Were the Nazis Socialist?

[Wry Catcher]

The German NAZI Party of the 1930's was not socialist.

They just put that into their name to attract socialists.

It was a big lie. The first of many big lies.

Socialist lie as a matter of course.

As does Trump.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And NK claims to be Democratic. What is your point?

One-party democracy and rigged elections are features of socialism...What's your point?

Yep, so I suppose you will vote for all Democrats on the ballot this year (have you noticed only one party rules the Three Branches of Government, and the Separation of Power as not been in effect since Jan 2017)?

 

[Oddball]

Thanks for the idiot-grams, idjit.

 

[Toronado3800]

This has never been an interesting question to me because, it didn't have a great bearing on their Antisemitism.

The Nazis obviously weren't Soviet-style Socialists, they hated the Bolsheviks and were highly critical of them. Private enterprise flourished under the Nazis, more than in the previous German governments. In fact, many businesses nationalized during the Great German Depression, were privatized under the Nazis.

But, as you can imagine, the topic of Antisemitism is very much in my (our) minds this week and because of that, I decided to re-watch the 1940 Nazi propaganda film, 'The Eternal Jew' by Franz Hippler.

Something I had never really focused on before is the the emphasis they put on 'decent' labor and 'evil' capitalism. German workers are good, Jewish businessmen are bad (they neglect to point out there were many more non-Jewish businessmen than Jewish ones in Germany). The Nazis were, at least according to their own propaganda, firm believers in the 'Labor Theory of Value' straight our of Marx. That theory holds that the the amount of socially valuable labor that goes into a good is what determines its value, not its value in the market.

For example, a farm, a coal mine, a tractor factory ... all are valuable, because they produce goods that use lots of (cheap and semi-skilled) labor.

A bank, an investment firm, merchants and wholesalers, are bad ... they make a profit without providing labor for the masses.

In this film, they chastise the French banking family, The Rothschilds, because they sought to avoid the punitive taxes placed on all Jewish businesses in the 18th Century. They denounce banking and mercantile trade as 'evil' and 'Jewish'.

This, however, wasn't unique to the Nazis. Coming out of the Great Depression, most Western countries were experiencing a wave of populist Socialism because of the perceived failure of Market Capitalism, which they had just gone through. Jews in many countries took a lot of abuse, even in America, for their historical connection to finance and markets as opposed to large scale, labor intensive production.

This was counter-balanced in America and other countries because Jews were very influential in the ever-growing labor movement while other Jews had strong ties to banking and finance, and others in science and education. Obviously, this wasn't the case in Nazi Germany, where Jews, quite apart from not being leader in the labor movement, they weren't allowed to be members of labor organizations.

While the Nazis did privatize many businesses when they took power. It was a special type of privatization unique to the Nazis. One that made the Nazi Party a (not so silent) partner in each of the businesses they privatized. So, that while the company itself was run as a private company. The production goals, and economic decisions were made by the Nazi Party, not the company owners. Likewise, much of the profits went to the party as well.

The Nazis had other cultural similarities with the Soviets. They were both very adamant in their rejection of 'decadence' in music, art, and cinema. They believed Jazz, modern forms of art, and absurdly comedic films to be degrading to the morals of the people. Because of this, both the Nazis and the Soviets controlled their films, art, and music with strict censorship.

My conclusion to all this. I don't believe the Nazis were ideological Socialist the way the Soviets were. I don't believe they held strongly to any any dogmatic economic theory. Instead, I believe they were economic opportunists. They portrayed themselves as friends of the working man and used the words and symbols of the populist Socialism movement. But, at the same time, used government control of private investment to take advantage of Capitalism to enrich the party and its leaders.

Another thing to study is the movement of the NAZI's under Hitler's influence.

I think you alluded to the fact that in 1930 you just might have to call yourself some form of socialist to gain support....

I think the important thing to remember is we are a combination of all our beliefs. I'm way pro death penalty and rather like the military. Doesn't make me Donald Trump though because I want to inflict everyone with compulsive health insurance to cut off the freeloaders and I'm rather an anti-Patriot Act fellow.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Thanks for the idiot-grams, idjit.

You're most welcome, but please don't feel special, you're special and I'm always kind to people like you.

 

[Lesh]

And NK claims to be Democratic. What is your point?

