Fascism

[Coyote]

What are you and Bri doing? Aren't you doing the same thing you are complaining about?

What have I said that is a lie or deceit?

What you call "lies and deceit" I call disagreeing.

Then why can't you answer the question asked

1) Where did Hitler say he was against socialISM. He said he was for it repeatedly

2) How does killing socialists prove he wasn't one? Practically everyone in Europe was socialist by then and they still are

I have answered that. When he refused to collectivize or impose the socialist political agenda - then don't you think that indicates he is turning against socialism?

Or, how about these quotes (which I've posted before):

“The great masses of workmen want nothing else than bread and amusement; they have no understanding of idealism; and we can never count on being able to gain any considerable support among them. What we want is a picked number from the new ruling class, who – unlike you – are not troubled with humanitarian feelings, but who are convinced that they have the right to rule as being a superior race, and who will secure and maintain their rule ruthlessly over the broad masses.”

As for class relations, Hitler asserted that workers had no right to have a say in their own management as it was a perversion of that eternal natural order of the survival of the fittest. The industrialists: “have worked their way to the top by their own abilities, and this proof of their capacity – a capacity only displayed by a higher race – gives them the right to lead.” And on the subject of reforming the economic system, Hitler offered this not very Left-wing observation: “Socialism is in itself a bad word [if it is used literally]. But it is certainly not to be taken as meaning that industry must be socialised.” So long as industrialists acted in the national interest, they can keep their property. Indeed, “it would be little short of a crime to destroy the existing economic system.”​

Socialism is AT IT'S HEART - about elevating the working class - not instilling a new elite ruling class. (even though in reality, it did not work out that way). Hitlers ideology above absolutely opposes any sort of idea of class equality.

Of course he collectivized, what do you think government control is? All collectivization at the national level is government. The only collectivization that has ever worked are voluntary associations where the people can leave any time and those are not national governments, just communities. How does that makes sense? All industry was under his control, it was entirely collectivized.

And you need to be more specific what you mean by "social agenda." He was a socialist, the economy was government controlled, again, what does that mean?

And seriously, you think in socialist systems that unions can overrule government? You actually believe that? Really?

"Social Agenda" - pretty much what is defined here: What is Socialism? | World Socialist Movement

It's more than just an economic program. According to Marx, it was a transitional stage to communism.

The ONLY thing Nazi's had in common with it was a degree of government control over the econony but there was no pretense at "people's control".

 

[Coyote]

You're the one who needs medication with all that butt hurt over your beloved Hillary going down in flames leading you to your endless chanting of everyone's a racist.

Let's discuss your racism. So why do you think blacks can't compete with whites and need the bar lowered? Is it inferior breeding, Archie Bunker?

Obviously you are confused, but that's understandable since you are severely cracked.

I disliked Hillary, never supported her and am glad she lost.

I'm against Affirmative Action. All human beings are 99.5% identical genetically. The major difference is cultural. All Americans should be given the same opportunities. "Special rules for special people" is anti-American.

Any other lies you want to make up about me? What do the voices in your head tell you to do?

Funny how you get labeled

I actually came to like her or at least her ideas. More so then Trump.

I also think affirmative action was necessary at the time - not so much now.

 

[Coyote]

....you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist, of you're a racist.

Fuck you, cock sucking dick. ....dick wad

Awesome rant. Take any meds for that condition?

You're the one who needs medication with all that butt hurt over your beloved Hillary going down in flames leading you to your endless chanting of everyone's a racist.

Let's discuss your racism. So why do you think blacks can't compete with whites and need the bar lowered? Is it inferior breeding, Archie Bunker?

What does this have to do with anything?

He's another one of you, his argument went straight to right wingers are racist.

So you seriously don't get when someone comes in a conversation talking about how we're a bunch of racists and what my saying let's discuss your racism has to do with anything? Really?

