Was National Socialist Germany Socialist?

[Ixtab]

Was National Socialist Germany Socialist?

[Ahknaton]

Yes, in the sense that NS is a collectivist ideology, but it wasn't the socialism of Marx and Engels.

[Thulean Imperial Inquisitor]

Was National Socialist Germany Socialist?

The most socialist state there ever was.

[Eisenhans]

Was National Socialist Germany Socialist?

In some aspects-yes.

[Ixtab]

In some aspects-yes.The most socialist state there ever was.How was it socialist?

[Thulean Imperial Inquisitor]

How was it socialist?
It was socialist as it was an economic system in which many of the means of production were controlled and even owned collectively. That control was diffrent in each case, it was sometimes direct, or somtimes indirect but most often it was exercised on behalf of the people through the State. A primary concern of a socialist State is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole.

But since the Third reich was not only socialist but National Socialist the primary concern of the State was the biological state of the Nation and the economic equality was numer two. If it would have been a Social Nationalist State the primary concern of the state would have been the economic equality of the Nation and the biological state of it would have been number two.

[Billy Score]

yes it was, although after 1933 Hitler made concessions to big business.

[Eisenhans]

How was it socialist?

While corporations were not exactly nationalized, the government did control them in many ways. A strong unity among the German people was existent, as well as the recognition of the working class and the German peasant as being the backbone of Germany. I forget what year it was (I think 1932), but the Government had a massive Labor Day celebration.

[albion]

Upon Adolf Hitler's release from prison in 1925, the NSDAP was refounded, with Hitler taking Party membership number 1. The second Nazi Party made use of anti-capitalist Gottfried Feder as economic theoretician. Rudolf Jung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Jung)supplied the reborn Nazi Party with a ready-made National Socialist ideology that he carried with him from Czechoslovakia. It was a 25-point program focused mostly on labour and industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program#German_Party_Platform

13) We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14) We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15) We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16) We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
17) We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

Ten of the twenty-five points are clearly pro-labor. "The program championed the right to employment and called for the institution of profit sharing, confiscation of war profits, prosecution of userers and profiteers, nationalization of trusts, communalization of department stores, extension of the old-age pension system, creation of a national education program of all classes, prohibition of child labor, and an end to the dominance of investment capital." (4) This was an important part of the party's propaganda campaign, since it raised their support among the working class, by making the party appear to have, in William Brustein's words, a "working-class orientation". However, Hitler was careful to also make it clear that "the NSDAP stands on the platform of private ownership".

[Eisenhans]

I wouldn't believe any information off of wikipedia if I were you.

[IlluSionS667]

NS Germany was national socialist, not socialist. Both are entirely different ideologies.

If the definition for socialism in the first post is "providing welfare for the lower class by means of limiting economical freedom", then national socialist Germany was indeed the most socialist society of the 20th century. Laborers were never as prosperous as they were in '30s Germany, and this without imposing the fallacy of class warfare that Marx used to turn laborers against their bosses.

Hitler's policies were intended to provide welfare for ALL classes, and not just one class which he wanted to put against the others. Hitler focusses on ALL ethnic Germans and not just a sub-section based on some social construct. This was why he was able to become so popular both before and after he got elected.

[albion]

In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.

In February 1920, the NSDAP published its first programme which became known as the "Twenty-Five Points". In the programme the party refused to accept the terms of the Versailles Treaty and called for the reunification of all German people. To reinforce their ideas on nationalism, equal rights were only to be given to German citizens. "Foreigners" and "aliens" would be denied these rights.

To appeal to the working class and socialists, the programme included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education.

Because Nazism is an abbreviation for "National Socialism", and Nazi leaders sometimes described their ideology as a form of socialism, some people believe that Nazism was a form of socialism, or that there are similarities between Nazism and socialism. It has also been argued that the Nazi use of economic intervention, including central planning and some limited public ownership, is indicative of socialism.

Nazi leaders were opposed to the Marxist idea of class conflict and opposed the idea that capitalism should be abolished and that workers should control the means of production. For those who consider class conflict and the abolition of capitalism as essential components of socialist progress, these factors alone are sufficient to categorize "National Socialism" as non-socialist.

Nazi leaders made statements describing their views as socialist, while at the same time opposing the idea of class conflict espoused by the Social Democrats (SPD) and Communists (KPD). Established socialist movements did not view the Nazis as socialists and argued that the Nazis were thinly disguised reactionaries. Historians such as Ian Kershaw also note the links between the Nazis and the German political and economic establishment and the significance of the Night of the Long Knives in which Hitler purged what were at the time seen as "leftist" elements in the Nazi Party and how this was done at the urging of the military and conservatives.

Many of the traditional center and right political parties of the Weimar Republic accused the Nazis of being socialists citing planks in the Nazis' party program which called for nationalization of trusts and other socialist measures. However, the German National People's Party (DNVP), the most important party on the mainstream right, usually treated the Nazis as a respected potential member of coalition cabinet.

