Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
He hired only who the government allowed him to hire, paid them only the wages the government allowed him to pay and received a "profit" determined by the government. Of course, true profit isn't determined by government.And Ferdinand Porsche hired labor and built what was asked for a profit./—-/ And Hiller put a gun to Ferdinand Porsche’s head and said build me a tank and a Proples Car.The Nazi's may have kept a tight grip on the markets but the system of production was fundamentally capitalist.Firms in Germany weren't genuinely privately owned, moron. Government made all the important business decisions, like what to produce, the price for it, wage rates and who worked for the firm. So-called owners were reduced to little more than glorified managers. So-called ownership is meaningless if it doesn't confer any control.After I sent him this article, Phil Mirowski also sent me this piece by Germà Bell, “AGAINST THE MAINSTREAM ,” from the Economic History Review. This article also has some fascinating findings. From the abstract:
In the mid-1930s, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in western capitalistic countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s.
Luckily, Suresh Naidu, the kick-ass economist at Columbia, supplied me with the following graphs.
This first one, which comes from Thomas Piketty’s Captial in the twenty first century, compares the share of national income that went to capital in the US and in Germany between 1929 and 1938. Suresh tells me that the share roughly tracks capital’s rate of return.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Corey Robin is the author of The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palinand a contributing editor at Jacobin.
All you socialist douchebags keep trying to ignore that essential fact.
Good, we have a specific case that you can now show by way of sources that your claims are true.He hired only who the government allowed him to hire, paid them only the wages the government allowed him to pay and received a "profit" determined by the government. Of course, true profit isn't determined by government.And Ferdinand Porsche hired labor and built what was asked for a profit./—-/ And Hiller put a gun to Ferdinand Porsche’s head and said build me a tank and a Proples Car.The Nazi's may have kept a tight grip on the markets but the system of production was fundamentally capitalist.Firms in Germany weren't genuinely privately owned, moron. Government made all the important business decisions, like what to produce, the price for it, wage rates and who worked for the firm. So-called owners were reduced to little more than glorified managers. So-called ownership is meaningless if it doesn't confer any control.After I sent him this article, Phil Mirowski also sent me this piece by Germà Bell, “AGAINST THE MAINSTREAM ,” from the Economic History Review. This article also has some fascinating findings. From the abstract:
In the mid-1930s, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in western capitalistic countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s.
Luckily, Suresh Naidu, the kick-ass economist at Columbia, supplied me with the following graphs.
This first one, which comes from Thomas Piketty’s Captial in the twenty first century, compares the share of national income that went to capital in the US and in Germany between 1929 and 1938. Suresh tells me that the share roughly tracks capital’s rate of return.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Corey Robin is the author of The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palinand a contributing editor at Jacobin.
All you socialist douchebags keep trying to ignore that essential fact.
You find the sources that prove Porsche was free to build what it likes.Good, we have a specific case that you can now show by way of sources that your claims are true.He hired only who the government allowed him to hire, paid them only the wages the government allowed him to pay and received a "profit" determined by the government. Of course, true profit isn't determined by government.And Ferdinand Porsche hired labor and built what was asked for a profit./—-/ And Hiller put a gun to Ferdinand Porsche’s head and said build me a tank and a Proples Car.The Nazi's may have kept a tight grip on the markets but the system of production was fundamentally capitalist.Firms in Germany weren't genuinely privately owned, moron. Government made all the important business decisions, like what to produce, the price for it, wage rates and who worked for the firm. So-called owners were reduced to little more than glorified managers. So-called ownership is meaningless if it doesn't confer any control.
All you socialist douchebags keep trying to ignore that essential fact.
