Where the Nazis Socialists or Capitalists?

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Where the Nazis Socialists or Capitalists?

Post by Dave Saxton »

lwd wrote:Not really. There was a socialist wing tot he NAZI party but it was purged in the early 30's. Look how much support they got from German business leaders and their repugnace for communism.
The night of the long knifes did not completely eliminate the practice of socialistic economic policies. Indeed the overall economy in the Third Reich was a centralized command type economy controled to a large degree by the state. Socialism is a type of statism. It was not quite of the same stripes of the type practiced by the Leninist, but it was a type of socialism nonetheless. Private bussiness was still allowed and encouraged within limits and it was saturated by strident nationlism and racism. Private bussiness owned and operated by Jews and others deemed undesirable were of course seized and "redistributed". Political officers were placed within private eneterprize in positions of authority. When we have private firms being in effect controled by the state, or colluding with the state, it meets some diffinitions of Facism-a type of statism. Rival types of statism usually clash, sometimes violently, because they vehemently disagree about how to go about it (and whom will ultimately be in power/control). The Nazis' practiced at type socialism/statism economically, but they wanted it to be German-centric and a racist type of socialism, and not of the Marxist/Lennist type (which Rhoem and his faction were sympathetic to). Boiled down to the bare essence, statism of all sub types is about control and enslavement of others.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Where the Nazis Socialists or Capitalists?

Post by lwd »

I think that's pusshing the defitnion of "socialism" well beyond the commonly accepted defintions.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Where the Nazis Socialists or Capitalists?

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

lwd:
I think that's pusshing the defitnion of "socialism" well beyond the commonly accepted defintions.
It is not. After some research you can find analogies at the core of both, fascism and socialism. There is, as matter of fact, a book regarding this topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism

Which can help to address the issue. However there is this very interesting article that I will quote here:

A. James Gregor, The faces of Jano

In his latest book on political philosophy A. James Gregor challenges the long-standing belief that Marxism and Fascism are ideologies on opposite sides of the political spectrum, with Marxism residing on the "left" side and Fascism residing on the "right." Concomitant with this assumption is the typical characterization of Marxism as benign, progressive, and humanitarian, and the characterization of Fascism as malicious, regressive, and chauvinistic. Gregor believes that these characterizations are erroneous and blur the essential similarities between the two, leaving modern political theorists without a proper understanding of twentieth century revolutionary practice (p. 17). The thesis of his book is that the theoretical and practical relationship between Fascism and Marxism is "curvilinear rather than rectilinear" (p. 128).
In the beginning of the book (Chapters 2 & 3) Gregor locates the origin of the false dichotomy between "right wing" revolution and "left wing" revolution in the first Marxist-Leninist interpretations of Fascism. According to this original interpretation, Fascist dictatorships arose when the ruling bourgeoisie attempted to stave off the impending socialist revolution by installing a dictatorship that would protect their interests. Gregor dismisses this argument as being "at best, a caricature of the actual political and historical sequence" (p. 36) and argues that the regimes of both Mussolini and Hitler displaced the traditional bourgeoisie from power and subordinated the bourgeoisie's interests to the collective national interest (pp. 40-42). According to Fascist ideology, the means of production and the forces of the market, under the control but not the ownership of the state, are seen as instruments to coordinate and harmonize the productive forces of the nation for the good of all classes. Gregor concludes that Fascist regimes are not in the service of any one particular class, but seek a harmony between all the classes.
Gregor devotes the middle chapters of the book (Chapters 4, 5, & 6) to a detailed discussion of the regimes of the former Soviet Union and Maoist China. Here he argues that the practical applications of Marxist-Leninist theory took on an essentially Fascist appearance. Mao and Stalin both conceived of the world as divided between "less-developed nations and advanced industrial democracies" (p. 73). This gave rise to the nationalistic policies of each country which stressed revolutionary violence and submission to the charismatic leader (pp. 80-82). Since these are characteristics that are typically described as "right wing" it was "never made quite clear whether Maoism [or Stalinism] was a form of 'right wing extremism' or 'left wing adventure,' which suggests that the distinction was never really clear or convincing" (p. 75).
The muddled distinction is based on a fundamental, but common, misunderstanding of fascist ideology. The most provocative part of Gregor's book (Chapters 7, 8, & 9) is devoted to an exegesis of the origin of Fascist ideology. Here Gregor delves into the writings of Fascist theorists in order to show that Fascism is a "variant of revolutionary Marxism designed to address the reality of lesser developed nations" (p. 133). Traditional Marxist theory argues that Capitalist economic practices contain within them conflicts that only a proletarian revolution can transcend. However, social liberation via revolution of the proletariat can only be achieved after the Capitalist industrial system of a nation develops to the point where it can provide the material conditions and abundance needed to achieve social harmony. In lesser industrially-developed countries, which do not have the material conditions for a genuine Marxist proletarian revolution, a different mode of industrialization had to be achieved that did not leave those same countries subservient to the interests of international capitalists. It is out of this background that Fascism arose. Fascist ideology emerged around the Italian Syndicalist attempt to enhance the productive capacity of Italy in the face of international exploitation at the hands of developed industrial countries. Syndicalists argued for a coordination and collaboration of all the productive forces of a nation via the intervention of the state. Gregor quotes Syndicalist-turned-Fascist ideologue Roberto Michels as claiming Fascism to be "the revolutionary nationalism of the poor" (p. 133). Mussolini's corporate state was a way of harmonizing the interests of all social classes. The result is a society in which labor and business is coordinated under the leadership and control of the state even if private property is, nominally, allowed. Fascism, via Syndicalism, transformed the Marxist theory of international revolution by emphasizing an ideology that stressed the conflict between nations. Syndicalist-Fascists thinkers (Benito Mussolini, Sergio Panunzio, Enrico Corradini) had described the world as divided between developing plutocracies and lesser developed nations that seemed to be destined for exploitation at the hands of those plutocracies. According to these thinkers any theory emphasizing internationalism was "a product of late capitalism, serving 'free trade' interests of imperialism" and destined to leave "proletarian nations" "the victims of exploitation" (pp. 140-141). Thus, these thinkers had seen Fascism as the socialism of the proletarian nations (p. 135). This interpretation makes it easier to understand how "left wing" Communism transformed itself into "right wing" Fascism; much as Mussolini, the one time leader of the "left wing" Italian Socialist party, became the "right wing" Duce of Fascist Italy.
Out of this doctrine of "competing nations" came the Fascist emphasis on nationalism and race. Gregor argues that the notion of race originally conceived by the fascists was not a strict biological racism that became prominent in National Socialist Germany. Rather, Fascist intellectuals such as Giovanni Gentile and Carlo Costamagna conceived race to refer to the collective sense of a nation that arises out of the affinities of "ethnicity, language, history , and culture" (p. 154). Race was synonymous with nation or people that invoked a sense of identity, community, and common destiny. It was this common destiny that Fascism sought to preserve in the face of international expansion of Enlightenment political theory and practice.
Gregor's book is both informative and important. While radicals today typically throw around epithets like "fascism" and "fascist," they often do so with little or no understanding of what Fascist theorists said or wrote. Gregor's book is a helpful remedy to this because he presents a clear and concise foundation of Fascist ideology, explicating both the historical conditions from which it arose and the direction it attempted to move society. Gregor also traces the similarities between Fascist and Marxist thought- similarities which had become obfuscated because of intellectuals' attempts to dichotomize synthetically revolutionary practices into "right wing" revolution and "left wing" revolution. Considering the historical record of the revolutionary practices of the twentieth century, anything less than a firm understanding as we move into the twenty first century can be dangerous.

Kevin Rua
As you can see, Dave is right again: the nazis resembled more Stalin, Mao or Hugo Chavez than the capitalist right wing movements or, to a certain degree, the Japanese Imperialism. In an paradox, or irony, Hitler's Germany looks alike more what the Democratic Party is doing in the US than whatever the Republicans have ever attempted... but that is going Off Topic here, of course.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Where the Nazis Socialists or Capitalists?