I know you said that as a poster, not a mod. I'm not saying that you're abusing any power, you aren't using any. Just want to be clear you realize I'm not misinterpreting that. But you are another race whore who thinks every discussion involves racism, and you're pure as the driven snow. I see zero evidence in real life there is no racism on the left or that there is any more racism on the right than the left.

Pardon me for being blunt but where the fuck do you get that from? Broad brush maybe? Racism is an INDIVIDUAL matter above all.

It's just that every fucking conversation I'm having with liberals right now is about racism, none of those were taken to racism by me and I'm completely fucking sick of it. So I'm banning myself for awhile until I get over it. Maybe that's tomorrow, maybe not. Don't know. But I would like to discuss something OTHER than racism and I'm sure the fuck not getting it here

I don't think I've ever discussed racism with you...just saying.

By the way. I get tired of being labeled unAmerican, Terrorist supporter, etc.

 

[Coyote]

I'll say this.

There can be as much racism on the left as there can be on the right. It just takes a different form.

"Racist" gets thrown out way too often - but sometimes, it does hit the mark and when it does, we ought to stand up and call it what it is.

When it isn't - we should call out the false accusations.

But let's try to be honest.

 

[Yarddog]

Please review the following two links on fascism and what we have observed since the election of Donald Trump to the office of POTUS.


Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

Donald Trump and the 14 signs of Fascism • /r/politics

Consider the promises made by Mr. Trump during the time before he received the nomination of the Republican Party, his rhetoric before his election after being nominated, and his rhetoric since being elected to POTUS?

The choices in your poll are pretty rigid here. I'm sure there's a lot of feelings in between your talking points.

 

[Divine Wind]

You're the one who needs medication with all that butt hurt over your beloved Hillary going down in flames leading you to your endless chanting of everyone's a racist.

Let's discuss your racism. So why do you think blacks can't compete with whites and need the bar lowered? Is it inferior breeding, Archie Bunker?

Obviously you are confused, but that's understandable since you are severely cracked.

I disliked Hillary, never supported her and am glad she lost.

I'm against Affirmative Action. All human beings are 99.5% identical genetically. The major difference is cultural. All Americans should be given the same opportunities. "Special rules for special people" is anti-American.

Any other lies you want to make up about me? What do the voices in your head tell you to do?

Funny how you get labeled

I actually came to like her or at least her ideas. More so then Trump.

I also think affirmative action was necessary at the time - not so much now.

Agreed. Usually by the nutjobs, so it's not bothersome.

Hillary? I found her to be duplicitous and didn't trust her. I also was totally against her ideas on the Second Amendment.

Agreed. Right now, Affirmative Action and other "special programs for special people" are headed for running forever. Let's hope this administration and Congress fix it.

 

[2aguy]

Here...this explains it nicely...

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

11/11/2005George 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.

 

[2aguy]

I'd call you Captain Obvious, but you missed the obvious. No shit it's dumb, THAT'S THE POINT.

To argue Hitler hated socialists because he killed socialists is DUMB. As we've been discussing, socialists span from mob rule but relatively benign Scandinavians to Stalin.

The rest of your argument on this about why some socialists oppose him was just silly. Socialist is government control of the economy. Clearly Nazis controlled the economy. Nothing you said refuted that, it just went off into a discussion with the voices in your head, who interestingly agree with you. Who saw that coming?

Bullshit.

If he didn't hate socialists he wouldn't have tossed them into concentration camps. Why did he do that? Because socialism is about more than just the economy.

Again this is why I'm just tired of you. Your own quotes said he killed socialists WHO OPPOSED HIM. And you keep ignoring that and repeating your canard he killed them because they were socialists, not because they opposed him.

Never have you presented a quote from him saying he hates socialism.

It's irrelevant anyway since he controlled the economy and was by definition a socialist

Did you miss the part where he also refused to go along with socialism and collectivism? Did you miss that? And, after he killed those who opposed them - he tossed the rest in concentration camps - did you miss that as well? I posted a quote where he specifically did not want to go full socialism and at that point - parted ways with the socialists and formed his own ideology? Did you miss that as well?