One-party democracy and rigged elections are features of socialism...What's your point?

Look in the mirror genius. That's what you want here

 

[2aguy]

This has never been an interesting question to me because, it didn't have a great bearing on their Antisemitism.

The Nazis obviously weren't Soviet-style Socialists, they hated the Bolsheviks and were highly critical of them. Private enterprise flourished under the Nazis, more than in the previous German governments. In fact, many businesses nationalized during the Great German Depression, were privatized under the Nazis.

But, as you can imagine, the topic of Antisemitism is very much in my (our) minds this week and because of that, I decided to re-watch the 1940 Nazi propaganda film, 'The Eternal Jew' by Franz Hippler.

Something I had never really focused on before is the the emphasis they put on 'decent' labor and 'evil' capitalism. German workers are good, Jewish businessmen are bad (they neglect to point out there were many more non-Jewish businessmen than Jewish ones in Germany). The Nazis were, at least according to their own propaganda, firm believers in the 'Labor Theory of Value' straight our of Marx. That theory holds that the the amount of socially valuable labor that goes into a good is what determines its value, not its value in the market.

For example, a farm, a coal mine, a tractor factory ... all are valuable, because they produce goods that use lots of (cheap and semi-skilled) labor.

A bank, an investment firm, merchants and wholesalers, are bad ... they make a profit without providing labor for the masses.

In this film, they chastise the French banking family, The Rothschilds, because they sought to avoid the punitive taxes placed on all Jewish businesses in the 18th Century. They denounce banking and mercantile trade as 'evil' and 'Jewish'.

This, however, wasn't unique to the Nazis. Coming out of the Great Depression, most Western countries were experiencing a wave of populist Socialism because of the perceived failure of Market Capitalism, which they had just gone through. Jews in many countries took a lot of abuse, even in America, for their historical connection to finance and markets as opposed to large scale, labor intensive production.

This was counter-balanced in America and other countries because Jews were very influential in the ever-growing labor movement while other Jews had strong ties to banking and finance, and others in science and education. Obviously, this wasn't the case in Nazi Germany, where Jews, quite apart from not being leader in the labor movement, they weren't allowed to be members of labor organizations.

While the Nazis did privatize many businesses when they took power. It was a special type of privatization unique to the Nazis. One that made the Nazi Party a (not so silent) partner in each of the businesses they privatized. So, that while the company itself was run as a private company. The production goals, and economic decisions were made by the Nazi Party, not the company owners. Likewise, much of the profits went to the party as well.

The Nazis had other cultural similarities with the Soviets. They were both very adamant in their rejection of 'decadence' in music, art, and cinema. They believed Jazz, modern forms of art, and absurdly comedic films to be degrading to the morals of the people. Because of this, both the Nazis and the Soviets controlled their films, art, and music with strict censorship.

My conclusion to all this. I don't believe the Nazis were ideological Socialist the way the Soviets were. I don't believe they held strongly to any any dogmatic economic theory. Instead, I believe they were economic opportunists. They portrayed themselves as friends of the working man and used the words and symbols of the populist Socialism movement. But, at the same time, used government control of private investment to take advantage of Capitalism to enrich the party and its leaders.

The German NAZI Party of the 1930's was not socialist.

They just put that into their name to attract socialists.

It was a big lie. The first of many big lies.

Sorry, you are wrong...... Friedrich Hayek, and Ludwig Von Mises detail the socialism of the national socialists in their work.....

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]

And more...

The Myth of "Nazi Capitalism" | Chris Calton

German socialism, as Mises defines it, differs from what he called “socialism of the Russian pattern” in that “it, seemingly and nominally, maintains private ownership of the means of production, entrepreneurship, and market exchange.” However, this is only a superficial system of private ownership because through a complete system of economic intervention and control, the entrepreneurial function of the property owners is completely controlled by the State. By this, Mises means that shop owners do not speculate about future events for the purpose of allocating resources in the pursuit of profits. Just like in the Soviet Union, this entrepreneurial speculation and resource allocation is done by a single entity, the State, and economic calculation is thus impossible.