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

In this fascinating topic, we can find also other analogies of fascism and socialism (even comunism) in very accesible links as wikipedia. But before offering those links we can extract interesting comments on the particular issue:
The Nazis argued that capitalism damages nations due to international finance, the economic dominance of big business, and Jewish influences within it.[91] Adolf Hitler, both in public and in private, held strong disdain for capitalism; he accused modern capitalism of holding nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class.[93] He opposed free-market capitalism's profit-seeking impulses and desired an economy where community interests would be upheld.[94] He distrusted capitalism for being unreliable, due to it having an egotistic nature, and he preferred a state-directed economy.[95] Hitler told one party leader in 1934, "The economic system of our day," referring to capitalism, "is the creation of the Jews."[96] In a discussion with Italian Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, Hitler said that "Capitalism had run its course".[95]

To Hitler, the economy must be subordinated to the interests of the Volk and its state.[96] In Mein Kampf, Hitler effectively supported mercantilism, in the belief that economic resources from their respective territories should be seized by force; he believed that the policy of lebensraum would provide Germany with such economically valuable territories.[97] He believed that the only means to maintain economic security was to have direct control over resources rather than being forced to rely on world trade.[98] He claimed that war to gain such resources was the only means to surpass the failing capitalist economic system.[97] He believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather than "parasitical".[94]
This comment from Goebbles is much revealing (bold is mine):
Joseph Goebbels adamantly stressed the socialist character of Nazism, and claimed in his diary that if he were to pick between Bolshevism and capitalism, he said "in final analysis", "it would be better for us to go down with Bolshevism than live in eternal slavery under capitalism."[103]
Eh? From the chief propaganda nazi this is quite revealing.

The link is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Anti-capitalism

Another one that must be consulted is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Where the Nazis Socialists or Capitalists?

Post by lwd »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:lwd:
I think that's pusshing the defitnion of "socialism" well beyond the commonly accepted defintions.
It is not. After some research you can find analogies at the core of both, fascism and socialism. There is, as matter of fact, a book regarding this topic:
The core belief or signature of socialism is that the workers own the means of production. Facism as your quote below notes didnot call for public ownership of business. There fore it is not really scoialism. Now the fact that the Communist and Fascist governments resembled each other in many ways is immaterial to this.

A. James Gregor, The faces of Jano. As you can see, Dave is right again: the nazis resembled more Stalin, Mao or Hugo Chavez than the capitalist right wing movements or, to a certain degree, the Japanese Imperialism. ....
I dont see at all. I see someone who has focused on one aspect of the what we could reasonably consider 2 faulty implementations of two different styles of government and concluding that they are the same.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Where the Nazis Socialists or Capitalists?

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Well, Lee. Despite that you offer no appropiate rebutal in this I must say that I'm not at least surprised. When you stuck on a position that is evidenced as wrong just for not ackowledging flexibility there is no need for further discussion.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Where the Nazis Socialists or Capitalists?

Post by lwd »

No effective rebuttal!!! One of the key elements of socialism is that the workers own the means of production. That was clearly not the case and after the socialist wing was eliminated not even on the drawing boards for the Nazis. Simply put they were not sicialist. Now whether or not they were turly even "facist" is another matter but they were capitalist which is pretty much the opposite of socialist. However this is all OT so I'll stop here.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Where the Nazis Socialists or Capitalists?

Post by RF »

lwd wrote:No effective rebuttal!!! One of the key elements of socialism is that the workers own the means of production.
This is the marxist definition of socialism, and it is not the only valid definition of socialism. That is not merely my opinion, it is what I was taught on my degree as an undergraduate.
Pure marxism eliminates the concept of property rights, so by ''ownership'' it is mean't as control. Fascism explicitly allows property rights enforceable in law. That is a distinction between marxism and fascism. Other versions of socialism do acknowledge property rights, including marxist-leninism of the Brezhnev era. Chinese communism is today a very good example of socialism incorporating almost full capitalism.....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Where the Nazis Socialists or Capitalists?

Post by lwd »

Well let's see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Looks to me like the common defintions which it is reasonable to assume equate to the common understanding of socialism all center around collective or government ownership/control of production and resources.
Now it's not clear to me that as consise a definition will exist for fascism as I'm not sure the equivalant of Marx exist for fascism and certainly the govenrments of Italy, Germany, and Spain differed considerably. But let's take a look:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... 1285078360
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Fascism (pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.[5][6] Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but it gravitated to the political right in the early 1920s.[7][8] Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum.
Then goes on to say:
Fascists support a "third position" in economic policy, which they believe superior to both the rampant individualism of laissez-faire capitalism and the severe control of state socialism.[27][28] Italian Fascism and most other fascist movements promote a corporatist economy whereby, in theory, representatives of capital and labour interest groups work together within sectoral corporations to create both harmonious labour relations and maximization of production that would serve the national interest.[29] However other fascist movements and ideologies, such as Nazism, did not utilize this form of economy
I'd certainly not consider fascist in general an inparticular Nazis as socialist. The current Chinese form of "communism" is such in name only as far as I can see. Well not quite they do still have some socialist elements but are certainly a long ways from a pure socialist system.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Where the Nazis Socialists or Capitalists?