The question was where did he say he was against "socialism."

Explain your assertion that he can't be a socialist because he kills socialist. He wants to be king of the hill

That wasn't the only evidence I offered as to why he wasn't a socialist. He also did not want to go "full socialist" and that caused a critical break.

No...he didn't believe in "International Socialism" because he didn't care about any other country...he cared about Germany...that is why he was a National Socialist...Socialism for Germany....there was no break.....he controlled the economy.

 

[Coyote]

Bullshit.

If he didn't hate socialists he wouldn't have tossed them into concentration camps. Why did he do that? Because socialism is about more than just the economy.

Again this is why I'm just tired of you. Your own quotes said he killed socialists WHO OPPOSED HIM. And you keep ignoring that and repeating your canard he killed them because they were socialists, not because they opposed him.

Never have you presented a quote from him saying he hates socialism.

It's irrelevant anyway since he controlled the economy and was by definition a socialist

Did you miss the part where he also refused to go along with socialism and collectivism? Did you miss that? And, after he killed those who opposed them - he tossed the rest in concentration camps - did you miss that as well? I posted a quote where he specifically did not want to go full socialism and at that point - parted ways with the socialists and formed his own ideology? Did you miss that as well?

The question was where did he say he was against "socialism."

Explain your assertion that he can't be a socialist because he kills socialist. He wants to be king of the hill

That wasn't the only evidence I offered as to why he wasn't a socialist. He also did not want to go "full socialist" and that caused a critical break.

No...he didn't believe in "International Socialism" because he didn't care about any other country...he cared about Germany...that is why he was a National Socialist...Socialism for Germany....there was no break.....he controlled the economy.

He was a national socialist in the same way North Korea was a democratic republic.

By the way - Stalin didn't care about any other country either.

 

[2aguy]

Sometimes I just get so tired of it, like now. That is their plan. To engage in and endless tag team of lies and deceit until we give up and quit. It's a lot easier to continue to operate on that level of stupid when they are as stupid as they are

What are you and Bri doing? Aren't you doing the same thing you are complaining about?

What have I said that is a lie or deceit?

What you call "lies and deceit" I call disagreeing.

Then why can't you answer the question asked

1) Where did Hitler say he was against socialISM. He said he was for it repeatedly

2) How does killing socialists prove he wasn't one? Practically everyone in Europe was socialist by then and they still are

I have answered that. When he refused to collectivize or impose the socialist political agenda - then don't you think that indicates he is turning against socialism?

Or, how about these quotes (which I've posted before):

“The great masses of workmen want nothing else than bread and amusement; they have no understanding of idealism; and we can never count on being able to gain any considerable support among them. What we want is a picked number from the new ruling class, who – unlike you – are not troubled with humanitarian feelings, but who are convinced that they have the right to rule as being a superior race, and who will secure and maintain their rule ruthlessly over the broad masses.”

As for class relations, Hitler asserted that workers had no right to have a say in their own management as it was a perversion of that eternal natural order of the survival of the fittest. The industrialists: “have worked their way to the top by their own abilities, and this proof of their capacity – a capacity only displayed by a higher race – gives them the right to lead.” And on the subject of reforming the economic system, Hitler offered this not very Left-wing observation: “Socialism is in itself a bad word [if it is used literally]. But it is certainly not to be taken as meaning that industry must be socialised.” So long as industrialists acted in the national interest, they can keep their property. Indeed, “it would be little short of a crime to destroy the existing economic system.”​

Socialism is AT IT'S HEART - about elevating the working class - not instilling a new elite ruling class. (even though in reality, it did not work out that way). Hitlers ideology above absolutely opposes any sort of idea of class equality.

No...socialism is not about elevating the working class....Socialism means the government controls the means of production......in marxist communism it is the next to last step to true communism...but the government controls the means of production...and hitler states it from your own link....