“In Nazi Germany,” Mises tells us, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer. The government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham. As all prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the authority, they are prices, wages and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the authoritarian orders determining each citizen’s income, consumption and standard of living. The authority, not the consumers, directs production. The central board of production management is supreme; all citizens are nothing else but civil servants. This is socialism with the outward appearance of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify here something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.”

 

[Polishprince]

This has never been an interesting question to me because, it didn't have a great bearing on their Antisemitism.

The Nazis obviously weren't Soviet-style Socialists, they hated the Bolsheviks and were highly critical of them. Private enterprise flourished under the Nazis, more than in the previous German governments. In fact, many businesses nationalized during the Great German Depression, were privatized under the Nazis.

But, as you can imagine, the topic of Antisemitism is very much in my (our) minds this week and because of that, I decided to re-watch the 1940 Nazi propaganda film, 'The Eternal Jew' by Franz Hippler.

Something I had never really focused on before is the the emphasis they put on 'decent' labor and 'evil' capitalism. German workers are good, Jewish businessmen are bad (they neglect to point out there were many more non-Jewish businessmen than Jewish ones in Germany). The Nazis were, at least according to their own propaganda, firm believers in the 'Labor Theory of Value' straight our of Marx. That theory holds that the the amount of socially valuable labor that goes into a good is what determines its value, not its value in the market.

For example, a farm, a coal mine, a tractor factory ... all are valuable, because they produce goods that use lots of (cheap and semi-skilled) labor.

A bank, an investment firm, merchants and wholesalers, are bad ... they make a profit without providing labor for the masses.

In this film, they chastise the French banking family, The Rothschilds, because they sought to avoid the punitive taxes placed on all Jewish businesses in the 18th Century. They denounce banking and mercantile trade as 'evil' and 'Jewish'.

This, however, wasn't unique to the Nazis. Coming out of the Great Depression, most Western countries were experiencing a wave of populist Socialism because of the perceived failure of Market Capitalism, which they had just gone through. Jews in many countries took a lot of abuse, even in America, for their historical connection to finance and markets as opposed to large scale, labor intensive production.

This was counter-balanced in America and other countries because Jews were very influential in the ever-growing labor movement while other Jews had strong ties to banking and finance, and others in science and education. Obviously, this wasn't the case in Nazi Germany, where Jews, quite apart from not being leader in the labor movement, they weren't allowed to be members of labor organizations.

While the Nazis did privatize many businesses when they took power. It was a special type of privatization unique to the Nazis. One that made the Nazi Party a (not so silent) partner in each of the businesses they privatized. So, that while the company itself was run as a private company. The production goals, and economic decisions were made by the Nazi Party, not the company owners. Likewise, much of the profits went to the party as well.

The Nazis had other cultural similarities with the Soviets. They were both very adamant in their rejection of 'decadence' in music, art, and cinema. They believed Jazz, modern forms of art, and absurdly comedic films to be degrading to the morals of the people. Because of this, both the Nazis and the Soviets controlled their films, art, and music with strict censorship.

My conclusion to all this. I don't believe the Nazis were ideological Socialist the way the Soviets were. I don't believe they held strongly to any any dogmatic economic theory. Instead, I believe they were economic opportunists. They portrayed themselves as friends of the working man and used the words and symbols of the populist Socialism movement. But, at the same time, used government control of private investment to take advantage of Capitalism to enrich the party and its leaders.

Sure they were socialist, correspondence between Fuhrer Hitler and his favorite journalist Julius Streicher make that abundantly clear.

Socialized Medicine is one of the pillars of Nazism. Its never mentioned by the Media, although it should be, Dr. Josef Mengele was a government paid health care provider in Germany. Not a private doctor, but part of Germany's public option program that is sometimes referred to as "Hitlercare".

 

[konradv]

This has never been an interesting question to me because, it didn't have a great bearing on their Antisemitism.

The Nazis obviously weren't Soviet-style Socialists, they hated the Bolsheviks and were highly critical of them. Private enterprise flourished under the Nazis, more than in the previous German governments. In fact, many businesses nationalized during the Great German Depression, were privatized under the Nazis.

But, as you can imagine, the topic of Antisemitism is very much in my (our) minds this week and because of that, I decided to re-watch the 1940 Nazi propaganda film, 'The Eternal Jew' by Franz Hippler.