[Ixtab]

In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.

In February 1920, the NSDAP published its first programme which became known as the "Twenty-Five Points". In the programme the party refused to accept the terms of the Versailles Treaty and called for the reunification of all German people. To reinforce their ideas on nationalism, equal rights were only to be given to German citizens. "Foreigners" and "aliens" would be denied these rights.

To appeal to the working class and socialists, the programme included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education.

Because Nazism is an abbreviation for "National Socialism", and Nazi leaders sometimes described their ideology as a form of socialism, some people believe that Nazism was a form of socialism, or that there are similarities between Nazism and socialism. It has also been argued that the Nazi use of economic intervention, including central planning and some limited public ownership, is indicative of socialism.

Nazi leaders were opposed to the Marxist idea of class conflict and opposed the idea that capitalism should be abolished and that workers should control the means of production. For those who consider class conflict and the abolition of capitalism as essential components of socialist progress, these factors alone are sufficient to categorize "National Socialism" as non-socialist.

Nazi leaders made statements describing their views as socialist, while at the same time opposing the idea of class conflict espoused by the Social Democrats (SPD) and Communists (KPD). Established socialist movements did not view the Nazis as socialists and argued that the Nazis were thinly disguised reactionaries. Historians such as Ian Kershaw also note the links between the Nazis and the German political and economic establishment and the significance of the Night of the Long Knives in which Hitler purged what were at the time seen as "leftist" elements in the Nazi Party and how this was done at the urging of the military and conservatives.

Many of the traditional center and right political parties of the Weimar Republic accused the Nazis of being socialists citing planks in the Nazis' party program which called for nationalization of trusts and other socialist measures. However, the German National People's Party (DNVP), the most important party on the mainstream right, usually treated the Nazis as a respected potential member of coalition cabinet.Your source:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/nsdap.html

[Ixtab]

NS Germany was . . . not socialist.Goebbels would disagree.

[Eisenhans]

Nay-Only before he fell under the spell of Hitler. When Goebbels was a head honcho in the NSDAP, he was trying to convince the Communist Party about how "similar" the NSDAP and Communism were.

[Ixtab]

Nay-Only before he fell under the spell of Hitler.Everyone knows that Goebbels sympathised with Leftists before he "fell under the spell of Hitler". That is not what I'm talking about. What I mean is, That he still considered National Socialism as being socialist, however much he was later to distance himself from left-wing Socialism.

[Ixtab]

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

My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.

When one remembers that the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party — Mises's identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?

Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It's not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.

As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.

As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.

Of course, socialism does not end the chaos caused by the destruction of the price system. It perpetuates it. And if it is introduced without the prior existence of price controls, its effect is to inaugurate that very chaos. This is because socialism is not actually a positive economic system. It is merely the negation of capitalism and its price system. As such, the essential nature of socialism is one and the same as the economic chaos resulting from the destruction of the price system by price and wage controls. (I want to point out that Bolshevik-style socialism's imposition of a system of production quotas, with incentives everywhere to exceed the quotas, is a sure formula for universal shortages, just as exist under all around price and wage controls.)

At most, socialism merely changes the direction of the chaos. The government's control over production may make possible a greater production of some goods of special importance to itself, but it does so only at the expense of wreaking havoc throughout the rest of the economic system. This is because the government has no way of knowing the effects on the rest of the economic system of its securing the production of the goods to which it attaches special importance.

The requirements of enforcing a system of price and wage controls shed major light on the totalitarian nature of socialism — most obviously, of course, on that of the German or Nazi variant of socialism, but also on that of Soviet-style socialism as well.

We can start with the fact that the financial self-interest of sellers operating under price controls is to evade the price controls and raise their prices. Buyers otherwise unable to obtain goods are willing, indeed, eager to pay these higher prices as the means of securing the goods they want. In these circumstances, what is to stop prices from rising and a massive black market from developing?

The answer is a combination of severe penalties combined with a great likelihood of being caught and then actually suffering those penalties. Mere fines are not likely to provide much of a deterrent. They will be regarded simply as an additional business expense. If the government is serious about its price controls, it is necessary for it to impose penalties comparable to those for a major felony.

But the mere existence of such penalties is not enough. The government has to make it actually dangerous to conduct black-market transactions. It has to make people fear that in conducting such a transaction they might somehow be discovered by the police, and actually end up in jail. In order to create such fear, the government must develop an army of spies and secret informers. For example, the government must make a storekeeper and his customer fearful that if they engage in a black-market transaction, some other customer in the store will report them.

Because of the privacy and secrecy in which many black-market transactions can be conducted, the government must also make anyone contemplating a black-market transaction fearful that the other party might turn out to be a police agent trying to entrap him. The government must make people fearful even of their long-time associates, even of their friends and relatives, lest even they turn out to be informers.