So long as industrialists acted in the national interest, they can keep their property. Indeed, “it would be little short of a crime to destroy the existing economic system.”

 

[Coyote]

Here...this explains it nicely...

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

11/11/2005George 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.

And...why he was not a socialist: Was Adolf Hitler a Socialist? Debunking a Historical Myth

 

[2aguy]

Again this is why I'm just tired of you. Your own quotes said he killed socialists WHO OPPOSED HIM. And you keep ignoring that and repeating your canard he killed them because they were socialists, not because they opposed him.

Never have you presented a quote from him saying he hates socialism.

It's irrelevant anyway since he controlled the economy and was by definition a socialist

Did you miss the part where he also refused to go along with socialism and collectivism? Did you miss that? And, after he killed those who opposed them - he tossed the rest in concentration camps - did you miss that as well? I posted a quote where he specifically did not want to go full socialism and at that point - parted ways with the socialists and formed his own ideology? Did you miss that as well?

The question was where did he say he was against "socialism."

Explain your assertion that he can't be a socialist because he kills socialist. He wants to be king of the hill

That wasn't the only evidence I offered as to why he wasn't a socialist. He also did not want to go "full socialist" and that caused a critical break.

No...he didn't believe in "International Socialism" because he didn't care about any other country...he cared about Germany...that is why he was a National Socialist...Socialism for Germany....there was no break.....he controlled the economy.

He was a national socialist in the same way North Korea was a democratic republic.

By the way - Stalin didn't care about any other country either.

No....hitler controlled the economy of Germany, the German government controlled the economy making it socialist.....North korea does not have democratic institutions...you are wrong on both counts...

 

[2aguy]

Here...this explains it nicely...

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

11/11/2005George 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.

And...why he was not a socialist: Was Adolf Hitler a Socialist? Debunking a Historical Myth

Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises........Nobel Prize winning economists disagree with you, they both state he was a socialist...as economists do because the German government under hitler controlled every aspect of the economy...

 

[Coyote]

Here...this explains it nicely...

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

11/11/2005George 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.

And...why he was not a socialist: Was Adolf Hitler a Socialist? Debunking a Historical Myth

Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises........Nobel Prize winning economists disagree with you, they both state he was a socialist...as economists do because the German government under hitler controlled every aspect of the economy...

Sure. And I've posted plenty of sources that say he is not.

 

[2aguy]

Here...this explains it nicely...

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

11/11/2005George 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.

And...why he was not a socialist: Was Adolf Hitler a Socialist? Debunking a Historical Myth

That link you posted is stupid....another left winger trying to hide the socialism of hitler.....

It all boils down to wether or not the German government controlled the German economy...and it did......

 

[Coyote]

Did you miss the part where he also refused to go along with socialism and collectivism? Did you miss that? And, after he killed those who opposed them - he tossed the rest in concentration camps - did you miss that as well? I posted a quote where he specifically did not want to go full socialism and at that point - parted ways with the socialists and formed his own ideology? Did you miss that as well?

The question was where did he say he was against "socialism."

Explain your assertion that he can't be a socialist because he kills socialist. He wants to be king of the hill

That wasn't the only evidence I offered as to why he wasn't a socialist. He also did not want to go "full socialist" and that caused a critical break.

No...he didn't believe in "International Socialism" because he didn't care about any other country...he cared about Germany...that is why he was a National Socialist...Socialism for Germany....there was no break.....he controlled the economy.

He was a national socialist in the same way North Korea was a democratic republic.

By the way - Stalin didn't care about any other country either.

No....hitler controlled the economy of Germany, the German government controlled the economy making it socialist.....North korea does not have democratic institutions...you are wrong on both counts...

You would only be right if socialism was soley an economic theory and, if the means of production were owned and controlled by the people or for the people through the state. Not the case with Nazi Germany.

 

[Coyote]

Here...this explains it nicely...

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

11/11/2005George 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.

And...why he was not a socialist: Was Adolf Hitler a Socialist? Debunking a Historical Myth

That link you posted is stupid....another left winger trying to hide the socialism of hitler.....

