Economy of Third Reich was a socialist economy

Joined Sep 2019
486 Posts | 254+
Slovenia
Last edited:
@Escritor KMT was an ally of USA and in war with Third Reich. The cooperation between KMT and Germany before the war was nothing compared to Soviet collaboration with the Third Reich during the war 1939-41.

Sino-German cooperation (1926–1941) - Wikipedia

About south Vietnam i just opened another topic, about legacy of Diem. You can see that he did not call himself a capitalist and democrat yet he was anticolonial of course. He said about himself he was for the third way. He was not so bad than communists of course.

The legacy of Ngo Dinh Diem
 
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
I'm really quite puzzled as to this fairly recent movement to try and prove that the Nazi's and other sundry facists are actually socialists.
It's a ridiculous premise, usually easily debunked, often based on the words social, socialist or socialism being bandied about for not more than advantage or an attemp to garner followers.

One thing to remember, people who form totalitarian parties, and Hitler especially, are/were complete graspers, they'd say or do anything to achieve their ends, that being power and money. So trying to put them into any kind of pigeon hole/political group is kind of a pointless exercise.

You've been gone a while!
 
  • Like
Reactions: pablo668
Joined Oct 2010
17,025 Posts | 4,448+
First many here do not understand that taking a 'little of Marx' does not make you Marxist. You can not take a little of dogmatic teaching and you are dogmatic yourself, you are rather a heretic. You can not take a piece of Marx or piece of sharia for example and than you are a marxist or an islamist.

which undermines everything you have posted.

Socialism is NOT Marxism. All Socialists are not Marxists. A lot of socialists utterly reject Marxism.
 
Joined Jan 2017
11,739 Posts | 5,015+
Sydney
A side comment , was the republic of Venice a socialist state
they were big on regulation and had an advanced economy based on trade , manufacturing and sophisticated finances

"
The
government of the Republic allocated a substantial portion of its surplus revenues to the
establishment and funding of new welfare legislation, influenced by Roman and Byzantine
legal precedents.
The nature of the Venetian parliamentary system gave rise to a host of detailed
norms aimed at subsidizing the import of food and primary necessities. An insular republic,
without substantial local agricultural resources, thus devised a system to sustain its growing
population—by importing food over long distances—even as the beginning of the Little Ice
Age began to impact harvests throughout Europe and the Mediterranean.
In addition, the Republic created and funded the first and largest state-sponsored
staff of medical practitioners in Europe, intended to preserve the public's health in the
expansive territories under its control. "
 
Joined Oct 2011
1,167 Posts | 656+
Croatia
Nazis *were* facists,

No, they were not. Italian fascists (as in, the original ones) never had extermination camps (everybody had concentration camps), their ideas of "Lebensraum" were based more on the idea of Roman Empire and Republic of Venice than on notions of racial superiority, and they in fact did not have any ideas racial superiority more pronounced than anybody else in Europe these days - at least not before their association with Nazis.

These explain it in greater detail:
The Nazis Aren’t Who We Think They Are - Law & Liberty
The Failure to Define Fascism Today
 
  • Like
Reactions: AnonymousProfesor
Joined Sep 2019
486 Posts | 254+
Slovenia
Last edited:
@pugsville you do not need to be Marxist to be a socialist yet marxists were socialists. I do not take dogmatic teachings of Marx to determine who is socialist. But also i argue you can not take just part of dogmatic teaching of Marx and say you are following him. Also national socialists were not marxists they directly rejected marxism but that still were socialists. The definition of socialism is that you put public property ownership before private property ownership or that you want control over private property - like for the benefit of society. It is obvious from the analysis of the economy of the Third Reich that it fits well in this definition. On the other hand the analysis of economy of Scandinavia or France under its politicians from socialist parties does not show that they destroyed free market and capitalism.
 
Joined Dec 2011
1,445 Posts | 67+
Belgium
@pugsville you do not need to be Marxist to be a socialist yet marxists were socialists. I do not take dogmatic teachings of Marx to determine who is socialist. But also i argue you can not take just part of dogmatic teaching of Marx and say you are following him. Also national socialists were not marxists they directly rejected marxism but that still were socialists. The definition of socialism is that you put public property ownership before private property ownership or that you want control over private property - like for the benefit of society. It is obvious from the analysis of the economy of the Third Reich that it fits well in this definition. On the other hand the analysis of economy of Scandinavia or France under its politicians from socialist parties does not show that they destroyed free market and capitalism.

Anonymous Professor,

read once this thesis about corporatism in Nazi Germany
A comparative analysis of corporatism in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy

Kind regards, Paul.
 
Joined Sep 2019
486 Posts | 254+
Slovenia
For educational purposes how price controls are making the situation on market worse readers of the forum can watch this video:



It is explained very good specially about price controls. This is just an example of two unproductive political interventions in free market. If we add state controling of what should be produced the mess is of course even bigger. Governament does not have in fact an idea how its decisions about production will influence economy in general. I demonstrated before how governament interventions in prices of industrial goods and grain helped Stalin to gain absolute power in 1928/29.
 
  • Like
Reactions: macon
Joined Oct 2010
17,025 Posts | 4,448+
@pugsville you do not need to be Marxist to be a socialist yet marxists were socialists. I do not take dogmatic teachings of Marx to determine who is socialist. But also i argue you can not take just part of dogmatic teaching of Marx and say you are following him. Also national socialists were not marxists they directly rejected marxism but that still were socialists. The definition of socialism is that you put public property ownership before private property ownership or that you want control over private property - like for the benefit of society. It is obvious from the analysis of the economy of the Third Reich that it fits well in this definition. On the other hand the analysis of economy of Scandinavia or France under its politicians from socialist parties does not show that they destroyed free market and capitalism.

This is not a reasonable definition of socialism.
 
Joined Jan 2017
11,739 Posts | 5,015+
Sydney
Every government system has the mood of its people as a major concern
it has to keep them reasonably satisfied and entertained
else they might revolt and change the governance ,
the prospect of being lynched is a prime motivator in social concerns

that's not socialism that's statecraft
 

Trending History Discussions

Top