Trump’s “Ultimate Deal!” It’s got to be bigger than the huge deals on health care, immigration, trade, North Korea denuclearization, and Mexico paying for The Wall because those never happened either. Just ask the Palestinians (who are still in Gaza and the West Bank because they won’t negotiate with trump’s son in law).
.NAZI's were socialists. How are people this dumb?
Communist don't like LBGTZXQY Shit one bit. Off to the gulag with them and many others. The left wanting political systems that have murdered more than 100 million people. There's the dangerous purple right there.
Some were. I think Goebbels was. Hitler, from what I recall reading about his debates with Otto Strasser and other political figures of the time, seemed @Swaye d by capitalism and private industry. Sure, he wasn't big on individual rights to the extent that individuals were expected to act in the best interests of Germany - in that he was an extreme nationalist. But his views on race and and the inherent superiority of some people over others ("race of Lords") folds in nicely with capitalism. Sure they ran herd on industry during the war; we did too. But Hitler, I believe, thought that natural selection made some people better businessmen than others. He also thought little of the working class in general, arguing forcefully that incompetent people who have "no notion of ideas or of anything" would ruin commerce and thus the economy, and he was all about the economy because he was all about Germany and German rule. Gotta have an economy first.
Hitler was a fascist; I don't think he was a socialist. If you think that abject nationalism and subjugation of the individual to the needs of the nation equates to socialism, then you also think the current alt right nationalists are socialists, which I don't think is correct.
And, so, while there were probably some real socialists among the Nazi party ranks, there is ample evidence to suggest Hitler thought otherwise and was militantly against any road to full on communism. And if that's true - we can let @YellowSnow the Historian or @UW_Doog_Bot the Economis weigh in to confirm - then the Nazis were not socialists, because the Nazis were whatever Hitler wanted them to ben.
The word "socialist" in the Nazi party name has a whole historical context ... that's not the argument anybody makes.
What I know of Hitler from reading, his core philosophy on life and human beings does not fit well with any notion of "we should all be the same", and I think he was quite comfortable with the notion of an elite ruling class within Germany.
[But in so acting, he illustrated a key point that Mises often stressed: any intervention in the free market necessitates further interventions, because the initial measure will fail to achieve its goals. If the interventions continue, full state control of the market will rapidly ensue. The end result will be not capitalism, but socialism.]
Trump’s “Ultimate Deal!” It’s got to be bigger than the huge deals on health care, immigration, trade, North Korea denuclearization, and Mexico paying for The Wall because those never happened either. Just ask the Palestinians (who are still in Gaza and the West Bank because they won’t negotiate with trump’s son in law).
.NAZI's were socialists. How are people this dumb?
Communist don't like LBGTZXQY Shit one bit. Off to the gulag with them and many others. The left wanting political systems that have murdered more than 100 million people. There's the dangerous purple right there.
Some were. I think Goebbels was. Hitler, from what I recall reading about his debates with Otto Strasser and other political figures of the time, seemed @Swaye d by capitalism and private industry. Sure, he wasn't big on individual rights to the extent that individuals were expected to act in the best interests of Germany - in that he was an extreme nationalist. But his views on race and and the inherent superiority of some people over others ("race of Lords") folds in nicely with capitalism. Sure they ran herd on industry during the war; we did too. But Hitler, I believe, thought that natural selection made some people better businessmen than others. He also thought little of the working class in general, arguing forcefully that incompetent people who have "no notion of ideas or of anything" would ruin commerce and thus the economy, and he was all about the economy because he was all about Germany and German rule. Gotta have an economy first.
Hitler was a fascist; I don't think he was a socialist. If you think that abject nationalism and subjugation of the individual to the needs of the nation equates to socialism, then you also think the current alt right nationalists are socialists, which I don't think is correct.
And, so, while there were probably some real socialists among the Nazi party ranks, there is ample evidence to suggest Hitler thought otherwise and was militantly against any road to full on communism. And if that's true - we can let @YellowSnow the Historian or @UW_Doog_Bot the Economis weigh in to confirm - then the Nazis were not socialists, because the Nazis were whatever Hitler wanted them to ben.
The word "socialist" in the Nazi party name has a whole historical context ... that's not the argument anybody makes.
What I know of Hitler from reading, his core philosophy on life and human beings does not fit well with any notion of "we should all be the same", and I think he was quite comfortable with the notion of an elite ruling class within Germany.
[But in so acting, he illustrated a key point that Mises often stressed: any intervention in the free market necessitates further interventions, because the initial measure will fail to achieve its goals. If the interventions continue, full state control of the market will rapidly ensue. The end result will be not capitalism, but socialism.]
Sounds familiar...
Good piece Damone. It certainly mucks up the issue a bit doesn't it? I wonder how things would have LIPO'd in Germany on this point outside of depression recovery and wartim measures. I go back to some passages from Hitler's conversations/debates with Otto Strasser, like the following (purposefully omitting some yammering for brevity's sake):
But when Hitler defended the idea that the economy should obey the criteria of profitability, I interjected: “In this regard, National Socialism defends a completely opposite position!
On the demand of Mister Hitler, I declared that in my opinion, 49% of property and wealth should remain in the hands of their current owners, 41% should return to the state which represents the nation, and 10% to the personnel of the enterprise. Decisions should be made with equal representation between the entrepreneur, the state, and the employees, in a way that reduces the influence of the state and increases that of the workers.
Hitler: “That’s Marxism, Bolshevism, pure and simple. You pretend to extend this democracy to economics, which lead us politically to Russia, and ruins the entire nation in the same stroke. Likewise, you will end all progress of humanity, which was always made by an individual, by a great inventor.”
Hitler: “What you call socialism is a purely Marxist vision. ... The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions?
There's moar, but suffice it to say, at least at the time of this debate, Hitler seems to have maintained some belief in private property and an aversion to Marxist thought.