It all boils down to wether or not the German government controlled the German economy...and it did......

Oh. The "stupid" argument.

 

[2aguy]

And here.....more on hitler and socialism...

Hitler Was A Socialist, (And Not A Right Wing Conservative)

Two prevailing historical myths that the left has propagated successfully is that Hitler was a far right wing conservative and was democratically elected in 1933 (a blow at bourgeois democracy and conservatives). Actually, he was defeated twice in the national elections (he became chancellor in a smoke-filled-room appointment by those German politicians who thought they could control him — see “What? Hitler Was Not Elected?”) and as head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, he considered himself a socialist, and was one by the evidence of his writings and the his economic policies.

To be clear, National Socialism differs from Marxism in its nationalism, emphasis on folk history and culture, idolization of the leader, and its racism. But the Nazi and Marxist-Leninists shared a faith in government, an absolute ruler, totalitarian control over all significant economic and social matters for the good of the working man, concentration camps, and genocide/democide as an effective government policy (only in his last years did Stalin plan for his own Holocaust of the Jews).

I’ve read Hitler’s Mein Kampf (all online here) and can quote the following from Volume 2:

Chapter VII:

In 1919-20 and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois [capitalist] meetings. Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days. . . . And so it is not surprising that the sane and unspoiled masses shun these ‘bourgeois mass meetings’ as the devil shuns holy water.


Chapter 4:

The folkish philosophy is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its view of life. 



If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a philosophy of life. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.

Chapter XII:

The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing the National Socialist People’s State, must always bear steadfastly in mind the principle that every future institution under that State must be rooted in the movement itself.


Some other quotes:

Hitler, spoken to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930:

I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. . . . What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism.


On this, see Alan Bullock, Hitler: a Study in Tyranny, pp.156-7; and Graham L. Strachan “MANUFACTURED REALITY: THE ‘THIRD WAY’”

Gregor Strasser, National Socialist theologian, said:

We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak … and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.


F.A. Hayek in his Road to Serfdom (p. 168) said:

The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism—Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle—are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism. …. From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and reactionaries, but the hard-working laborer and idealist youth into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine.


See also his chapter 12: “The Socialist Roots of Naziism.”

Von Mises in his Human Action (p. 171) said:

There are two patterns for the realization of socialism. The first pattern (we may call it the Lenin or Russian pattern) . . . . the second pattern (we may call it the Hindenburg or German Pattern) nominally and seemingly preserves private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary markets, prices, wages, and interest rates. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs, but only shop managers … bound to obey unconditionally the orders issued by government.

 

[2aguy]

Hayek on nazism....

Nazism is Socialism -- F A Hayek, et al

One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups too -as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment -have, at least partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement. But only partly because -and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany – many capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscience. But, in spite of this, the German entrepreneur class have manifested almost incredible short-sightedness in allying themselves with a move movement of whose strong anti-capitalistic tendencies there should never have been any doubt.

A careful observer must always have been aware that the opposition of the Nazis to the established socialist parties, which gained them the sympathy of the entrepreneur, was only to a very small extend directed against their economic policy. What the Nazis mainly objected to was their internationalism and all the aspects of their cultural programme which were still influenced by liberal ideas. But the accusations against the social-democrats and the communists which were most effective in their propaganda were not so much directed against their programme as against their supposed practice -their corruption and nepotism, and even their alleged alliance with “the golden International of Jewish Capitalism.”

