Log in

View Full Version : China to Launch Red Culture Initiative



Dermezel
11th May 2010, 21:39
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/life/2010-05/11/content_9833328.htm


Kong Dongmei has been following in the footsteps of her grandfather, Mao Zedong, by promoting literature and culture. Yang Guang reports
Kong Dongmei has the same mole on her chin as her grandfather, former chairman Mao Zedong, but that's not all. She also has the same ambition to promote culture.




The daughter of Li Min, Mao's only surviving child with second wife He Zizhen, Kong is the president of a Beijing culture corporation.
"I started the enterprise with much the same goals as my grandfather," says the 38-year-old.



In the early 1920s, Mao helped found the Cultural Book Society and its affiliated bookstore, in order to reform academic studies and provide intellectual comfort and stimulation for the nation by introducing new Chinese and foreign publications. Kong intends to popularize "New Red Culture", by offering a modern and diversified perspective on revolutionary history, through publishing books, filming documentaries and operating art studios.



"It is a goal that requires courage and determination," she tells China Daily, at her Bauhaus-style studio in Beijing's 798 Art District.
The studio is lined with shelves and display tables filled with books and souvenirs about Mao and his time.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/life/images/attachement/jpg/site1/20100511/0023ae9885da0d52f37d08.jpg
On the walls and pillars, hang portraits and mottos from the "Great Helmsman," along with posters of leaders Vladimir Lenin, Mahatma Gandhi and Che Guevara.



While talking on the third floor at her studio, she is by no means reticent, but extremely cautious about her words. Her furtive glance at every passer-by signals her constant vigilance.



Kong looks chic, dressed in an agnes b. coat. Although she never met Mao (she was 4 years old and living with her grandmother in Shanghai when he passed away) his affection for her is revealed by her name.



"Grandfather chose the name Dongmei - dong from his own name, and mei from his favorite flower, the plum blossom," she explains.



Kong spent her childhood in Shanghai with He, who had suffered a stroke and was often in hospital. As a result she spent a lot of time in the care of her nanny.



"I liked singing and dancing, but everyone in the house walked and talked softly. I could only sing to myself, humming a melody, picturing the stage and audience in my mind," she recalls.



She was reunited with her parents in Beijing, in 1978, and says the family of four suffered many hardships.



"We lived solely on my mother's salary from the Commission on Science, Technology, and Industry for National Defense, since my father had already lost his job," Kong says.



At a primary school in Beijing, Kong felt the pressure of prying eyes and people eager to judge her because of her grandfather's influence.
She was admitted to what is now Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics (Beihang University), in 1992, and majored in English literature. After graduating she joined the start-up company Taikang Life Insurance Corporation.



In 1999 she went to the United States and earned a master's degree at the University of Pennsylvania.



Life (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/life/index.html)> Profile (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/life/profile.html)


On the shoulders of giants

By Yang Guang (China Daily)
Updated: 2010-05-11 09:10


http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/08image_e/article_comments.jpg Comments(3) (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:docmtend%28%29) http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/08image_e/article_print.jpgPrint (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:Print%28%29)http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/08image_e/article_mail.jpgMail (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/life/2010-05/11/content_9833328.htm#)
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/2009image_e/A.jpg Large (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:doZoom%2816%29) Medium (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:doZoom%2814%29) Small (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:doZoom%2812%29) http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/life/images/attachement/jpg/site1/20100511/0023ae9885da0d52f36a07.jpg Kong Dongmei, granddaughter of former chairman Mao Zedong, wants to popularize "New Red Culture". Jiang Dong/China Daily Kong Dongmei has been following in the footsteps of her grandfather, Mao Zedong, by promoting literature and culture. Yang Guang reports
Kong Dongmei has the same mole on her chin as her grandfather, former chairman Mao Zedong, but that's not all. She also has the same ambition to promote culture.