The article you linked also mentioned that Hitler was a bit of an ad hoc guy when it came to the economy, so maybe in the end he lacked a sophisticated economic philosophy of his own. Maybe Yella's right: it's probably moar important to focus on whether a party wants totalitarian control rather than their esoteric views on economis theory. And we know where the Nazi's stood there. That is, whatever it takes to secure control and victory (however defined), they'll do that. If in a given time that means government intervention in the economy, to whatever degree, then that's that and they'll take and control what they need to take and control. To that extent, then, I would view the Nazi's less as a pure example of a political body focused on wealth distribution and controlling the means of production, and more of a heavy nationalist group hell bent on making Germany the ruling power in the world, and (certain) Germans, the rulers.
We are all terribly disappointed to learn trump can’t negotiate a deal. With anyone. Anywhere. On any issue.
Yeah he should negotiate all his deals like BO did right? Bend over for Putin on missile defense and deliver 1.7 billion to the largest exporter of terrorism who turned right around and used some of those funds to further support that terrorism while we got zero in return except a stronger terrorist. I should remind you that congress determined that Obama lied about that deal but I know you don't care.
You mean that kind of negotiating or are you daydreaming of something else you partisan simpleton?
See? It’s not that hard to agree. Trump is incapable and lacks the competence to negotiate an agreement with anyone. Anywhere. On any Issue. You’re making progress ducktard but still have lots of issues to address.
With libs sueing Trump at every turn and sending Kerry to illegally advise them to not foretaste because they'll get pier babble and will kiss everyone's as like Obama did why shouldn't they drag there feet? They are the roadblock blame your comrades and can I have your mom's meatloaf recipe?
What the fuck did you mean to convey in this pile of English gibberish. Jesus old man. Get it together. Typos are one thing; this incomprehensible.
Trump’s “Ultimate Deal!” It’s got to be bigger than the huge deals on health care, immigration, trade, North Korea denuclearization, and Mexico paying for The Wall because those never happened either. Just ask the Palestinians (who are still in Gaza and the West Bank because they won’t negotiate with trump’s son in law).
.NAZI's were socialists. How are people this dumb?
Communist don't like LBGTZXQY Shit one bit. Off to the gulag with them and many others. The left wanting political systems that have murdered more than 100 million people. There's the dangerous purple right there.
Some were. I think Goebbels was. Hitler, from what I recall reading about his debates with Otto Strasser and other political figures of the time, seemed @Swaye d by capitalism and private industry. Sure, he wasn't big on individual rights to the extent that individuals were expected to act in the best interests of Germany - in that he was an extreme nationalist. But his views on race and and the inherent superiority of some people over others ("race of Lords") folds in nicely with capitalism. Sure they ran herd on industry during the war; we did too. But Hitler, I believe, thought that natural selection made some people better businessmen than others. He also thought little of the working class in general, arguing forcefully that incompetent people who have "no notion of ideas or of anything" would ruin commerce and thus the economy, and he was all about the economy because he was all about Germany and German rule. Gotta have an economy first.
Hitler was a fascist; I don't think he was a socialist. If you think that abject nationalism and subjugation of the individual to the needs of the nation equates to socialism, then you also think the current alt right nationalists are socialists, which I don't think is correct.
And, so, while there were probably some real socialists among the Nazi party ranks, there is ample evidence to suggest Hitler thought otherwise and was militantly against any road to full on communism. And if that's true - we can let @YellowSnow the Historian or @UW_Doog_Bot the Economis weigh in to confirm - then the Nazis were not socialists, because the Nazis were whatever Hitler wanted them to ben.
The word "socialist" in the Nazi party name has a whole historical context ... that's not the argument anybody makes.
What I know of Hitler from reading, his core philosophy on life and human beings does not fit well with any notion of "we should all be the same", and I think he was quite comfortable with the notion of an elite ruling class within Germany.
National Socialists were an alternative to communists and neither as far right or as far left as both sides like to portray so their chosen team doesn't include the "bad guys". They were a "middle road" of socialism which was reaction-arily nationalist compared to the "workers of the world unite" of the far left. Some people classify them as "center-right" on the economic spectrum but I would argue(obviously from an economic freedom perspective) that they are center-left. The Nazis resembled the Commies economically more than they resembled us? or someone like Pinochet(the example of far right authoritarianism) Obviously, on the authoritarian spectrum they are about as up there as possible. Plenty of Nazi era propaganda resembles current DemSoc arguments about the need to "restrain" the free market for the good of the people and the state acting as a benevolent intermediary between market forces and the people. The CCP in China is probably the closest current regime in the world to the Nazi political spectrum location, limited free markets & state sponsored industries with high levels of authoritarianism/nationalism.
Furthermore, the party evolved over time. Ernst Rohm and the SA wing of the party was more radical and left on economis as I recall, but that element was purged in 1934 with the Night of the Long Knives. Ultimately, to consolidate power, Hitler needed to have the backing of both the conservative business leader in Germany, and, of course, the Army. Rohm was seen as a threat to both and got whacked as a result. Plus he liked to diddle the young teen boi recruits.
Chintresting. Didn't realize Rohm was a diddler. I figured that would have been Goring, who was a bit of a weirdo anyway. I've not read much about Rohm, other than the guy was a fucking brute.
Also chintresting to read that Goebbels was a real left winger and dedicated socialist, who was heart broken to learn that Hitler didn't share those views. Of course, Yosef was more in love with Hitler than he was dedicated to any economis ideals, and so probably repressed it and focused on the Yews, a point of commonality with his hero.
It must have been something else to be alive in those days. Can you imagine being young and educated in Germany at that time? What would you have done?
Trump’s “Ultimate Deal!” It’s got to be bigger than the huge deals on health care, immigration, trade, North Korea denuclearization, and Mexico paying for The Wall because those never happened either. Just ask the Palestinians (who are still in Gaza and the West Bank because they won’t negotiate with trump’s son in law).
.NAZI's were socialists. How are people this dumb?
Communist don't like LBGTZXQY Shit one bit. Off to the gulag with them and many others. The left wanting political systems that have murdered more than 100 million people. There's the dangerous purple right there.