And, finally, in order to obtain convictions, the government must place the decision about innocence or guilt in the case of black-market transactions in the hands of an administrative tribunal or its police agents on the spot. It cannot rely on jury trials, because it is unlikely that many juries can be found willing to bring in guilty verdicts in cases in which a man might have to go to jail for several years for the crime of selling a few pounds of meat or a pair of shoes above the ceiling price.

In sum, therefore, the requirements merely of enforcing price-control regulations is the adoption of essential features of a totalitarian state, namely, the establishment of the category of "economic crimes," in which the peaceful pursuit of material self-interest is treated as a criminal offense, and the establishment of a totalitarian police apparatus replete with spies and informers and the power of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.

Clearly, the enforcement of price controls requires a government similar to that of Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia, in which practically anyone might turn out to be a police spy and in which a secret police exists and has the power to arrest and imprison people. If the government is unwilling to go to such lengths, then, to that extent, its price controls prove unenforceable and simply break down. The black market then assumes major proportions. (Incidentally, none of this is to suggest that price controls were the cause of the reign of terror instituted by the Nazis. The Nazis began their reign of terror well before the enactment of price controls. As a result, they enacted price controls in an environment ready made for their enforcement.)

Black market activity entails the commission of further crimes. Under de facto socialism, the production and sale of goods in the black market entails the defiance of the government's regulations concerning production and distribution, as well as the defiance of its price controls. For example, the goods themselves that are sold in the black market are intended by the government to be distributed in accordance with its plan, and not in the black market. The factors of production used to produce those goods are likewise intended by the government to be used in accordance with its plan, and not for the purpose of supplying the black market.

Under a system of de jure socialism, such as existed in Soviet Russia, in which the legal code of the country openly and explicitly makes the government the owner of the means of production, all black-market activity necessarily entails the misappropriation or theft of state property. For example, the factory workers or managers in Soviet Russia who turned out products that they sold in the black market were considered as stealing the raw materials supplied by the state.

Furthermore, in any type of socialist state, Nazi or Communist, the government's economic plan is part of the supreme law of the land. We all have a good idea of how chaotic the so-called planning process of socialism is. Its further disruption by workers and managers siphoning off materials and supplies to produce for the black market, is something which a socialist state is logically entitled to regard as an act of sabotage of its national economic plan. And sabotage is how the legal code of a socialist state does regard it. Consistent with this fact, black-market activity in a socialist country often carries the death penalty.

Now I think that a fundamental fact that explains the all-round reign of terror found under socialism is the incredible dilemma in which a socialist state places itself in relation to the masses of its citizens. On the one hand, it assumes full responsibility for the individual's economic well-being. Russian or Bolshevik-style socialism openly avows this responsibility — this is the main source of its popular appeal. On the other hand, in all of the ways one can imagine, a socialist state makes an unbelievable botch of the job. It makes the individual's life a nightmare.

Every day of his life, the citizen of a socialist state must spend time in endless waiting lines. For him, the problems Americans experienced in the gasoline shortages of the 1970s are normal; only he does not experience them in relation to gasoline — for he does not own a car and has no hope of ever owning one — but in relation to simple items of clothing, to vegetables, even to bread. Even worse he is frequently forced to work at a job that is not of his choice and which he therefore must certainly hate. (For under shortages, the government comes to decide the allocation of labor just as it does the allocation of the material factors of production.) And he lives in a condition of unbelievable overcrowding, with hardly ever a chance for privacy. (In the face of housing shortages, boarders are assigned to homes; families are compelled to share apartments. And a system of internal passports and visas is adopted to limit the severity of housing shortages in the more desirable areas of the country.) To put it mildly, a person forced to live in such conditions must seethe with resentment and hostility.

Now against whom would it be more logical for the citizens of a socialist state to direct their resentment and hostility than against that very socialist state itself? The same socialist state which has proclaimed its responsibility for their life, has promised them a life of bliss, and which in fact is responsible for giving them a life of hell. Indeed, the leaders of a socialist state live in a further dilemma, in that they daily encourage the people to believe that socialism is a perfect system whose bad results can only be the work of evil men. If that were true, who in reason could those evil men be but the rulers themselves, who have not only made life a hell, but have perverted an allegedly perfect system to do it?

It follows that the rulers of a socialist state must live in terror of the people. By the logic of their actions and their teachings, the boiling, seething resentment of the people should well up and swallow them in an orgy of bloody vengeance. The rulers sense this, even if they do not admit it openly; and thus their major concern is always to keep the lid on the citizenry.

Consequently, it is true but very inadequate merely to say such things as that socialism lacks freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Of course, it lacks these freedoms. If the government owns all the newspapers and publishing houses, if it decides for what purposes newsprint and paper are to be made available, then obviously nothing can be printed which the government does not want printed. If it owns all the meeting halls, no public speech or lecture can be delivered which the government does not want delivered. But socialism goes far beyond the mere lack of freedom of press and speech.

