify the means", because that's spot on. They did whatever they had to in order to to this. That's a huge difference.
Let's say I wanted to kill group A and to do this, I try to get everything under my control so that I can get rid of them easily. I take over the Deutsche Bahn so that I can deport them and don't face any scrutiny. I take over Degesch because they produce the gas for the gas chambers. That way I have full control over them and can freely decide how much will be produced and when, which will make it easier and faster to kill people. Does this make me a "Socialist" ? No.
Or, to put it in another perspective - conservatives don't want the government in people's lives. The government needs to mind their own business. Still, many want the government to control certain areas such as abortion, marriage etc. Does this make them liberal? No. I'll say it again - the ends justify the means.
This has nothing to do with "proper understanding". No definition will make the Nazis "Socialists". People just want to blame the other side. I've seen enough people on here who called Hitler a "liberal".
This wasn't the Nazi their "philosophy". Their philosophy was the elimination of the Jewish community, and the take-over of much of Europe. This is why I said "The ends justify the means", because that's spot on. They did whatever they had to in order to to this. That's a huge difference.
Let's say I wanted to kill group A and to do this, I try to get everything under my control so that I can get rid of them easily. I take over the Deutsche Bahn so that I can deport them and don't face any scrutiny. I take over Degesch because they produce the gas for the gas chambers. That way I have full control over them and can freely decide how much will be produced and when, which will make it easier and faster to kill people. Does this make me a "Socialist" ? No.
Or, to put it in another perspective - conservatives don't want the government in people's lives. The government needs to mind their own business. Still, many want the government to control certain areas such as abortion, marriage etc. Does this make them liberal? No. I'll say it again - the ends justify the means.
All valid points...Yes, the overarching goals of the Nazi's was to enforce their racial ideologies. To propagate and create a society governed by the "master race" to which all others were subjected or eliminated. There is no escaping the reality of the Nazi goal and what they stood for. However, there is still room to discuss what the Nazi system was in terms of social and economic policy.
What would the Nazi state have looked like if the Nazi's won? If the Nazi's won, what would the economy look like, what would the social structure look like? All of this is encapsulated in the writings and speeches of Hitler and his various ministers. The answer is that economically, the Nazi state would have leaned strongly on the left side of the spectrum, ergo socialist.
I have already laid out my explanation in exhaustive detail and showed where there were similarities between the systems and where the ideological differences lie. You've repeatedly said they weren't "socialists", but my position is that you are simply tied to a definition of "socialist" that equals Marx and the Soviet Union, not the broader economic definition of socialism, which is simply another word for measuring "degree of state control".
So, if the Nazi's aren't "socialists" what are they? What is "socialism" in general? Can you provide direct examples to show that the Nazi's were not "socialists" based on your definition?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