Some were. I think Goebbels was. Hitler, from what I recall reading about his debates with Otto Strasser and other political figures of the time, seemed @Swaye d by capitalism and private industry. Sure, he wasn't big on individual rights to the extent that individuals were expected to act in the best interests of Germany - in that he was an extreme nationalist. But his views on race and and the inherent superiority of some people over others ("race of Lords") folds in nicely with capitalism. Sure they ran herd on industry during the war; we did too. But Hitler, I believe, thought that natural selection made some people better businessmen than others. He also thought little of the working class in general, arguing forcefully that incompetent people who have "no notion of ideas or of anything" would ruin commerce and thus the economy, and he was all about the economy because he was all about Germany and German rule. Gotta have an economy first.
Hitler was a fascist; I don't think he was a socialist. If you think that abject nationalism and subjugation of the individual to the needs of the nation equates to socialism, then you also think the current alt right nationalists are socialists, which I don't think is correct.
And, so, while there were probably some real socialists among the Nazi party ranks, there is ample evidence to suggest Hitler thought otherwise and was militantly against any road to full on communism. And if that's true - we can let @YellowSnow the Historian or @UW_Doog_Bot the Economis weigh in to confirm - then the Nazis were not socialists, because the Nazis were whatever Hitler wanted them to ben.
The word "socialist" in the Nazi party name has a whole historical context ... that's not the argument anybody makes.
What I know of Hitler from reading, his core philosophy on life and human beings does not fit well with any notion of "we should all be the same", and I think he was quite comfortable with the notion of an elite ruling class within Germany.
National Socialists were an alternative to communists and neither as far right or as far left as both sides like to portray so their chosen team doesn't include the "bad guys". They were a "middle road" of socialism which was reaction-arily nationalist compared to the "workers of the world unite" of the far left. Some people classify them as "center-right" on the economic spectrum but I would argue(obviously from an economic freedom perspective) that they are center-left. The Nazis resembled the Commies economically more than they resembled us? or someone like Pinochet(the example of far right authoritarianism) Obviously, on the authoritarian spectrum they are about as up there as possible. Plenty of Nazi era propaganda resembles current DemSoc arguments about the need to "restrain" the free market for the good of the people and the state acting as a benevolent intermediary between market forces and the people. The CCP in China is probably the closest current regime in the world to the Nazi political spectrum location, limited free markets & state sponsored industries with high levels of authoritarianism/nationalism.
Furthermore, the party evolved over time. Ernst Rohm and the SA wing of the party was more radical and left on economis as I recall, but that element was purged in 1934 with the Night of the Long Knives. Ultimately, to consolidate power, Hitler needed to have the backing of both the conservative business leader in Germany, and, of course, the Army. Rohm was seen as a threat to both and got whacked as a result. Plus he liked to diddle the young teen boi recruits.
Chintresting. Didn't realize Rohm was a diddler. I figured that would have been Goring, who was a bit of a weirdo anyway. I've not read much about Rohm, other than the guy was a fucking brute.
Also chintresting to read that Goebbels was a real left winger and dedicated socialist, who was heart broken to learn that Hitler didn't share those views. Of course, Yosef was more in love with Hitler than he was dedicated to any economis ideals, and so probably repressed it and focused on the Yews, a point of commonality with his hero.
It must have been something else to be alive in those days. Can you imagine being young and educated in Germany at that time? What would you have done?
Trump’s “Ultimate Deal!” It’s got to be bigger than the huge deals on health care, immigration, trade, North Korea denuclearization, and Mexico paying for The Wall because those never happened either. Just ask the Palestinians (who are still in Gaza and the West Bank because they won’t negotiate with trump’s son in law).
.NAZI's were socialists. How are people this dumb?
Communist don't like LBGTZXQY Shit one bit. Off to the gulag with them and many others. The left wanting political systems that have murdered more than 100 million people. There's the dangerous purple right there.
Some were. I think Goebbels was. Hitler, from what I recall reading about his debates with Otto Strasser and other political figures of the time, seemed @Swaye d by capitalism and private industry. Sure, he wasn't big on individual rights to the extent that individuals were expected to act in the best interests of Germany - in that he was an extreme nationalist. But his views on race and and the inherent superiority of some people over others ("race of Lords") folds in nicely with capitalism. Sure they ran herd on industry during the war; we did too. But Hitler, I believe, thought that natural selection made some people better businessmen than others. He also thought little of the working class in general, arguing forcefully that incompetent people who have "no notion of ideas or of anything" would ruin commerce and thus the economy, and he was all about the economy because he was all about Germany and German rule. Gotta have an economy first.
Hitler was a fascist; I don't think he was a socialist. If you think that abject nationalism and subjugation of the individual to the needs of the nation equates to socialism, then you also think the current alt right nationalists are socialists, which I don't think is correct.
And, so, while there were probably some real socialists among the Nazi party ranks, there is ample evidence to suggest Hitler thought otherwise and was militantly against any road to full on communism. And if that's true - we can let @YellowSnow the Historian or @UW_Doog_Bot the Economis weigh in to confirm - then the Nazis were not socialists, because the Nazis were whatever Hitler wanted them to ben.
The word "socialist" in the Nazi party name has a whole historical context ... that's not the argument anybody makes.
What I know of Hitler from reading, his core philosophy on life and human beings does not fit well with any notion of "we should all be the same", and I think he was quite comfortable with the notion of an elite ruling class within Germany.
National Socialists were an alternative to communists and neither as far right or as far left as both sides like to portray so their chosen team doesn't include the "bad guys". They were a "middle road" of socialism which was reaction-arily nationalist compared to the "workers of the world unite" of the far left. Some people classify them as "center-right" on the economic spectrum but I would argue(obviously from an economic freedom perspective) that they are center-left. The Nazis resembled the Commies economically more than they resembled us? or someone like Pinochet(the example of far right authoritarianism) Obviously, on the authoritarian spectrum they are about as up there as possible. Plenty of Nazi era propaganda resembles current DemSoc arguments about the need to "restrain" the free market for the good of the people and the state acting as a benevolent intermediary between market forces and the people. The CCP in China is probably the closest current regime in the world to the Nazi political spectrum location, limited free markets & state sponsored industries with high levels of authoritarianism/nationalism.