I saw their refutations and don't completely agree with them. But that said, that's my take as I don't rely on ivory tower academia arguments based on pure systems, I deal in flawed, real world applications as a historian.They were laying out the arguments that they would refute in the coming pages.Page 391 -393 gives some very good examples of why it could be both and/or neither.That's an interpretation on your part based on the pure (unrealized) definition. The source also cites where and why it's also inherently socialist hence the continuing argument. It would appear the subject is anything but black and white.That doesn't explain why the op's source is revisionist and yours is not. They are saying the same thing. And what they both say, and matches what the op is saying, is that the Nazis privatized industry. That is inherently capitalist, regardless of any other factors.Because in reality no political-economic system yet put in place by humankind is pure, they're all a composite and in the Nazi economic composite it leans more heavily towards socialism even though the Nazi brand of Fascism is not all that close to the definitive form in many ways. His interpretation favors capitalism, the other favors a more socialist definition. This has been argued back and forth since the end of Nazi Germany and each individual with interpret based on their preset bias. I don't have a preset bias, I don't care if it was more capitalist or more socialist, I see what the facts show.Does it?The source also cites where and why it's also inherently socialist hence the continuing argument.
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/cap...storicalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdfThe notion that private firm property during the Third Reich had been preserved only in a nominal sense and that in reality there was almost nothing left of the autonomy of enterprises as economic actors is severely flawed in at least three respects
It's not pointless. The leftists know that labeling the Nazis to be "right wing" is critical to promoting their sinister agenda.I saw their refutations and don't completely agree with them. But that said, that's my take as I don't rely on ivory tower academia arguments based on pure systems, I deal in flawed, real world applications as a historian.They were laying out the arguments that they would refute in the coming pages.Page 391 -393 gives some very good examples of why it could be both and/or neither.That's an interpretation on your part based on the pure (unrealized) definition. The source also cites where and why it's also inherently socialist hence the continuing argument. It would appear the subject is anything but black and white.That doesn't explain why the op's source is revisionist and yours is not. They are saying the same thing. And what they both say, and matches what the op is saying, is that the Nazis privatized industry. That is inherently capitalist, regardless of any other factors.Does it?The source also cites where and why it's also inherently socialist hence the continuing argument.
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/cap...storicalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdfThe notion that private firm property during the Third Reich had been preserved only in a nominal sense and that in reality there was almost nothing left of the autonomy of enterprises as economic actors is severely flawed in at least three respects
The argument will continue but not with me as it's really pointless, those Nazis are dead and gone.
And you labeled me a pinko commie, I think you're both full of shit........ Life's a bitch.....It's not pointless. The leftists know that labeling the Nazis to be "right wing" is critical to promoting their sinister agenda.I saw their refutations and don't completely agree with them. But that said, that's my take as I don't rely on ivory tower academia arguments based on pure systems, I deal in flawed, real world applications as a historian.They were laying out the arguments that they would refute in the coming pages.Page 391 -393 gives some very good examples of why it could be both and/or neither.That's an interpretation on your part based on the pure (unrealized) definition. The source also cites where and why it's also inherently socialist hence the continuing argument. It would appear the subject is anything but black and white.Does it?The source also cites where and why it's also inherently socialist hence the continuing argument.
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/cap...storicalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdfThe notion that private firm property during the Third Reich had been preserved only in a nominal sense and that in reality there was almost nothing left of the autonomy of enterprises as economic actors is severely flawed in at least three respects
The argument will continue but not with me as it's really pointless, those Nazis are dead and gone.
Then howcome todays nazis are winning as republicans and not as democrats?It's not pointless. The leftists know that labeling the Nazis to be "right wing" is critical to promoting their sinister agenda.I saw their refutations and don't completely agree with them. But that said, that's my take as I don't rely on ivory tower academia arguments based on pure systems, I deal in flawed, real world applications as a historian.They were laying out the arguments that they would refute in the coming pages.Page 391 -393 gives some very good examples of why it could be both and/or neither.That's an interpretation on your part based on the pure (unrealized) definition. The source also cites where and why it's also inherently socialist hence the continuing argument. It would appear the subject is anything but black and white.Does it?The source also cites where and why it's also inherently socialist hence the continuing argument.
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/cap...storicalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdfThe notion that private firm property during the Third Reich had been preserved only in a nominal sense and that in reality there was almost nothing left of the autonomy of enterprises as economic actors is severely flawed in at least three respects
The argument will continue but not with me as it's really pointless, those Nazis are dead and gone.
Socialism is the form of government and Society in every successful modern developed country, except us because of you ignorant dupes of the greedy idiot rich.After I sent him this article, Phil Mirowski also sent me this piece by Germà Bell, “AGAINST THE MAINSTREAM ,” from the Economic History Review. This article also has some fascinating findings. From the abstract:
In the mid-1930s, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in western capitalistic countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s.