A socialist government totally annihilates these freedoms. It turns the press and every public forum into a vehicle of hysterical propaganda in its own behalf, and it engages in the relentless persecution of everyone who dares to deviate by so much as an inch from its official party line.

The reason for these facts is the socialist rulers' terror of the people. To protect themselves, they must order the propaganda ministry and the secret police to work 'round the clock. The one, to constantly divert the people's attention from the responsibility of socialism, and of the rulers of socialism, for the people's misery. The other, to spirit away and silence anyone who might even remotely suggest the responsibility of socialism or its rulers — to spirit away anyone who begins to show signs of thinking for himself. It is because of the rulers' terror, and their desperate need to find scapegoats for the failures of socialism, that the press of a socialist country is always full of stories about foreign plots and sabotage, and about corruption and mismanagement on the part of subordinate officials, and why, periodically, it is necessary to unmask large-scale domestic plots and to sacrifice major officials and entire factions in giant purges.

It is because of their terror, and their desperate need to crush every breath even of potential opposition, that the rulers of socialism do not dare to allow even purely cultural activities that are not under the control of the state. For if people so much as assemble for an art show or poetry reading that is not controlled by the state, the rulers must fear the dissemination of dangerous ideas. Any unauthorized ideas are dangerous ideas, because they can lead people to begin thinking for themselves and thus to begin thinking about the nature of socialism and its rulers. The rulers must fear the spontaneous assembly of a handful of people in a room, and use the secret police and its apparatus of spies, informers, and terror either to stop such meetings or to make sure that their content is entirely innocuous from the point of view of the state.

Socialism cannot be ruled for very long except by terror. As soon as the terror is relaxed, resentment and hostility logically begin to well up against the rulers. The stage is thus set for a revolution or civil war. In fact, in the absence of terror, or, more correctly, a sufficient degree of terror, socialism would be characterized by an endless series of revolutions and civil wars, as each new group of rulers proved as incapable of making socialism function successfully as its predecessors before it. The inescapable inference to be drawn is that the terror actually experienced in the socialist countries was not simply the work of evil men, such as Stalin, but springs from the nature of the socialist system. Stalin could come to the fore because his unusual willingness and cunning in the use of terror were the specific characteristics most required by a ruler of socialism in order to remain in power. He rose to the top by a process of socialist natural selection: the selection of the worst.

I need to anticipate a possible misunderstanding concerning my thesis that socialism is totalitarian by its nature. This concerns the allegedly socialist countries run by Social Democrats, such as Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries, which are clearly not totalitarian dictatorships.

In such cases, it is necessary to realize that along with these countries not being totalitarian, they are also not socialist. Their governing parties may espouse socialism as their philosophy and their ultimate goal, but socialism is not what they have implemented as their economic system. Their actual economic system is that of a hampered market economy, as Mises termed it. While more hampered than our own in important respects, their economic system is essentially similar to our own, in that the characteristic driving force of production and economic activity is not government decree but the initiative of private owners motivated by the prospect of private profit.

The reason that Social Democrats do not establish socialism when they come to power, is that they are unwilling to do what would be required. The establishment of socialism as an economic system requires a massive act of theft — the means of production must be seized from their owners and turned over to the state. Such seizure is virtually certain to provoke substantial resistance on the part of the owners, resistance which can be overcome only by use of massive force.

The Communists were and are willing to apply such force, as evidenced in Soviet Russia. Their character is that of armed robbers prepared to commit murder if that is what is necessary to carry out their robbery. The character of the Social Democrats in contrast is more like that of pickpockets, who may talk of pulling the big job someday, but who in fact are unwilling to do the killing that would be required, and so give up at the slightest sign of serious resistance.

As for the Nazis, they generally did not have to kill in order to seize the property of Germans other than Jews. This was because, as we have seen, they established socialism by stealth, through price controls, which served to maintain the outward guise and appearance of private ownership. The private owners were thus deprived of their property without knowing it and thus felt no need to defend it by force.

I think I have shown that socialism — actual socialism — is totalitarian by its very nature.

In the United States at the present time, we do not have socialism in any form. And we do not have a dictatorship, let alone a totalitarian dictatorship.

We also do not yet have Fascism, though we are moving towards it. Among the essential elements that are still lacking are one-party rule and censorship. We still have freedom of speech and press and free elections, though both have been undermined and their continued existence cannot be guaranteed.

What we have is a hampered market economy that is growing ever more hampered by ever more government intervention, and that is characterized by a growing loss of individual freedom. The growth of the government's economic intervention is synonymous with a loss of individual freedom because it means increasingly initiating the use of physical force to make people do what they do not voluntarily choose to do or prevent them from doing what they do voluntarily choose to do.

Since the individual is the best judge of his own interests, and at least as a rule seeks to do what it is in his interest to do and to avoid doing what harms his interest, it follows that the greater the extent of government intervention, the greater the extent to which individuals are prevented from doing what benefits them and are instead compelled to do what causes them loss.