This seems right to me. I guess the question, though, remains: if there was a cohesive Nazi economic platform, what was it? If you're in total fucking control of everything, and can tell people when to shit, then why didn't they nationalize everything? What better time to seize control of productivity? I think the fact that the entire historical context for Nazi rule was either in post-depression era and wartime Germany - times in which government predictably interferes in the national economy -somewhat thwarts the analysis.
And, as I mention in another post, there is ample evidence their supreme leader was sympathetic to the rule of private property and the entrepreneurial contributor. He was more about Germany qua Germany than he was about ordinary German workers. So whatever you conclude, you have to account for Hitler, because he was the Nazi party for all intents and purposes.
We are all terribly disappointed to learn trump can’t negotiate a deal. With anyone. Anywhere. On any issue.
Yeah he should negotiate all his deals like BO did right? Bend over for Putin on missile defense and deliver 1.7 billion to the largest exporter of terrorism who turned right around and used some of those funds to further support that terrorism while we got zero in return except a stronger terrorist. I should remind you that congress determined that Obama lied about that deal but I know you don't care.
You mean that kind of negotiating or are you daydreaming of something else you partisan simpleton?
See? It’s not that hard to agree. Trump is incapable and lacks the competence to negotiate an agreement with anyone. Anywhere. On any Issue. You’re making progress ducktard but still have lots of issues to address.
?
What the fuck did you mean to convey in this pile of English gibberish. Jesus old man. Get it together. Typos are one thing; this incomprehensible.
Airplane and a cell phone. Auto spell is really getting fucked up. Couldn't correct it. Should read:
With libs sueing Trump at every turn and sending Kerry to illegally advise them to not agree to anything because dems will get power and will kiss everyone's ass like Obama did. Why shouldn't they drag there feet? They are the roadblock blame your comrades and can I have your mom's meatloaf recipe?
We are all terribly disappointed to learn trump can’t negotiate a deal. With anyone. Anywhere. On any issue.
Yeah he should negotiate all his deals like BO did right? Bend over for Putin on missile defense and deliver 1.7 billion to the largest exporter of terrorism who turned right around and used some of those funds to further support that terrorism while we got zero in return except a stronger terrorist. I should remind you that congress determined that Obama lied about that deal but I know you don't care.
You mean that kind of negotiating or are you daydreaming of something else you partisan simpleton?
See? It’s not that hard to agree. Trump is incapable and lacks the competence to negotiate an agreement with anyone. Anywhere. On any Issue. You’re making progress ducktard but still have lots of issues to address.
?
What the fuck did you mean to convey in this pile of English gibberish. Jesus old man. Get it together. Typos are one thing; this incomprehensible.
Airplane and a cell phone. Auto spell is really getting fucked up. Couldn't correct it. Should read:
With libs sueing Trump at every turn and sending Kerry to illegally advise them to not agree to anything because dems will get power and will kiss everyone's ass like Obama did. Why shouldn't they drag there feet? They are the roadblock blame your comrades and can I have your mom's meatloaf recipe?
Trump’s “Ultimate Deal!” It’s got to be bigger than the huge deals on health care, immigration, trade, North Korea denuclearization, and Mexico paying for The Wall because those never happened either. Just ask the Palestinians (who are still in Gaza and the West Bank because they won’t negotiate with trump’s son in law).
.NAZI's were socialists. How are people this dumb?
Communist don't like LBGTZXQY Shit one bit. Off to the gulag with them and many others. The left wanting political systems that have murdered more than 100 million people. There's the dangerous purple right there.
Some were. I think Goebbels was. Hitler, from what I recall reading about his debates with Otto Strasser and other political figures of the time, seemed @Swaye d by capitalism and private industry. Sure, he wasn't big on individual rights to the extent that individuals were expected to act in the best interests of Germany - in that he was an extreme nationalist. But his views on race and and the inherent superiority of some people over others ("race of Lords") folds in nicely with capitalism. Sure they ran herd on industry during the war; we did too. But Hitler, I believe, thought that natural selection made some people better businessmen than others. He also thought little of the working class in general, arguing forcefully that incompetent people who have "no notion of ideas or of anything" would ruin commerce and thus the economy, and he was all about the economy because he was all about Germany and German rule. Gotta have an economy first.
Hitler was a fascist; I don't think he was a socialist. If you think that abject nationalism and subjugation of the individual to the needs of the nation equates to socialism, then you also think the current alt right nationalists are socialists, which I don't think is correct.
And, so, while there were probably some real socialists among the Nazi party ranks, there is ample evidence to suggest Hitler thought otherwise and was militantly against any road to full on communism. And if that's true - we can let @YellowSnow the Historian or @UW_Doog_Bot the Economis weigh in to confirm - then the Nazis were not socialists, because the Nazis were whatever Hitler wanted them to ben.
The word "socialist" in the Nazi party name has a whole historical context ... that's not the argument anybody makes.
What I know of Hitler from reading, his core philosophy on life and human beings does not fit well with any notion of "we should all be the same", and I think he was quite comfortable with the notion of an elite ruling class within Germany.
National Socialists were an alternative to communists and neither as far right or as far left as both sides like to portray so their chosen team doesn't include the "bad guys". They were a "middle road" of socialism which was reaction-arily nationalist compared to the "workers of the world unite" of the far left. Some people classify them as "center-right" on the economic spectrum but I would argue(obviously from an economic freedom perspective) that they are center-left. The Nazis resembled the Commies economically more than they resembled us? or someone like Pinochet(the example of far right authoritarianism) Obviously, on the authoritarian spectrum they are about as up there as possible. Plenty of Nazi era propaganda resembles current DemSoc arguments about the need to "restrain" the free market for the good of the people and the state acting as a benevolent intermediary between market forces and the people. The CCP in China is probably the closest current regime in the world to the Nazi political spectrum location, limited free markets & state sponsored industries with high levels of authoritarianism/nationalism.
This seems right to me. I guess the question, though, remains: if there was a cohesive Nazi economic platform, what was it? If you're in total fucking control of everything, and can tell people when to shit, then why didn't they nationalize everything? What better time to seize control of productivity? I think the fact that the entire historical context for Nazi rule was either in post-depression era and wartime Germany - times in which government predictably interferes in the national economy -somewhat thwarts the analysis.