Luckily, Suresh Naidu, the kick-ass economist at Columbia, supplied me with the following graphs.
This first one, which comes from Thomas Piketty’s Captial in the twenty first century, compares the share of national income that went to capital in the US and in Germany between 1929 and 1938. Suresh tells me that the share roughly tracks capital’s rate of return.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Corey Robin is the author of The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palinand a contributing editor at Jacobin.
Another socialist trying spread the tired, debunked, disproven, idiocy of socialism. Cory Robin writes for Jacobin a socialist anti capitalist magazine.
You are correct when it comes to war materials, the Nazis had control and the owners were very happy about it, dummy. Read a goddamn history book for crying out loud...Only they didn't really privitize anything. They retained control. They created a meaningless scrap of paper that said the holder is the "owner," but that term is meaningless under National Socialism.That doesn't explain why the op's source is revisionist and yours is not. They are saying the same thing. And what they both say, and matches what the op is saying, is that the Nazis privatized industry. That is inherently capitalist, regardless of any other factors.Because in reality no political-economic system yet put in place by humankind is pure, they're all a composite and in the Nazi economic composite it leans more heavily towards socialism even though the Nazi brand of Fascism is not all that close to the definitive form in many ways. His interpretation favors capitalism, the other favors a more socialist definition. This has been argued back and forth since the end of Nazi Germany and each individual with interpret based on their preset bias. I don't have a preset bias, I don't care if it was more capitalist or more socialist, I see what the facts show.Oh good, another Nazi thread.Both sources come to the same basic conclusions. Why would his be revisionist and yours not?Of course, and when morons like you claim 2 + 2 = 5 I'll be "right on cue" stating that it equals 4.
It's sad that idiocies have to be refuted over and over and over.
Uummm, if your literacy level was above the second grade you might read it and see that it mostly supports what you were saying........ I was referring to his "author" as revisionist...... Oops...... You just couldn't help but stuff both feet in your mouth and chew vigorously, could ya........
The article I cited says that in Nazi Germany, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer," not owners, because that's all they were. They did what the government told them to do.
There are a lot of dullard statements on USMB. Yours is unquestionably the most doofusesque of all time.Socialism is the form of government and Society in every successful modern developed country, except us because of you ignorant dupes of the greedy idiot rich.After I sent him this article, Phil Mirowski also sent me this piece by Germà Bell, “AGAINST THE MAINSTREAM ,” from the Economic History Review. This article also has some fascinating findings. From the abstract:
In the mid-1930s, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in western capitalistic countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s.
Luckily, Suresh Naidu, the kick-ass economist at Columbia, supplied me with the following graphs.
This first one, which comes from Thomas Piketty’s Captial in the twenty first century, compares the share of national income that went to capital in the US and in Germany between 1929 and 1938. Suresh tells me that the share roughly tracks capital’s rate of return.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Corey Robin is the author of The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palinand a contributing editor at Jacobin.
Another socialist trying spread the tired, debunked, disproven, idiocy of socialism. Cory Robin writes for Jacobin a socialist anti capitalist magazine.
There are a lot of dullard statements on USMB. Yours is unquestionably the most doofusesque of all time.Socialism is the form of government and Society in every successful modern developed country, except us because of you ignorant dupes of the greedy idiot rich.After I sent him this article, Phil Mirowski also sent me this piece by Germà Bell, “AGAINST THE MAINSTREAM ,” from the Economic History Review. This article also has some fascinating findings. From the abstract:
In the mid-1930s, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in western capitalistic countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s.
Luckily, Suresh Naidu, the kick-ass economist at Columbia, supplied me with the following graphs.
This first one, which comes from Thomas Piketty’s Captial in the twenty first century, compares the share of national income that went to capital in the US and in Germany between 1929 and 1938. Suresh tells me that the share roughly tracks capital’s rate of return.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Corey Robin is the author of The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palinand a contributing editor at Jacobin.
Another socialist trying spread the tired, debunked, disproven, idiocy of socialism. Cory Robin writes for Jacobin a socialist anti capitalist magazine.