Today, in the United States, government spending, federal, state, and local, amounts to almost half of the monetary incomes of the portion of the citizenry that does not work for the government. Fifteen federal cabinet departments, and a much larger number of federal regulatory agencies, together, in most instances with counterparts at the state and local level, routinely intrude into virtually every area of the individual citizen's life. In countless ways he is taxed, compelled, and prohibited.

The effect of such massive government interference is unemployment, rising prices, falling real wages, a need to work longer and harder, and growing economic insecurity. The further effect is growing anger and resentment.

Though the government's policy of interventionism is their logical target, the anger and resentment people feel are typically directed at businessmen and the rich instead. This is a mistake which is fueled for the most part by an ignorant and envious intellectual establishment and media.

And in conformity with this attitude, since the collapse of the stock market bubble, which was in fact created by the Federal Reserve's policy of credit expansion and then pricked by its temporary abandonment of that policy, government prosecutors have adopted what appears to be a particularly vengeful policy toward executives guilty of financial dishonesty, as though their actions were responsible for the widespread losses resulting from the collapse of the bubble. Thus the former head of a major telecommunications company was recently given a twenty-five year prison sentence. Other top executives have suffered similarly.

Even more ominously, the government's power to obtain mere criminal indictments has become equivalent to the power to destroy a firm, as occurred in the case of Arthur Andersen, the major accounting firm. The threatened use of this power was then sufficient to force major insurance brokerage firms in the United States to change their managements to the satisfaction of New York State's Attorney General. There is no way to describe such developments other than as conviction and punishment without trial and as extortion by the government. These are major steps along a very dangerous path.

Fortunately, there is still sufficient freedom in the United States to undo all the damage that has been done. There is first of all the freedom to publicly name it and denounce it.

More fundamentally, there is the freedom to analyze and refute the ideas that underlie the destructive policies that have been adopted or that may be adopted. And that is what is critical. For the fundamental factor underlying interventionism and, of course, socialism as well, whether Nazi or Communist, is nothing but wrong ideas, above all, wrong ideas about economics and philosophy.

There is now an extensive and growing body of literature that presents sound ideas in these two vital fields. In my judgment, the two most important authors of this literature are Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand. An extensive knowledge of their writings is an indispensable prerequisite for success in the defense of individual freedom and the free market.

This institute, The Ludwig von Mises Institute, is the world's leading center for the dissemination of Mises's ideas. It presents a constant flow of analyses based on his ideas, analyses that appear in its academic journals, its books and periodicals, and in its daily website news articles that deal with the issues of the moment. It educates college and university students, and young instructors, in his ideas and the related ideas of other members of the Austrian school of economics. It does this through the Mises Summer University, the Austrian Scholars Conferences, and a variety of seminars.

Two very major ways of fighting for freedom are to educate oneself to the point of being able to speak and write as articulately in its defense as do the scholars associated with this institute or, if one does not have the time or inclination to pursue such activity, then to financially support the Institute in its vital work to whatever extent one can.

It is possible to turn the tide. No single person can do it. But a large and growing number of intelligent people, educated in the cause of economic freedom, and speaking up and arguing in its defense whenever possible, is capable of gradually forming the attitudes of the culture and thus of the nature of its political and economic system.

You in this audience are all already involved in this great effort. I hope you will continue and intensify your commitment.--------------

[IlluSionS667]

Goebbels would disagree.

No, he wouldn't. Like I said, national socialism and socialism were inherently different elements. Using the term "socialist" to refer to the social aspects of national socialist theory is something Goebbels would have strongly objected to. There were, of course, many different social aspects to this ideology, but they were inherently different from those of socialism.

Whether or not Goebbels had any origins in the leftist movement, is unrelated to this. Mussolini also used to be a communist. I myself used to be an anarchist. People can change, you know?!?

Further, you are acting hopelessly hypocritical by using an anti-semitic title below your nickname and at the same time use a jew (George Reisman) as an authority to point out that national socialism socialistic is and that socialism authoritarian is.

[Ixtab]

No, he wouldn't.Provide evidence that Goebbels considered national socialism to be non-socialist.

Like I said, national socialism and socialism were inherently different elements.An assertion which you have so far failed to support.

Whether or not Goebbels had any origins in the leftist movement, is unrelated to this. Mussolini also used to be a communist. I myself used to be an anarchist. People can change, you know?!?That is obvious. I never claimed that Goebbels was any kind of Leftist. I never even brought any of that into the discussion. It's completely irrelevant. I don't know what Sturmwaffen felt the need to bring that up.

Further, you are acting hopelessly hypocritical by using an anti-semitic title belowSo you can't refute the article?

your nickname and at the same time use a jew (George Reisman) as an authority to point out that national socialism socialistic is and that socialism authoritarian is.That is not hyprocritical. The only thing that interests me is whether what the arguments advanced in the article correspond with reality. The ethnicity of whomever wrote the article is for my present purposes a thing of utter indifference to me.