Something I had never really focused on before is the the emphasis they put on 'decent' labor and 'evil' capitalism. German workers are good, Jewish businessmen are bad (they neglect to point out there were many more non-Jewish businessmen than Jewish ones in Germany). The Nazis were, at least according to their own propaganda, firm believers in the 'Labor Theory of Value' straight our of Marx. That theory holds that the the amount of socially valuable labor that goes into a good is what determines its value, not its value in the market.

For example, a farm, a coal mine, a tractor factory ... all are valuable, because they produce goods that use lots of (cheap and semi-skilled) labor.

A bank, an investment firm, merchants and wholesalers, are bad ... they make a profit without providing labor for the masses.

In this film, they chastise the French banking family, The Rothschilds, because they sought to avoid the punitive taxes placed on all Jewish businesses in the 18th Century. They denounce banking and mercantile trade as 'evil' and 'Jewish'.

This, however, wasn't unique to the Nazis. Coming out of the Great Depression, most Western countries were experiencing a wave of populist Socialism because of the perceived failure of Market Capitalism, which they had just gone through. Jews in many countries took a lot of abuse, even in America, for their historical connection to finance and markets as opposed to large scale, labor intensive production.

This was counter-balanced in America and other countries because Jews were very influential in the ever-growing labor movement while other Jews had strong ties to banking and finance, and others in science and education. Obviously, this wasn't the case in Nazi Germany, where Jews, quite apart from not being leader in the labor movement, they weren't allowed to be members of labor organizations.

While the Nazis did privatize many businesses when they took power. It was a special type of privatization unique to the Nazis. One that made the Nazi Party a (not so silent) partner in each of the businesses they privatized. So, that while the company itself was run as a private company. The production goals, and economic decisions were made by the Nazi Party, not the company owners. Likewise, much of the profits went to the party as well.

The Nazis had other cultural similarities with the Soviets. They were both very adamant in their rejection of 'decadence' in music, art, and cinema. They believed Jazz, modern forms of art, and absurdly comedic films to be degrading to the morals of the people. Because of this, both the Nazis and the Soviets controlled their films, art, and music with strict censorship.

My conclusion to all this. I don't believe the Nazis were ideological Socialist the way the Soviets were. I don't believe they held strongly to any any dogmatic economic theory. Instead, I believe they were economic opportunists. They portrayed themselves as friends of the working man and used the words and symbols of the populist Socialism movement. But, at the same time, used government control of private investment to take advantage of Capitalism to enrich the party and its leaders.

They disposed of their socialist wing on The Night of the Long Knives.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Essentially, Nazism is rather like a cult. Their belief in an unfounded theory of genetics, superiority and destiny led them to do whatever was necessary to achieve power. Political ideology, diplomacy and military power were all subservient to this. They said, did, committed whatever they thought would work. It was very similar to religion.
So, of course they were not committed 'socialists'.

Hitler was not much interested in economics. As you point out he was driven by Eugenics above all else. Hitler simply adopted the economic platforms of Benito Mussolini. Nazi Germany was a nation where the state controlled the means of production - hence is was socialist. But this was just a plank in providing absolute power to the state. The same can be said of Stalin's Russia.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Essentially, Nazism is rather like a cult. Their belief in an unfounded theory of genetics, superiority and destiny led them to do whatever was necessary to achieve power. Political ideology, diplomacy and military power were all subservient to this. They said, did, committed whatever they thought would work. It was very similar to religion.
So, of course they were not committed 'socialists'.

"Yeah but it was government controlled capitalism. hitler said make bombs, you made bombs......just the way it was.....it's kinda like the mafia casinos....they had a CEO, but he really didn't make the decisions...

If the government, rather than the market controls the means of production, it is not capitalism.

 

[peach174]

Nazis were fascist socialists.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That is the point when I saw two dangers approaching. Previously, I did not truly understand their names or their importance to the German people’s existence. Their names were Marxism and Jewry. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Comrade Stupidfuck, "The Boston Red Sox were the greatest danger" - Los Angeles Dodgers

Does that mean the Dodgers hate baseball, Guno?

 

[peach174]

Neither Hitler nor Stalin were dictators. They got in power using populism. They kept power by being dictators that used fear to control their populations.

Neither Hitler nor Stalin were dictators. They got in power using populism. They kept power by being dictators that used fear to control their populations.