And, as I mention in another post, there is ample evidence their supreme leader was sympathetic to the rule of private property and the entrepreneurial contributor. He was more about Germany qua Germany than he was about ordinary German workers. So whatever you conclude, you have to account for Hitler, because he was the Nazi party for all intents and purposes.
Per Mike's article(and what I say all the tim regarding interventionism) Hitler probably believed that he could manipulate the economy to get the outcomes he wanted, which inevitably led to more and more interventions, and more and more state command and control of the economy(Doesn't sound like anyone in the Tug...).
It's a mistake to look for a deeper or broader economic vision imo. I think he was a nationalist first with intentions of building wealth and prosperity for ze' Germans and would have taken whatever pragmatic economic policies he thought were best to those ends. His ideology was political/social first and economic only as a means to those ends.
Trump’s “Ultimate Deal!” It’s got to be bigger than the huge deals on health care, immigration, trade, North Korea denuclearization, and Mexico paying for The Wall because those never happened either. Just ask the Palestinians (who are still in Gaza and the West Bank because they won’t negotiate with trump’s son in law).
.NAZI's were socialists. How are people this dumb?
Communist don't like LBGTZXQY Shit one bit. Off to the gulag with them and many others. The left wanting political systems that have murdered more than 100 million people. There's the dangerous purple right there.
Some were. I think Goebbels was. Hitler, from what I recall reading about his debates with Otto Strasser and other political figures of the time, seemed @Swaye d by capitalism and private industry. Sure, he wasn't big on individual rights to the extent that individuals were expected to act in the best interests of Germany - in that he was an extreme nationalist. But his views on race and and the inherent superiority of some people over others ("race of Lords") folds in nicely with capitalism. Sure they ran herd on industry during the war; we did too. But Hitler, I believe, thought that natural selection made some people better businessmen than others. He also thought little of the working class in general, arguing forcefully that incompetent people who have "no notion of ideas or of anything" would ruin commerce and thus the economy, and he was all about the economy because he was all about Germany and German rule. Gotta have an economy first.
Hitler was a fascist; I don't think he was a socialist. If you think that abject nationalism and subjugation of the individual to the needs of the nation equates to socialism, then you also think the current alt right nationalists are socialists, which I don't think is correct.
And, so, while there were probably some real socialists among the Nazi party ranks, there is ample evidence to suggest Hitler thought otherwise and was militantly against any road to full on communism. And if that's true - we can let @YellowSnow the Historian or @UW_Doog_Bot the Economis weigh in to confirm - then the Nazis were not socialists, because the Nazis were whatever Hitler wanted them to ben.
The word "socialist" in the Nazi party name has a whole historical context ... that's not the argument anybody makes.
What I know of Hitler from reading, his core philosophy on life and human beings does not fit well with any notion of "we should all be the same", and I think he was quite comfortable with the notion of an elite ruling class within Germany.
National Socialists were an alternative to communists and neither as far right or as far left as both sides like to portray so their chosen team doesn't include the "bad guys". They were a "middle road" of socialism which was reaction-arily nationalist compared to the "workers of the world unite" of the far left. Some people classify them as "center-right" on the economic spectrum but I would argue(obviously from an economic freedom perspective) that they are center-left. The Nazis resembled the Commies economically more than they resembled us? or someone like Pinochet(the example of far right authoritarianism) Obviously, on the authoritarian spectrum they are about as up there as possible. Plenty of Nazi era propaganda resembles current DemSoc arguments about the need to "restrain" the free market for the good of the people and the state acting as a benevolent intermediary between market forces and the people. The CCP in China is probably the closest current regime in the world to the Nazi political spectrum location, limited free markets & state sponsored industries with high levels of authoritarianism/nationalism.
Furthermore, the party evolved over time. Ernst Rohm and the SA wing of the party was more radical and left on economis as I recall, but that element was purged in 1934 with the Night of the Long Knives. Ultimately, to consolidate power, Hitler needed to have the backing of both the conservative business leader in Germany, and, of course, the Army. Rohm was seen as a threat to both and got whacked as a result. Plus he liked to diddle the young teen boi recruits.
Chintresting. Didn't realize Rohm was a diddler. I figured that would have been Goring, who was a bit of a weirdo anyway. I've not read much about Rohm, other than the guy was a fucking brute.
Also chintresting to read that Goebbels was a real left winger and dedicated socialist, who was heart broken to learn that Hitler didn't share those views. Of course, Yosef was more in love with Hitler than he was dedicated to any economis ideals, and so probably repressed it and focused on the Yews, a point of commonality with his hero.
It must have been something else to be alive in those days. Can you imagine being young and educated in Germany at that time? What would you have done?
Trump’s “Ultimate Deal!” It’s got to be bigger than the huge deals on health care, immigration, trade, North Korea denuclearization, and Mexico paying for The Wall because those never happened either. Just ask the Palestinians (who are still in Gaza and the West Bank because they won’t negotiate with trump’s son in law).
.NAZI's were socialists. How are people this dumb?
Communist don't like LBGTZXQY Shit one bit. Off to the gulag with them and many others. The left wanting political systems that have murdered more than 100 million people. There's the dangerous purple right there.
Some were. I think Goebbels was. Hitler, from what I recall reading about his debates with Otto Strasser and other political figures of the time, seemed @Swaye d by capitalism and private industry. Sure, he wasn't big on individual rights to the extent that individuals were expected to act in the best interests of Germany - in that he was an extreme nationalist. But his views on race and and the inherent superiority of some people over others ("race of Lords") folds in nicely with capitalism. Sure they ran herd on industry during the war; we did too. But Hitler, I believe, thought that natural selection made some people better businessmen than others. He also thought little of the working class in general, arguing forcefully that incompetent people who have "no notion of ideas or of anything" would ruin commerce and thus the economy, and he was all about the economy because he was all about Germany and German rule. Gotta have an economy first.
Hitler was a fascist; I don't think he was a socialist. If you think that abject nationalism and subjugation of the individual to the needs of the nation equates to socialism, then you also think the current alt right nationalists are socialists, which I don't think is correct.