[Ravenheart]

I forget what year it was (I think 1932), but the Government had a massive Labor Day celebration.

Hitler only rose to power in 1933, so any government celebration before then would not have anything to do with the Third Reich.

[IlluSionS667]

Provide evidence that Goebbels considered national socialism to be non-socialist.

Provide evidence that Goebbels considered national socialism to be socialist.

His propaganda shows a clear opposition towards left wing politics.

An assertion which you have so far failed to support.

Socialism basically supports class warfare, which is something national socialism strongly opposes. This alone already strongly differentiates the two.

So you can't refute the article?

I didn't read it nor feel the need to read it. By pulling things out of context and/or perspective, I can just as well show that Bush and Hitler are identical as I can show that Hitler and Stalin are identical in their ways of doing politics, which doesn't take away that Bush, Hitler and Stalin all three are entirely different in their views and methods.

That is not hyprocritical. The only thing that interests me is whether what the arguments advanced in the article correspond with reality. The ethnicity of whomever wrote the article is for my present purposes a thing of utter indifference to me.

Which makes me wonder why you have an anti-semitic title below your nickname in the first place.

Since you would probably consider me narrowminded for now wanting to read the whole pieces, let me just take some snippets :

The effect of such massive government interference is unemployment, rising prices, falling real wages, a need to work longer and harder, and growing economic insecurity. The further effect is growing anger and resentment.

When I ask people in Poland what they think about communism, one thing I hear often is "at least everyone had a job". Communism did keep people poor, but at least everyone was equally poor.

National socialism also provided a job for pretty much everyone. Different from communism, however, it also provided everyone with a very high standard of living. Never before or after has life for the German laborer been as prosperous as it was during Hitler's regime. This, without lowering the living standard of other classes.

Therefor the implication that massive government interference leads to unemployment or a decrease in welfare is utterly incorrect. I can even user Western-Europe as an example, where the general welfare of people is higher than in the US due to its social-democratic system.

In such cases [social democracies], it is necessary to realize that along with these countries not being totalitarian, they are also not socialist. Their governing parties may espouse socialism as their philosophy and their ultimate goal, but socialism is not what they have implemented as their economic system. Their actual economic system is that of a hampered market economy, as Mises termed it. While more hampered than our own in important respects, their economic system is essentially similar to our own, in that the characteristic driving force of production and economic activity is not government decree but the initiative of private owners motivated by the prospect of private profit.

National socialist economy was also predominantly privately owned, despite it being a dictatorial regime.

A socialist government totally annihilates these freedoms. It turns the press and every public forum into a vehicle of hysterical propaganda in its own behalf, and it engages in the relentless persecution of everyone who dares to deviate by so much as an inch from its official party line.

We see the exact same thing in the US today.

Every day of his life, the citizen of a socialist state must spend time in endless waiting lines. For him, the problems Americans experienced in the gasoline shortages of the 1970s are normal; only he does not experience them in relation to gasoline — for he does not own a car and has no hope of ever owning one — but in relation to simple items of clothing, to vegetables, even to bread.

This was not the case in Hitler's Germany, where people were far more prosperous than in surrounding "democratic" countries.

.......

[Ixtab]

Provide evidence that Goebbels considered national socialism to be socialist.He was a right-wing Socialist.

His propaganda shows a clear opposition towards left wing politics.Goebbels was indeed against left-wing politics in his later years, but guess what? Socialism is not an exclusively left-wing movement.

Socialism basically supports class warfare, Now you are defining Socialism as something necessarily contrary to the principles of National Socialism, as something exclusively left-wing, so that you can declare that National Socialism isn't socialistic.
Socialism does not support class warfare. Left-wing Socialism and Communism does, true; but there are many other varieties of socialism than these. Now you have revealed how your whole argument is based on a ridiculous misconception as to what Socialism is. It is not, I repeat, an exclusively left-wing movement.

[IlluSionS667]

Now you have revealed how your whole argument is based on a ridiculous misconception as to what Socialism is.

According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition :

so·cial·ism
n.

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.


Since the means of producing and distributing goods were owned privately in national socialist Germany, the first definition does not apply. Since national socialism is inherently opposed to Marxist-Leninist theory and since it differs in some fundamental principles, the second definition doesn't apply either.





If you are defining socialism as "any ideology that applies laws to protect certain groups from exploitation by others" or "any ideology that applies economical control", then national socialism is indeed socialistic. I already said that in an earlier post. This is not what "socialism" stands for, though. The term "socialism" solely stands for Marxist-Leninist theory and its derivates. National socialism is too fundamentally different to fall under the same umbrella.

[Ixtab]

Do not use a dictionary to define such a complex ideology like Socialism. Dictionaries are not born out of historical vacuums either. This dictionary in particular seems to have taken a wholly abstract, ahistorical approach.