It would, indeed, hardly have been possible for the Nationalists to advance fundamental objections to the economic policy of the other socialist parties when their own published programme differed from these only in that its socialism was much cruder and less rational. The famous 25 points drawn up by Herr Feder,[2] one of Hitler’s early allies, repeatedly endorsed by Hitler and recognized by the by-laws of the National-Socialist party as the immutable basis of all its actions, which together with an extensive commentary is circulating throughout Germany in many hundreds of thousands of copies, is full of ideas resembling those of the early socialists. But the dominant feature is a fierce hatred of anything capitalistic -individualistic profit seeking, large scale enterprise, banks, joint-stock companies, department stores, “international finance and loan capital,” the system of “interest slavery” in general; the abolition of these is described as the “[indecipherable] of the programme, around which everything else turns.” It was to this programme that the masses of the German people, who were already completely under the influence of collectivist ideas, responded so enthusiastically.

That this violent anti-capitalistic attack is genuine – and not a mere piece of propaganda – becomes as clear from the personal history of the intellectual leaders of the movement as from the general milieu from which it springs. It is not even denied that man of the young men who today play a prominent part in it have previously been communists or socialists. And to any observer of the literary tendencies which made the Germans intelligentsia ready to join the ranks of the new party, it must be clear that the common characteristic of all the politically influential writers – in many cases free from definite party affiliations – was their anti-liberal and anti-capitalist trend. Groups like that formed around the review “Die Tat” have made the phrase “the end of capitalism” an accepted dogma to most young Germans.[3]

 

[regent]

What have I said that is a lie or deceit?

What you call "lies and deceit" I call disagreeing.

Then why can't you answer the question asked

1) Where did Hitler say he was against socialISM. He said he was for it repeatedly

2) How does killing socialists prove he wasn't one? Practically everyone in Europe was socialist by then and they still are

I have answered that. When he refused to collectivize or impose the socialist political agenda - then don't you think that indicates he is turning against socialism?

Or, how about these quotes (which I've posted before):

“The great masses of workmen want nothing else than bread and amusement; they have no understanding of idealism; and we can never count on being able to gain any considerable support among them. What we want is a picked number from the new ruling class, who – unlike you – are not troubled with humanitarian feelings, but who are convinced that they have the right to rule as being a superior race, and who will secure and maintain their rule ruthlessly over the broad masses.”

As for class relations, Hitler asserted that workers had no right to have a say in their own management as it was a perversion of that eternal natural order of the survival of the fittest. The industrialists: “have worked their way to the top by their own abilities, and this proof of their capacity – a capacity only displayed by a higher race – gives them the right to lead.” And on the subject of reforming the economic system, Hitler offered this not very Left-wing observation: “Socialism is in itself a bad word [if it is used literally]. But it is certainly not to be taken as meaning that industry must be socialised.” So long as industrialists acted in the national interest, they can keep their property. Indeed, “it would be little short of a crime to destroy the existing economic system.”​

Socialism is AT IT'S HEART - about elevating the working class - not instilling a new elite ruling class. (even though in reality, it did not work out that way). Hitlers ideology above absolutely opposes any sort of idea of class equality.

Of course he collectivized, what do you think government control is? All collectivization at the national level is government. The only collectivization that has ever worked are voluntary associations where the people can leave any time and those are not national governments, just communities. How does that makes sense? All industry was under his control, it was entirely collectivized.

And you need to be more specific what you mean by "social agenda." He was a socialist, the economy was government controlled, again, what does that mean?

And seriously, you think in socialist systems that unions can overrule government? You actually believe that? Really?

"Social Agenda" - pretty much what is defined here: What is Socialism? | World Socialist Movement

It's more than just an economic program. According to Marx, it was a transitional stage to communism.

The ONLY thing Nazi's had in common with it was a degree of government control over the econony but there was no pretense at "people's control".

Of all the types of socialism that had been created before Marx, only Marx's Scientific Socialism led to communism, Most socialists did not like Marx nor his communism nor his socialism. Marx's Scientific Socialism was supposed to prepare the people for communism but Russia dropped it soon after the revolution and then Russia dropped communism.
Politically, Scientific Socialism was a God-send to the Republican party, it was soon made into just plain socialism and socialism always led to communism, it scared the bejabbers out of Americans.
Can anyone name a country that has practiced Marxian communism or Scientific
Socialism for any length of time.




















































































































/