And, so, while there were probably some real socialists among the Nazi party ranks, there is ample evidence to suggest Hitler thought otherwise and was militantly against any road to full on communism. And if that's true - we can let @YellowSnow the Historian or @UW_Doog_Bot the Economis weigh in to confirm - then the Nazis were not socialists, because the Nazis were whatever Hitler wanted them to ben.
The word "socialist" in the Nazi party name has a whole historical context ... that's not the argument anybody makes.
What I know of Hitler from reading, his core philosophy on life and human beings does not fit well with any notion of "we should all be the same", and I think he was quite comfortable with the notion of an elite ruling class within Germany.
National Socialists were an alternative to communists and neither as far right or as far left as both sides like to portray so their chosen team doesn't include the "bad guys". They were a "middle road" of socialism which was reaction-arily nationalist compared to the "workers of the world unite" of the far left. Some people classify them as "center-right" on the economic spectrum but I would argue(obviously from an economic freedom perspective) that they are center-left. The Nazis resembled the Commies economically more than they resembled us? or someone like Pinochet(the example of far right authoritarianism) Obviously, on the authoritarian spectrum they are about as up there as possible. Plenty of Nazi era propaganda resembles current DemSoc arguments about the need to "restrain" the free market for the good of the people and the state acting as a benevolent intermediary between market forces and the people. The CCP in China is probably the closest current regime in the world to the Nazi political spectrum location, limited free markets & state sponsored industries with high levels of authoritarianism/nationalism.
This seems right to me. I guess the question, though, remains: if there was a cohesive Nazi economic platform, what was it? If you're in total fucking control of everything, and can tell people when to shit, then why didn't they nationalize everything? What better time to seize control of productivity? I think the fact that the entire historical context for Nazi rule was either in post-depression era and wartime Germany - times in which government predictably interferes in the national economy -somewhat thwarts the analysis.
And, as I mention in another post, there is ample evidence their supreme leader was sympathetic to the rule of private property and the entrepreneurial contributor. He was more about Germany qua Germany than he was about ordinary German workers. So whatever you conclude, you have to account for Hitler, because he was the Nazi party for all intents and purposes.
Per Mike's article(and what I say all the tim regarding interventionism) Hitler probably believed that he could manipulate the economy to get the outcomes he wanted, which inevitably led to more and more interventions, and more and more state command and control of the economy(Doesn't sound like anyone in the Tug...).
It's a mistake to look for a deeper or broader economic vision imo. I think he was a nationalist first with intentions of building wealth and prosperity for ze' Germans and would have taken whatever pragmatic economic policies he thought were best to those ends. His ideology was political/social first and economic only as a means to those ends.
Hey would one of you democrats on here be a real pal and spend some time telling us how Hitler and the Nazi's had nothing to do with socialism? I really would appreciate it and to be honest I find it really, really funny reading all of your historical revisions and attempts to avoid the truth. Thanks again. I will sit back and read your responses now without interruption.
I think what we've decided here is that it's inaccurate to say that the Nazis "had nothing to do with socialism", but that it wasn't their driving philosophy, at least insofar as Hitler was concerned; and when it comes to the Third Reich, I'm not really all that interested in what anybody other than Hitler thought, because they all lined up directly behind him. By the time they were full on into their thing, he and all his henchmen were much more preoccupied with racial politics and nationalist goals than they were in debating economic theory. I think @UW_Doog_Bot has right: there was likely no real developed economic platform (other than the rejection of Bolshevism). Rather, they did whatever was convenient at the time to keep the machine running. Damone's article points out that, Hitler at least, was a little all over the place on economic decisions.
Hey would one of you democrats on here be a real pal and spend some time telling us how Hitler and the Nazi's had nothing to do with socialism? I really would appreciate it and to be honest I find it really, really funny reading all of your historical revisions and attempts to avoid the truth. Thanks again. I will sit back and read your responses now without interruption.
I think what we've decided here is that it's inaccurate to say that the Nazis "had nothing to do with socialism", but that it wasn't their driving philosophy, at least insofar as Hitler was concerned; and when it comes to the Third Reich, I'm not really all that interested in what anybody other than Hitler thought, because they all lined up directly behind him. By the time they were full on into their thing, he and all his henchmen were much more preoccupied with racial politics and nationalist goals than they were in debating economic theory. I think @UW_Doog_Bot has right: there was likely no real developed economic platform (other than the rejection of Bolshevism). Rather, they did whatever was convenient at the time to keep the machine running. Damone's article points out that, Hitler at least, was a little all over the place on economic decisions.
Well, I would add, a rejection of capitalism as well. They attempted to plow a "middle road" similar to Nehru in India which, like many examples in history, meant an ever increasing scope of self-justifying interventionism that lead to a full blown state planned economy.
To me, it's just that, another failed example of the center left and "moderate restraint of the free market".
Trump’s “Ultimate Deal!” It’s got to be bigger than the huge deals on health care, immigration, trade, North Korea denuclearization, and Mexico paying for The Wall because those never happened either. Just ask the Palestinians (who are still in Gaza and the West Bank because they won’t negotiate with trump’s son in law).
.NAZI's were socialists. How are people this dumb?
Communist don't like LBGTZXQY Shit one bit. Off to the gulag with them and many others. The left wanting political systems that have murdered more than 100 million people. There's the dangerous purple right there.
Some were. I think Goebbels was. Hitler, from what I recall reading about his debates with Otto Strasser and other political figures of the time, seemed @Swaye d by capitalism and private industry. Sure, he wasn't big on individual rights to the extent that individuals were expected to act in the best interests of Germany - in that he was an extreme nationalist. But his views on race and and the inherent superiority of some people over others ("race of Lords") folds in nicely with capitalism. Sure they ran herd on industry during the war; we did too. But Hitler, I believe, thought that natural selection made some people better businessmen than others. He also thought little of the working class in general, arguing forcefully that incompetent people who have "no notion of ideas or of anything" would ruin commerce and thus the economy, and he was all about the economy because he was all about Germany and German rule. Gotta have an economy first.
Hitler was a fascist; I don't think he was a socialist. If you think that abject nationalism and subjugation of the individual to the needs of the nation equates to socialism, then you also think the current alt right nationalists are socialists, which I don't think is correct.