He could hire whoever he wanted except for Jews Socialists Communists and opponents like Democrats.He hired only who the government allowed him to hire, paid them only the wages the government allowed him to pay and received a "profit" determined by the government. Of course, true profit isn't determined by government.And Ferdinand Porsche hired labor and built what was asked for a profit./—-/ And Hiller put a gun to Ferdinand Porsche’s head and said build me a tank and a Proples Car.The Nazi's may have kept a tight grip on the markets but the system of production was fundamentally capitalist.Firms in Germany weren't genuinely privately owned, moron. Government made all the important business decisions, like what to produce, the price for it, wage rates and who worked for the firm. So-called owners were reduced to little more than glorified managers. So-called ownership is meaningless if it doesn't confer any control.After I sent him this article, Phil Mirowski also sent me this piece by Germà Bell, “AGAINST THE MAINSTREAM ,” from the Economic History Review. This article also has some fascinating findings. From the abstract:
In the mid-1930s, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in western capitalistic countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s.
Luckily, Suresh Naidu, the kick-ass economist at Columbia, supplied me with the following graphs.
This first one, which comes from Thomas Piketty’s Captial in the twenty first century, compares the share of national income that went to capital in the US and in Germany between 1929 and 1938. Suresh tells me that the share roughly tracks capital’s rate of return.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Corey Robin is the author of The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palinand a contributing editor at Jacobin.
All you socialist douchebags keep trying to ignore that essential fact.
Travel somewhere ask anyone, brainwashed functional dolt. Read a book for Christ's sake.There are a lot of dullard statements on USMB. Yours is unquestionably the most doofusesque of all time.Socialism is the form of government and Society in every successful modern developed country, except us because of you ignorant dupes of the greedy idiot rich.After I sent him this article, Phil Mirowski also sent me this piece by Germà Bell, “AGAINST THE MAINSTREAM ,” from the Economic History Review. This article also has some fascinating findings. From the abstract:
In the mid-1930s, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in western capitalistic countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s.
Luckily, Suresh Naidu, the kick-ass economist at Columbia, supplied me with the following graphs.
This first one, which comes from Thomas Piketty’s Captial in the twenty first century, compares the share of national income that went to capital in the US and in Germany between 1929 and 1938. Suresh tells me that the share roughly tracks capital’s rate of return.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Corey Robin is the author of The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palinand a contributing editor at Jacobin.
Another socialist trying spread the tired, debunked, disproven, idiocy of socialism. Cory Robin writes for Jacobin a socialist anti capitalist magazine.
Wrong.He could hire whoever he wanted except for Jews Socialists Communists and opponents like Democrats.He hired only who the government allowed him to hire, paid them only the wages the government allowed him to pay and received a "profit" determined by the government. Of course, true profit isn't determined by government.And Ferdinand Porsche hired labor and built what was asked for a profit./—-/ And Hiller put a gun to Ferdinand Porsche’s head and said build me a tank and a Proples Car.The Nazi's may have kept a tight grip on the markets but the system of production was fundamentally capitalist.Firms in Germany weren't genuinely privately owned, moron. Government made all the important business decisions, like what to produce, the price for it, wage rates and who worked for the firm. So-called owners were reduced to little more than glorified managers. So-called ownership is meaningless if it doesn't confer any control.
All you socialist douchebags keep trying to ignore that essential fact.
Only an ignorant moron would make such a ridiculous claim, that the Nazis were ‘anti-capitalist.’
Krupp, I.G. Farben, Daimler-Benz, among others, all flourished during, and benefited from, the Nazi regime.
Hey, that's required here. Keep up!Started as an interesting discussion, as usual went quickly to the bottom with name calling.
the only ignorant one is you did you even finish high school? how dare you even criticize smart peopleIs it a freaking joke or are economists "at Columbia" as ignorant as ordinary revisionist lefties these days? The Nationalist Socialist Workers (Nazi) party controlled the government as well as private sector ownership during the 30's. You could call it capitalism but it would more accurately be called "puppet capitalism".
Is it a freaking joke or are economists "at Columbia" as ignorant as ordinary revisionist lefties these days? The Nationalist Socialist Workers (Nazi) party controlled the government as well as private sector ownership during the 30's. You could call it capitalism but it would more accurately be called "puppet capitalism".