If you are defining socialism as "any ideology that applies laws to protect certain groups from exploitation by others"Socialism is not an ideology, any more than is childcare.

National socialism is too fundamentally different to fall under the same umbrella.National Socialism is too fundamentally different to fall under the same umbrella as left-wing Socialism.
Socialism can be divided into two Categories: reactionary Socialism (which is not necessarily pejorative), and progressive Socialism (which is not necessarily honourific). National Socialism is reactionary, whereas Bolshevik Socialism is progressive. What you are doing is saying that National Socialism is not socialistic because it is not Socialism of the second type, "progressive socialism".
To anyone who says that this distinction is invalid because the Dictionary does not make the same distinction, I say it's validated by history, because historically there have been two branches of Socialism:
(a) Socialism as a successor of Protestantism, Sanscullotism, Trade Unionism, Peasant Revolts: left-wing socialism. Owin, H.G. Wells, Fabianism, Lenin.
(b) Socialism as a successor of anti-capitalist Feudalism among the petty-bourgeois and the aristocracy, not the working class: right-wing socialism. Thomas Carlyle, Rodbertus (a monarchist socialist), Hughes, Fichte, and several others.
National Socialism has its intellectual origins in Fichte, etc.
It is, as I say, right-wing socialist.

[albion]

Having replaced radical liberalism as the party of the “left,” socialism, by the turn of the twentieth century, fell prey to this inner contradiction. Most socialists (Fabians, Lassalleans, even Marxists) turned sharply rightward, completely abandoned the old libertarian goals and ideals of revolution and the withering away of the State and became cozy conservatives permanently reconciled to the State, the status quo, and the whole apparatus of neomercantilism, State monopoly capitalism, imperialism, and war that was rapidly being established and riveted on European society at the turn of the twentieth century. For conservatism, too, had re-formed and regrouped to try to cope with a modern industrial system and had become a refurbished mercantilism, a regime of statism, marked by State monopoly privilege, in direct and indirect forms, to favored capitalists and to quasi-feudal landlords. The affinity between right socialism and the new conservatism became very close, the former advocating similar policies but with a demagogic populist veneer. Thus, the other side of the coin of imperialism was “social imperialism,” which Joseph Schumpeter trenchantly defined as “an imperialism in which the entrepreneurs and other elements woo the workers by means of social welfare concessions which appear to depend on the success of export monopolism.” [5]

Historians have long recognized the affinity, and the welding together, of right-wing socialism with conservatism in Italy and Germany, where the fusion was embodied first in Bismarckism and then in fascism and national socialism – the latter fulfilling the Conservative program of nationalism, imperialism, militarism, theocracy, and a right-wing collectivism that retained and even cemented the rule of the old privileged classes.
-- Murray N. Rothbard

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard33.html

[IlluSionS667]

It looks like you libertarians have your own terminology. Can you refer to one of these so-called "right wing socialists" who actually called himself a socialist?

Anyway, this discussion is turning into a semantics discussion rather than a discussion on actual content. Basically we agree on the fact that national socialism had many social aspects, but we just disagree on whether or not to call that socialist. I see no use to further this discussion from my part.

[eggheadbanga]

Readers may wish to look at Goetz Aly's book Hitlers Volksstaat, which argues that one should indeed call Nazism nationale Sozialismus

A pun that doesn't translate so well into English (Nationalsozialismus is the normal Germa phrase.)

WARNING! Contains explicit proof of Nazi persecution of Jews!

[Ixtab]

It looks like you libertarians have your own terminology. Can you refer to one of these so-called "right wing socialists" who actually called himself a socialist?I already mentioned several of them. Rodbertus was the very type of it.

Anyway, this discussion is turning into a semantics discussion rather than a discussion on actual content.Not at all.

[Roland]

Ideologically, Nazism bore no resemblance to socialism. While Hitler eliminated Jewish financial power, he allowed white financial power, international and national, to continue profit mongering in the Reich. He destroyed the pre-Reich unions in favor of a single, submissive union, which was exploited in various ways as explicated by William Shirer in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Bregowald has already made this distinction apparent; however, it is important to point out the self-destructive parasitism of Hitler's economics.

Hitler eradicated the left-wing of the Nazi party during the night of the long knives; the Strasserites who remained, including Goebbles, converted to Hitlerian careerism. This non-ideological, egoistic political drive characterized both Italy and Germany. While the ideals of National Socialism certainly held dramatic sway amongst the Reich political figures (the Jewish Question for instance), the careerism remained primary in their political decisions. Therefore, I voted "no" because National Socialism was economically parasitic against its own people, and because it did not resemble traditional European (Reactionary) socialism. Indeed, the most intriguing figures of the fascist era (Schimitt, Heidegger, Evola) saw National Socialism, in its historical manifestation, as a deformed, and, at best, pragmatic political solution.