And, so, while there were probably some real socialists among the Nazi party ranks, there is ample evidence to suggest Hitler thought otherwise and was militantly against any road to full on communism. And if that's true - we can let @YellowSnow the Historian or @UW_Doog_Bot the Economis weigh in to confirm - then the Nazis were not socialists, because the Nazis were whatever Hitler wanted them to ben.
The word "socialist" in the Nazi party name has a whole historical context ... that's not the argument anybody makes.
What I know of Hitler from reading, his core philosophy on life and human beings does not fit well with any notion of "we should all be the same", and I think he was quite comfortable with the notion of an elite ruling class within Germany.
National Socialists were an alternative to communists and neither as far right or as far left as both sides like to portray so their chosen team doesn't include the "bad guys". They were a "middle road" of socialism which was reaction-arily nationalist compared to the "workers of the world unite" of the far left. Some people classify them as "center-right" on the economic spectrum but I would argue(obviously from an economic freedom perspective) that they are center-left. The Nazis resembled the Commies economically more than they resembled us? or someone like Pinochet(the example of far right authoritarianism) Obviously, on the authoritarian spectrum they are about as up there as possible. Plenty of Nazi era propaganda resembles current DemSoc arguments about the need to "restrain" the free market for the good of the people and the state acting as a benevolent intermediary between market forces and the people. The CCP in China is probably the closest current regime in the world to the Nazi political spectrum location, limited free markets & state sponsored industries with high levels of authoritarianism/nationalism.
Furthermore, the party evolved over time. Ernst Rohm and the SA wing of the party was more radical and left on economis as I recall, but that element was purged in 1934 with the Night of the Long Knives. Ultimately, to consolidate power, Hitler needed to have the backing of both the conservative business leader in Germany, and, of course, the Army. Rohm was seen as a threat to both and got whacked as a result. Plus he liked to diddle the young teen boi recruits.
Chintresting. Didn't realize Rohm was a diddler. I figured that would have been Goring, who was a bit of a weirdo anyway. I've not read much about Rohm, other than the guy was a fucking brute.
Also chintresting to read that Goebbels was a real left winger and dedicated socialist, who was heart broken to learn that Hitler didn't share those views. Of course, Yosef was more in love with Hitler than he was dedicated to any economis ideals, and so probably repressed it and focused on the Yews, a point of commonality with his hero.
It must have been something else to be alive in those days. Can you imagine being young and educated in Germany at that time? What would you have done?
Hey would one of you democrats on here be a real pal and spend some time telling us how Hitler and the Nazi's had nothing to do with socialism? I really would appreciate it and to be honest I find it really, really funny reading all of your historical revisions and attempts to avoid the truth. Thanks again. I will sit back and read your responses now without interruption.
I think what we've decided here is that it's inaccurate to say that the Nazis "had nothing to do with socialism", but that it wasn't their driving philosophy, at least insofar as Hitler was concerned; and when it comes to the Third Reich, I'm not really all that interested in what anybody other than Hitler thought, because they all lined up directly behind him. By the time they were full on into their thing, he and all his henchmen were much more preoccupied with racial politics and nationalist goals than they were in debating economic theory. I think @UW_Doog_Bot has right: there was likely no real developed economic platform (other than the rejection of Bolshevism). Rather, they did whatever was convenient at the time to keep the machine running. Damone's article points out that, Hitler at least, was a little all over the place on economic decisions.
Well, I would add, a rejection of capitalism as well. They attempted to plow a "middle road" similar to Nehru in India which, like many examples in history, meant an ever increasing scope of self-justifying interventionism that lead to a full blown state planned economy.
To me, it's just that, another failed example of the center left and "moderate restraint of the free market".
Interestingly enough, if it wasn't for the failure of American capitalism (far less regulated than it is nowadays mind you) in the period circa 1929- 32, the NSDAP would have never won enough seats in the Reichstag for Hitler to be named Chancellor.
Hey would one of you democrats on here be a real pal and spend some time telling us how Hitler and the Nazi's had nothing to do with socialism? I really would appreciate it and to be honest I find it really, really funny reading all of your historical revisions and attempts to avoid the truth. Thanks again. I will sit back and read your responses now without interruption.
I think what we've decided here is that it's inaccurate to say that the Nazis "had nothing to do with socialism", but that it wasn't their driving philosophy, at least insofar as Hitler was concerned; and when it comes to the Third Reich, I'm not really all that interested in what anybody other than Hitler thought, because they all lined up directly behind him. By the time they were full on into their thing, he and all his henchmen were much more preoccupied with racial politics and nationalist goals than they were in debating economic theory. I think @UW_Doog_Bot has right: there was likely no real developed economic platform (other than the rejection of Bolshevism). Rather, they did whatever was convenient at the time to keep the machine running. Damone's article points out that, Hitler at least, was a little all over the place on economic decisions.
Well, I would add, a rejection of capitalism as well. They attempted to plow a "middle road" similar to Nehru in India which, like many examples in history, meant an ever increasing scope of self-justifying interventionism that lead to a full blown state planned economy.
To me, it's just that, another failed example of the center left and "moderate restraint of the free market".
Interestingly enough, if it wasn't for the failure of American capitalism (far less regulated than it is nowadays mind you) in the period circa 1929- 32, the NSDAP would have never won enough seats in the Reichstag for Hitler to be named Chancellor.
You call it the failure of capitalism but I've got plenty of government regulations and market interference to point to in that era. Don't make me start citing economic historians before pointing fingers at my free markets.
Hey would one of you democrats on here be a real pal and spend some time telling us how Hitler and the Nazi's had nothing to do with socialism? I really would appreciate it and to be honest I find it really, really funny reading all of your historical revisions and attempts to avoid the truth. Thanks again. I will sit back and read your responses now without interruption.