The daughter of Li Min, Mao's only surviving child with second wife He Zizhen, Kong is the president of a Beijing culture corporation.
"I started the enterprise with much the same goals as my grandfather," says the 38-year-old.
In the early 1920s, Mao helped found the Cultural Book Society and its affiliated bookstore, in order to reform academic studies and provide intellectual comfort and stimulation for the nation by introducing new Chinese and foreign publications. Kong intends to popularize "New Red Culture", by offering a modern and diversified perspective on revolutionary history, through publishing books, filming documentaries and operating art studios.
"It is a goal that requires courage and determination," she tells China Daily, at her Bauhaus-style studio in Beijing's 798 Art District.
The studio is lined with shelves and display tables filled with books and souvenirs about Mao and his time.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/life/images/attachement/jpg/site1/20100511/0023ae9885da0d52f37d08.jpg
On the walls and pillars, hang portraits and mottos from the "Great Helmsman," along with posters of leaders Vladimir Lenin, Mahatma Gandhi and Che Guevara.
While talking on the third floor at her studio, she is by no means reticent, but extremely cautious about her words. Her furtive glance at every passer-by signals her constant vigilance.
Kong looks chic, dressed in an agnes b. coat. Although she never met Mao (she was 4 years old and living with her grandmother in Shanghai when he passed away) his affection for her is revealed by her name.
"Grandfather chose the name Dongmei - dong from his own name, and mei from his favorite flower, the plum blossom," she explains.
Kong spent her childhood in Shanghai with He, who had suffered a stroke and was often in hospital. As a result she spent a lot of time in the care of her nanny.
"I liked singing and dancing, but everyone in the house walked and talked softly. I could only sing to myself, humming a melody, picturing the stage and audience in my mind," she recalls.
She was reunited with her parents in Beijing, in 1978, and says the family of four suffered many hardships.
"We lived solely on my mother's salary from the Commission on Science, Technology, and Industry for National Defense, since my father had already lost his job," Kong says.
At a primary school in Beijing, Kong felt the pressure of prying eyes and people eager to judge her because of her grandfather's influence.
She was admitted to what is now Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics (Beihang University), in 1992, and majored in English literature. After graduating she joined the start-up company Taikang Life Insurance Corporation.
In 1999 she went to the United States and earned a master's degree at the University of Pennsylvania.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/life/images/attachement/jpg/site1/20100511/0023ae9885da0d52f3a40b.jpg While she was studying abroad, there were two questions that lingered in her mind: "What is happening in China?" and "Why is it happening?"


She was offered various explanations but Kong now believes that one has to go back to Mao and his pioneering generation for the answer.
Her mother's memoir in 2000, My Father Mao Zedong, was a revelation and decided her eventual career path.
"My mother lived with my grandfather for 15 years and wrote about her experiences and observations. Unlike her, I had to seek other ways to figure out the answers to what I didn't understand," she says.
After returning from the US in 2001, Kong set about retracing her family's footsteps. She interviewed family members and old acquaintances, dug into historical archives and published four bestsellers: Opening My Family Album: My Grandfather Mao Zedong; Grandmother's Story: Mao Zedong and He Zizhen; Those Days Changed the World - Conversations with Wang Hairong about Mao Zedong's Diplomacy; and Quotations from Chairman Mao.
"It is a way of getting to know more about them, and at the same time it is a journey to my roots," she says.
Kong was deeply moved by the love story between her grandparents, who were married between 1928 and 1937. Mao married Jiang Qing in 1938 and had a daughter, Li Na.
In order to treat her wartime wounds, grandmother He went to the Soviet Union and only returned to China 10 years later.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/life/images/attachement/jpg/site1/20100511/0023ae9885da0d52f3990a.jpg It wasn't until 1959 that He once again met Mao, on Lushan Mountain. It was the first time in 22 years and the last time. She so cherished the memory that she revisited the mountain three times, in 1962, 1965 and 1975.
Kong says Mao was tearful and wrote He a letter when he learned of her stroke in 1954.
"Grandmother stayed up the whole night, listening to grandfather's speech delivered at the opening ceremony of the first session of the first National People's Congress, which was broadcast repeatedly.
"It was the first time in 17 years that she heard his voice. The next morning she was found, sitting paralyzed in her chair, and the radio was burned out."
During the years Mao and He were apart, Kong's mother became a kind of messenger and used to travel between Beijing and Shanghai with gifts from both parties.
"Grandfather once sent grandmother a handkerchief he had been using. She often held it to her face, lost in reminiscence."
When He was allowed to enter Beijing in 1979, she insisted on bidding Mao farewell at his memorial hall in Tian'anmen Square.
"They met for an hour in Lushan, but her visit to his mausoleum was just a few minutes because of her failing health," Kong says, sighing.
Kong says the family gathers each year on December 26 and September 9, the dates her grandfather was born and passed away, in order to honor his memory.
Grandmother He died in 1984 and was buried at Babaoshan, along with her old comrades. Kong's father passed away in 1999.
Her mother has been a member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference since 2003.