Neither Hitler nor Stalin were dictators. They got in power using populism. They kept power by being dictators that used fear to control their populations.

Neither Hitler nor Stalin were dictators. They got in power using populism. They kept power by being dictators that used fear to control their populations.

Neither Hitler nor Stalin were dictators. They got in power using populism. They kept power by being dictators that used fear to control their populations.

Hitler and Stalin were Dictators who were not elected by the people.

 

[danielpalos]

This has never been an interesting question to me because, it didn't have a great bearing on their Antisemitism.

The Nazis obviously weren't Soviet-style Socialists, they hated the Bolsheviks and were highly critical of them. Private enterprise flourished under the Nazis, more than in the previous German governments. In fact, many businesses nationalized during the Great German Depression, were privatized under the Nazis.

But, as you can imagine, the topic of Antisemitism is very much in my (our) minds this week and because of that, I decided to re-watch the 1940 Nazi propaganda film, 'The Eternal Jew' by Franz Hippler.

Something I had never really focused on before is the the emphasis they put on 'decent' labor and 'evil' capitalism. German workers are good, Jewish businessmen are bad (they neglect to point out there were many more non-Jewish businessmen than Jewish ones in Germany). The Nazis were, at least according to their own propaganda, firm believers in the 'Labor Theory of Value' straight our of Marx. That theory holds that the the amount of socially valuable labor that goes into a good is what determines its value, not its value in the market.

For example, a farm, a coal mine, a tractor factory ... all are valuable, because they produce goods that use lots of (cheap and semi-skilled) labor.

A bank, an investment firm, merchants and wholesalers, are bad ... they make a profit without providing labor for the masses.

In this film, they chastise the French banking family, The Rothschilds, because they sought to avoid the punitive taxes placed on all Jewish businesses in the 18th Century. They denounce banking and mercantile trade as 'evil' and 'Jewish'.

This, however, wasn't unique to the Nazis. Coming out of the Great Depression, most Western countries were experiencing a wave of populist Socialism because of the perceived failure of Market Capitalism, which they had just gone through. Jews in many countries took a lot of abuse, even in America, for their historical connection to finance and markets as opposed to large scale, labor intensive production.

This was counter-balanced in America and other countries because Jews were very influential in the ever-growing labor movement while other Jews had strong ties to banking and finance, and others in science and education. Obviously, this wasn't the case in Nazi Germany, where Jews, quite apart from not being leader in the labor movement, they weren't allowed to be members of labor organizations.

While the Nazis did privatize many businesses when they took power. It was a special type of privatization unique to the Nazis. One that made the Nazi Party a (not so silent) partner in each of the businesses they privatized. So, that while the company itself was run as a private company. The production goals, and economic decisions were made by the Nazi Party, not the company owners. Likewise, much of the profits went to the party as well.

The Nazis had other cultural similarities with the Soviets. They were both very adamant in their rejection of 'decadence' in music, art, and cinema. They believed Jazz, modern forms of art, and absurdly comedic films to be degrading to the morals of the people. Because of this, both the Nazis and the Soviets controlled their films, art, and music with strict censorship.

My conclusion to all this. I don't believe the Nazis were ideological Socialist the way the Soviets were. I don't believe they held strongly to any any dogmatic economic theory. Instead, I believe they were economic opportunists. They portrayed themselves as friends of the working man and used the words and symbols of the populist Socialism movement. But, at the same time, used government control of private investment to take advantage of Capitalism to enrich the party and its leaders.

Command economics is the difference. In the US, we are limited in our use of socialism by our Constitution.

 

[Oddball]

Hitler and Stalin were Dictators who were not elected by the people.

Hitler was elected, albeit by a minority.

 

[Oddball]

Command economics is the difference. In the US, we are limited in our use of socialism by our Constitution.

Keynesian economics IS command economics.

 

[danielpalos]

Command economics is the difference. In the US, we are limited in our use of socialism by our Constitution.

Keynesian economics IS command economics.

The NAZIS were simply more socialist in their nationalism. We have a Constitution which limits ours.

 

[Oddball]

The NAZIS were simply more socialist in their nationalism. We have a Constitution which limits ours.

Irrelevant to what I posted....But thanks for demonstrating your economic illiteracy for all to see once again.