I think what we've decided here is that it's inaccurate to say that the Nazis "had nothing to do with socialism", but that it wasn't their driving philosophy, at least insofar as Hitler was concerned; and when it comes to the Third Reich, I'm not really all that interested in what anybody other than Hitler thought, because they all lined up directly behind him. By the time they were full on into their thing, he and all his henchmen were much more preoccupied with racial politics and nationalist goals than they were in debating economic theory. I think @UW_Doog_Bot has right: there was likely no real developed economic platform (other than the rejection of Bolshevism). Rather, they did whatever was convenient at the time to keep the machine running. Damone's article points out that, Hitler at least, was a little all over the place on economic decisions.
Well, I would add, a rejection of capitalism as well. They attempted to plow a "middle road" similar to Nehru in India which, like many examples in history, meant an ever increasing scope of self-justifying interventionism that lead to a full blown state planned economy.
To me, it's just that, another failed example of the center left and "moderate restraint of the free market".
Interestingly enough, if it wasn't for the failure of American capitalism (far less regulated than it is nowadays mind you) in the period circa 1929- 32, the NSDAP would have never won enough seats in the Reichstag for Hitler to be named Chancellor.
You call it the failure of capitalism but I've got plenty of government regulations and market interference to point to in that era. Don't make me start citing economic historians before pointing fingers at my free markets.
We've already discussed at great length the subject and I never disagreed with you, so don't twist. A better form of free-market capitalism, with sound monetary policy and good safety nets (unemployment insurance) would likely avoided the Great Depression. But still...
Hey would one of you democrats on here be a real pal and spend some time telling us how Hitler and the Nazi's had nothing to do with socialism? I really would appreciate it and to be honest I find it really, really funny reading all of your historical revisions and attempts to avoid the truth. Thanks again. I will sit back and read your responses now without interruption.
I think what we've decided here is that it's inaccurate to say that the Nazis "had nothing to do with socialism", but that it wasn't their driving philosophy, at least insofar as Hitler was concerned; and when it comes to the Third Reich, I'm not really all that interested in what anybody other than Hitler thought, because they all lined up directly behind him. By the time they were full on into their thing, he and all his henchmen were much more preoccupied with racial politics and nationalist goals than they were in debating economic theory. I think @UW_Doog_Bot has right: there was likely no real developed economic platform (other than the rejection of Bolshevism). Rather, they did whatever was convenient at the time to keep the machine running. Damone's article points out that, Hitler at least, was a little all over the place on economic decisions.
Well, I would add, a rejection of capitalism as well. They attempted to plow a "middle road" similar to Nehru in India which, like many examples in history, meant an ever increasing scope of self-justifying interventionism that lead to a full blown state planned economy.
To me, it's just that, another failed example of the center left and "moderate restraint of the free market".
Interestingly enough, if it wasn't for the failure of American capitalism (far less regulated than it is nowadays mind you) in the period circa 1929- 32, the NSDAP would have never won enough seats in the Reichstag for Hitler to be named Chancellor.
You call it the failure of capitalism but I've got plenty of government regulations and market interference to point to in that era. Don't make me start citing economic historians before pointing fingers at my free markets.
We've already discussed at great length the subject and I never disagreed with you, so don't twist. A better form of free-market capitalism, with sound monetary policy and good safety nets (unemployment insurance) would likely avoided the Great Depression. But still...
I know, it was moar for the idiots in the back of the crowd who might be thinking "aha! capitalism bad!".
Comments
Sounds familiar...
But when Hitler defended the idea that the economy should obey the criteria of profitability, I interjected: “In this regard, National Socialism defends a completely opposite position!
On the demand of Mister Hitler, I declared that in my opinion, 49% of property and wealth should remain in the hands of their current owners, 41% should return to the state which represents the nation, and 10% to the personnel of the enterprise. Decisions should be made with equal representation between the entrepreneur, the state, and the employees, in a way that reduces the influence of the state and increases that of the workers.
Hitler: “That’s Marxism, Bolshevism, pure and simple. You pretend to extend this democracy to economics, which lead us politically to Russia, and ruins the entire nation in the same stroke. Likewise, you will end all progress of humanity, which was always made by an individual, by a great inventor.”
Hitler: “What you call socialism is a purely Marxist vision. ... The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions?
There's moar, but suffice it to say, at least at the time of this debate, Hitler seems to have maintained some belief in private property and an aversion to Marxist thought.
The article you linked also mentioned that Hitler was a bit of an ad hoc guy when it came to the economy, so maybe in the end he lacked a sophisticated economic philosophy of his own. Maybe Yella's right: it's probably moar important to focus on whether a party wants totalitarian control rather than their esoteric views on economis theory. And we know where the Nazi's stood there. That is, whatever it takes to secure control and victory (however defined), they'll do that. If in a given time that means government intervention in the economy, to whatever degree, then that's that and they'll take and control what they need to take and control. To that extent, then, I would view the Nazi's less as a pure example of a political body focused on wealth distribution and controlling the means of production, and more of a heavy nationalist group hell bent on making Germany the ruling power in the world, and (certain) Germans, the rulers.
Also chintresting to read that Goebbels was a real left winger and dedicated socialist, who was heart broken to learn that Hitler didn't share those views. Of course, Yosef was more in love with Hitler than he was dedicated to any economis ideals, and so probably repressed it and focused on the Yews, a point of commonality with his hero.
It must have been something else to be alive in those days. Can you imagine being young and educated in Germany at that time? What would you have done?
And, as I mention in another post, there is ample evidence their supreme leader was sympathetic to the rule of private property and the entrepreneurial contributor. He was more about Germany qua Germany than he was about ordinary German workers. So whatever you conclude, you have to account for Hitler, because he was the Nazi party for all intents and purposes.
Should read:
With libs sueing Trump at every turn and sending Kerry to illegally advise them to not agree to anything because dems will get power and will kiss everyone's ass like Obama did. Why shouldn't they drag there feet? They are the roadblock blame your comrades and can I have your mom's meatloaf recipe?
It's a mistake to look for a deeper or broader economic vision imo. I think he was a nationalist first with intentions of building wealth and prosperity for ze' Germans and would have taken whatever pragmatic economic policies he thought were best to those ends. His ideology was political/social first and economic only as a means to those ends.
Has there ever been a shittier group
To me, it's just that, another failed example of the center left and "moderate restraint of the free market".