It is absolutely critical to keep the ideology and class consciousness of the Revolution alive especially in the area of superstructure within the Workers' State. Proletariat world wide but in the US and Europe in particular need to try and use what influence they have to maintain class consciousness and Marxist scientific knowledge and ideology among the Proletariat and Working Class in China.



Simply breaking with China because they don't meet your liberal standards is calling for division as a time when unity is of the utmost importance in determining the class struggle with a bourgeoisie enemy that literally has the power to destroy the planet several times over in a matter of instants.

Bud Struggle
11th May 2010, 21:52
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/mr_peabody_and_sherman.jpg

khad
11th May 2010, 21:54
The daughter of Li Min, Mao's only surviving child with second wife He Zizhen, Kong is the president of a Beijing culture corporation.
"I started the enterprise with much the same goals as my grandfather," says the 38-year-old.
In a supposed "workers' state" I guess the only way that "red culture" can get promoted is through a corporation.

:rolleyes:

Dermezel
11th May 2010, 22:03
In a supposed "workers' state" I guess the only way that "red culture" can get promoted is through a corporation.

The State controls all large corporations in China.



CHINA IS NO longer a planned economy, but it is not yet a fully capitalist economy. The state still wields power through the allocation of massive state resources and effective control of large-scale SOEs (state-owned enterprises), which continue to dominate key sectors of the economy. Despite formally being transformed into joint-stock companies (selling shares to private investors), the major banks are still effectively controlled by the state. Currently, state-owned and state holding enterprises account for roughly half of all (non-property) urban investment in fixed assets.

At the same time, the party-state, a powerful apparatus with massive financial resources, continues to exercise general political direction over the economy. Sweeping measures taken by the regime to facilitate the recent Olympic games demonstrated the power of the state to mobilise resources and sweep away obstacles to its policy objectives. There was phenomenal public expenditure on the games, the government ruthlessly cleared residents from large areas of Beijing, and heavy industries were shut down in a desperate attempt to reduce air pollution for the duration of the games.

How much of the economy remains under the direct control of the state? While the class character of the state is not determined mechanically by the percentage of state ownership, the changing balance of ownership is an important indicator of the direction of change. But it is not easy to determine the state/private balance of ownership. Different studies give different figures. Will Hutton wrote in his book, Writing On the Wall: "China’s approach to private ownership means that attempting to assess how much of China is public and how much private is a fool’s errand because it cannot capture how the party is trying to develop Leninist [in reality, ruling party] corporatism". (Hutton, p147) Like many other commentators, Hutton shows how, in practice, the state has effectively retained control of former SOEs that have become joint-stock companies. With many apparently privatised companies, "the shareholder and accounting structure is such that at any time the party can regain control if it is necessary". (Hutton, p148; see Peter Taaffe’s review, China’s Future? (http://www.socialismtoday.org/108/china.html) Socialism Today No.108, April 2007)
http://www.socialismtoday.org/122/hybrid.html

Atlee
11th May 2010, 22:22
Not a bad idea since there are so many connections. It might be easier to cross the Pacific Ocean than the Mexican border at this point for jobs directly because of The Managerial Revolution (Burnham) brought on by the right-wing. The question is then, "How can we make this benefit humanity and our freedoms to utilize their activities?" I am sure there will be a protest in there somewhere. :cool:

Bud Struggle
11th May 2010, 22:25
Comrade Dermezel:

All that's history. Stalin, Mao, Che, etc.--are all well and good but they and their idea of Communism is long gone--as is the various Capitalism's they fought. All gone. Fight with Che and you fight Eisenhower and Kennedy. Fight with Mao and you fight Johnson, fight with Stalin and you fight Hitler, and Roosevelt. Those fights are over and the respective winners and loosers have long ago left the field.