Post by RF »

lwd wrote: I'd certainly not consider fascist in general an inparticular Nazis as socialist.
Not within the narrow definition you have set, based on social class. But socialism has wider interpretations and you don't have to be a marxist to be a socialist. Mussolini was certainly a socialist prior to 1915, and the communists who killed him had interrogated him before hand with questions like why he betrayed their cause during WW1 and later; by asking that question the interrogators revealed that prior to that ''betrayal'' Mussolini was regarded as being one of them.

Incidently the definitions of fascism are also very wide. Taking it on the same purist atitude you have to socialism only the Italian Fascist Party was genuinely fascist. The nazis for example never used the phrase in description of themselves, they used national socialist in the context of that phrase being one word.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Where the Nazis Socialists or Capitalists?

Post by lwd »

RF wrote:
lwd wrote: I'd certainly not consider fascist in general an in particular Nazis as socialist.
Not within the narrow definition you have set, based on social class. But socialism has wider interpretations and you don't have to be a marxist to be a socialist.
Indeed but part of the problem is the confusion of some governments or groups taking the elements they like from socialism and implementing them or at least trying to do so. If you use the "Chinese Menu approach" (i.e. one from collum a, another from collum b, etc) is what results really socialism or is it something else with some socialist features. Clearly one doesn't have to be a marxist to be a ssoicalist. Indeed some of the most successful socialist entities aren't. In particular I'm thinking of some of the Amish/Menonite communiteis here in the states and Canada and the Kibutz in Israel.
Mussolini was certainly a socialist prior to 1915, and the communists who killed him had interrogated him before hand with questions like why he betrayed their cause during WW1 and later; by asking that question the interrogators revealed that prior to that ''betrayal'' Mussolini was regarded as being one of them.
That's pretty much what I've read. He was a socialist but obviously didn't stay one.
Incidently the definitions of fascism are also very wide. Taking it on the same purist atitude you have to socialism only the Italian Fascist Party was genuinely fascist. The nazis for example never used the phrase in description of themselves, they used national socialist in the context of that phrase being one word.
Fascism never seams to have had the gifted intellectual to create it's dogma. As a result it's a rather nebulous term (I was going to say fuzzy but that sounds to benign). Did the Spanish refer to themselves as Fascist?
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Where the Nazis Socialists or Capitalists?

Post by RF »

They used the fasces symbol (the birchrod and arrows) and had the blueshirts, but once the Spanish Civil War was over Franco ruled more as a Latin American style authoritarian dictator rather than the totalitarian ruler Hitler was. The ''fascist party'' as such was never important, it had no mass membership, and after WW2 it withered away into non-existence as it was rather without any purpose.

As an aside, neighbouring Portugal had a very similar arrangement under Salazar. His successor, Caetano, was ousted from power by a bloodless marxist inspired coup from the Army in 1974 as there was no civilian support or party supporting the government, while the Army and probably the rest of the country were fed up with the unwinnable wars in Angola and Mozambique, the African colonies Caetano tried to hold on to.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Where the Nazis Socialists or Capitalists?

Post by dunmunro »

Fascism is simply capitalism without democracy where the state is controlled by a Fascist political party.

Nazism is Fascism where the all the evils of capitalism are ascribed to the Jews.

Social democracy is capitalism with universal social security with/without state owned companies that participate in the economy.

Socialism/Communism is marked by state ownership of the economy where the state is controlled by a Communist political party
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Where the Nazis Socialists or Capitalists?

Post by RF »

Dave Saxton wrote: Indeed the overall economy in the Third Reich was a centralized command type economy controled to a large degree by the state
Not at first it wasn't - there was no central plan as such until Hermann Goering set up his Five Year Plan. After that the only serious co-ordination was by Speer in the armaments industry.

One major reason why Germany lost the war was because it failed to properly organise itself as a proper command economy of the type that Stalin would recognise, or in the same way that Britain was fully mobilised under Churchill. The nazies concentrated on political control per se, not getting the best out of the economy because the underling gauleiters were all competing with each other for position and not doing what was best for winning the war.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Where the Nazis Socialists or Capitalists?

Post by lwd »

Indeed there seems to have been more "central planning and control" in the US than in Germany.
Post Reply