[IlluSionS667]

- Hitler's Germany had the highest living standard in all of Europe. Their social security even enabled factory workers to buy a car, travel abroad, visit the opera or a museum, go to concerts, become part of a sports club, ... This was unseen in Europe before that, and many Germany factory workers are even today not able to afford the lifestyle that their ancestors could afford during Hitler's regime.

- The idea of abolishing unions in favor of one state-controlled union was based on the concept that different social groups in society should cooperate rather than fight each other. Hitler believed that unions turned workers and bosses against one another, and his state-controlled union was intended to function as an intermediate party with a final judgement on conflicts between both sides. This prevents strikes (which are harmful for the bosses) as well as exploitation (which is harmful for the workers), thereby serving both sides without the need for extortion and threats that are common in other systems.

- Strasser and Roehm were not necessarilly more left-wing than Hitler. They just wanted things to change more rapidly. They were short-term planners. Hitler was a long-term planner. He believed that society would require at least 2 generations to fully adapt to a national socialist society, while Strasser and Roehm wanted to fasten that process, thereby endangering the integrity and unity of the party.


German people had rarely been as happy as they were during Hitler's regime. Hitler gave them happiness, pride, prosperity and unity. He changed a decaying Germany into an advanced racialist state. His state wasn't perfect, though, and Heidegger and Evola were probably right to criticise it for its flaws. It was far from a parasitic state, though. It was the closest thing to an ideal state man has seen in the 20th century.

[Roland]

- Hitler's Germany had the highest living standard in all of Europe. Their social security even enabled factory workers to buy a car, travel abroad, visit the opera or a museum, go to concerts, become part of a sports club, ... This was unseen in Europe before that, and many Germany factory workers are even today not able to afford the lifestyle that their ancestors could afford during Hitler's regime.

- The idea of abolishing unions in favor of one state-controlled union was based on the concept that different social groups in society should cooperate rather than fight each other. Hitler believed that unions turned workers and bosses against one another, and his state-controlled union was intended to function as an intermediate party with a final judgement on conflicts between both sides. This prevents strikes (which are harmful for the bosses) as well as exploitation (which is harmful for the workers), thereby serving both sides without the need for extortion and threats that are common in other systems.

- Strasser and Roehm were not necessarilly more left-wing than Hitler. They just wanted things to change more rapidly. They were short-term planners. Hitler was a long-term planner. He believed that society would require at least 2 generations to fully adapt to a national socialist society, while Strasser and Roehm wanted to fasten that process, thereby endangering the integrity and unity of the party.


German people had rarely been as happy as they were during Hitler's regime. Hitler gave them happiness, pride, prosperity and unity. He changed a decaying Germany into an advanced racialist state. His state wasn't perfect, though, and Heidegger and Evola were probably right to criticise it for its flaws. It was far from a parasitic state, though. It was the closest thing to an ideal state man has seen in the 20th century.

Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich states otherwise. If you aren't familiar with the book, I'll transcribe some of the important, refuting passages.

[IlluSionS667]

Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich states otherwise. If you aren't familiar with the book, I'll transcribe some of the important, refuting passages.

I've learned to distrust post-war literature on the Third Reich, ever since I've started reading pre-war literature on the topic.

A book I can personally recommend is "The House That Hitler Built" by Stephen Roberts, an economic historian at Australia's University of Sydney who lived in Germany in the mid-'30s. Written in 1937, it was one of the most successful contemporary accounts of Hitler's Germany by an English-speaking visitor, at least as far as the number of printings and translations was concerned. Although clearly critical towards the Third Reich, it is still the most objective source I've ever read on the topic.

[Slavic Enforcer]

Some people here obviously don't (want to?) know what the word Socialism means.

[Ahknaton]

Some people here obviously don't (want to?) know what the word Socialism means.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

[Slavic Enforcer]

The Nazis kissed the arses of the German big industrialists.

That's surely not Socialism.

[IlluSionS667]

The Nazis kissed the arses of the German big industrialists.

That's surely not Socialism.

The mediator between head and hands must be the heart!

The above quote from the proto-NS film Metropolis basically illustrates what position the NSDAP gave itself between the classes. The mediator between head (intellectuals) and hands (workers) must be the heart (the party). National socialists believe it is the duty of the party not just to support one class and oppose the others (as both socialists and conservatives did at the time) but rather act as a mediator between the classes, finding compromises that suited both sides. In this aspect, one could consider national socialist more social than socialism.

[Slavic Enforcer]

National socialists believe it is the duty of the party not just to support one class and oppose the others (as both socialists and conservatives did at the time) but rather act as a mediator between the classes, finding compromises that suited both sides.

Concentration camps.

[IlluSionS667]

National socialists believe it is the duty of the party not just to support one class and oppose the others (as both socialists and conservatives did at the time) but rather act as a mediator between the classes, finding compromises that suited both sides.

Concentration camps.

Enola Gay


Is there a point to this game?