It is very interesting: people who think that socialism is good reason that Hitler cannot possibly have been a socialist, because he was bad.
However, people who find socialism as evil and destructive have no difficulty identifying socialist tendencies in National Socialism, especially hostility to the free market system and belief in strict government regulation of the economy. So, the capitalists were allowed to keep their businesses and some profits, but they were completely controlled by the government.
Andrei Znamensky's book "Socialism as a Secular Creed: A Modern Global History" as some good information on Hitler's national SOCIALISM.
Are you speaking about the economy of the Third Reich? I was thinking of socialism in general in that it leads to a loss of freedom, passivity and dependence on government, and increasing authoritarianism, as in Hayek's book THE ROAD TO SERFDOM.
About Hitler's fantastic economic successes, those were due to some unique features of Hitler's regime, such as the huge military buildup, and crushing of the labor unions, that are not typically socialist.
Some features of Hitler's government were socialist, some were not.
Hitler understood the economics of Imperialism. So long as the empire expands, the economy is great.
The Socialism, collectivist aspect, Hitler repeatedly stated, it was not goods, or property he sought to socialize, but the people.
Once the people had become good national socialists, property etc would naturally follow suit until all had been subsumed into the state entity.
Imperialism provides fantastic economic gains for the imperial " invested class" ie investors so long as the empire continually expands and conquests continue.
Stop expansion, the economy stagnates, without expansion, the economy collapses.
There is a lot of truth in that, however, Hitler did object to the free market system and felt that the economy should be controlled by the state - not overtly, through nationalization, but through the original owners who were allowed some profits, but nevertheless were still managers for a state run program. Thus business and manufacture were to benefit the people as a whole, not just the capitalists.
Also, if Hitler had understood the economics of imperialism a little better, he would have realized that he would have gotten more returns in the long run by treating the occupied territories in a more civilized manner, instead of just slaughtering and plundering.
There are international socialists (Comintern) and national socialists (Germany). Right there for all to see, apparently hidden in plain sight. Mussolini spent a fair amount of time in prison or avoiding prison because of his radical socialist views. A large portion of the groups which Franco consolidated into Flange-JONS-whatever-that-was were ardent with the socialistic stuff.
“Autarchy” - the economic goal of total self-sufficiency favored by Franco and to a certain extent the Nazis, inevitably results in a big shift toward socialism / central control of the economy.
People really need to get the “virtue” and “principles” nonsense out of politics and political history. No, dear, socialists do not “at least have principles” as they slink off into nostalgic failure. They’re politicians. If they had “principles” in the first place, they’d have done something good for their country / society / the proliteriat - like start a business, open a school, join the military, be a volunteer fireman, etc. These supposed “principles” can easily be substituted for “aryan race,” or “perfect communism” without altering the sense of the text.
It’s politics. Not morality. Have morals first and separately, then do politics if you must. (I say don’t bother, read a good book instead).
It is very interesting: people who think that socialism is good reason that Hitler cannot possibly have been a socialist, because he was bad.
However, people who find socialism as evil and destructive have no difficulty identifying socialist tendencies in National Socialism, especially hostility to the free market system and belief in strict government regulation of the economy. So, the capitalists were allowed to keep their businesses and some profits, but they were completely controlled by the government.
Andrei Znamensky's book "Socialism as a Secular Creed: A Modern Global History" as some good information on Hitler's national SOCIALISM.
You neglected, war, conquest, concentration camps, mass graves, tyranny, lack of freedom, censorship of expression.
Those pretty much are the real world definitions of evil.
Yeah. Humans are mostly obnoxious nearly hairless murder monkeys.
Your point is?
Evil is evil regardless of creed, political excuses, or any label.
Shit stinks regardless of what you call it.
Ahhh narcissism , arrogance and stupidity, in such adorable compact packaging.
Are you speaking about the economy of the Third Reich? I was thinking of socialism in general in that it leads to a loss of freedom, passivity and dependence on government, and increasing authoritarianism, as in Hayek's book THE ROAD TO SERFDOM.
About Hitler's fantastic economic successes, those were due to some unique features of Hitler's regime, such as the huge military buildup, and crushing of the labor unions, that are not typically socialist.
Some features of Hitler's government were socialist, some were not.
Hitler understood the economics of Imperialism. So long as the empire expands, the economy is great.
The Socialism, collectivist aspect, Hitler repeatedly stated, it was not goods, or property he sought to socialize, but the people.
Once the people had become good national socialists, property etc would naturally follow suit until all had been subsumed into the state entity.
Imperialism provides fantastic economic gains for the imperial " invested class" ie investors so long as the empire continually expands and conquests continue.
Stop expansion, the economy stagnates, without expansion, the economy collapses.
There is a lot of truth in that, however, Hitler did object to the free market system and felt that the economy should be controlled by the state - not overtly, through nationalization, but through the original owners who were allowed some profits, but nevertheless were still managers for a state run program. Thus business and manufacture were to benefit the people as a whole, not just the capitalists.
Also, if Hitler had understood the economics of imperialism a little better, he would have realized that he would have gotten more returns in the long run by treating the occupied territories in a more civilized manner, instead of just slaughtering and plundering.
There are international socialists (Comintern) and national socialists (Germany). Right there for all to see, apparently hidden in plain sight. Mussolini spent a fair amount of time in prison or avoiding prison because of his radical socialist views. A large portion of the groups which Franco consolidated into Flange-JONS-whatever-that-was were ardent with the socialistic stuff.
“Autarchy” - the economic goal of total self-sufficiency favored by Franco and to a certain extent the Nazis, inevitably results in a big shift toward socialism / central control of the economy.
People really need to get the “virtue” and “principles” nonsense out of politics and political history. No, dear, socialists do not “at least have principles” as they slink off into nostalgic failure. They’re politicians. If they had “principles” in the first place, they’d have done something good for their country / society / the proliteriat - like start a business, open a school, join the military, be a volunteer fireman, etc. These supposed “principles” can easily be substituted for “aryan race,” or “perfect communism” without altering the sense of the text.
It’s politics. Not morality. Have morals first and separately, then do politics if you must. (I say don’t bother, read a good book instead).
That was exactly , directly on target. Thank You.
Concise , if meaningless assessment.
If you read the post, that is discussed.