Time to move on. Interpret Marx for today's world. If you don't you are just living a dream--or maybe worse--a nightmare that will ultimately hurt Communists today trying achieve today's purpose.

Think about what you are doing Comrade--is it a better world for us all that you are looking for or just the justification and glorification of a past idea?

Don't live in the past. Forget the sideshow clowns and move into what Communism means to real people trying to feed themselves and get a roof over their heads in a very difficult and violent and hostle world.

Unclebananahead
11th May 2010, 23:18
All that's history. Stalin, Mao, Che, etc.--are all well and good but they and their idea of Communism is long gone--as is the various Capitalism's they fought.


"Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."

Bud Struggle
11th May 2010, 23:28
"Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."


Learn from it--Don't RELIVE IT.

#FF0000
11th May 2010, 23:37
Maoism is hella dumb anyway


The State controls all large corporations in China.

I guess that makes it a workers state bro!!!!

Conquer or Die
17th May 2010, 09:13
The state owning or controlling a corporation is called fascism. Ban Dermezel.

edit: the fact that she has a chin mole makes me want to vomit. Hipster Communism is atrocious.

Bud Struggle
17th May 2010, 14:55
The state owning or controlling a corporation is called fascism. Ban Dermezel.

edit: the fact that she has a chin mole makes me want to vomit. Hipster Communism is atrocious.

You are a little over the top here, don'cha think?

Tablo
18th May 2010, 07:29
Lol, China has gone a long way from Maoism. While it was obviously state-capitalist before it has now reverted to what is clearly a full on capitalist market economy. Maos daughter seems a tad bit ignorant.

Atlee
18th May 2010, 08:51
The state owning or controlling a corporation is called fascism.

This is the literal definition for fascism. If the state were to take control and then turn it over to the workers, then it would be "workers".

Die Rote Fahne
19th May 2010, 06:51
Maoism is hella dumb anyway



I guess that makes it a workers state bro!!!!

State Capitalism.

Die Rote Fahne
19th May 2010, 06:54
This is the literal definition for fascism. If the state were to take control and then turn it over to the workers, then it would be "workers".
There is no "literal definition".

There are only accepted general definitions. Below are all parts of fascism.

- Corporatism
- Totalitarianism
- Authoritarianism
- Nationalism
- A single dictatorial leader (Il Duce, Der Fuhrer, etc.)
- Militarism
- Imperialism
- Verbal opposition to both capitalism and communism; although fascists do actually support capitalism.

Fascism is a broad thing. Fascism is NOT National Socialism. But National Socialism IS Fascism...see what I mean?

Dermezel
22nd May 2010, 16:06
Comrade Dermezel:

All that's history. Stalin, Mao, Che, etc.--are all well and good but they and their idea of Communism is long gone--as is the various Capitalism's they fought. All gone. Fight with Che and you fight Eisenhower and Kennedy. Fight with Mao and you fight Johnson, fight with Stalin and you fight Hitler, and Roosevelt. Those fights are over and the respective winners and loosers have long ago left the field.

You are seeing the fight in absolutist as opposed to relative terms and hence idealizing the conflict as though it were some sort of religious war as opposed to a strategic political struggle.

Yes, during world war 2 you would have to fight on the side of Stalin against Hitler, what do you think should have been done? The Workers' Fight against the Soviet government as the Nazis were invading? That they choose that time to go on strike?


Time to move on. Interpret Marx for today's world. If you don't you are just living a dream--or maybe worse--a nightmare that will ultimately hurt Communists today trying achieve today's purpose.

The thing that has hurt Communists the most and brought class consciousness to an all time low was the fall of the USSR.


Think about what you are doing Comrade--is it a better world for us all that you are looking for or just the justification and glorification of a past idea?

Don't live in the past. Forget the sideshow clowns and move into what Communism means to real people trying to feed themselves and get a roof over their heads in a very difficult and violent and hostle world.

The economy is more Centralized now at days then when Marx first proposed his hypothesis. That is the real world.

What that means is you need public ownership and social programs. The value of variable capital (living labor) will inevitably go down to constant capital (machinery). That is the whole point of technological development- saving labor.

If the economy is Centralized that means the machines will either be 1- Privately owned. Meaning you will get less and less of a share. 2- Publicly/State owned. Meaning your share will increase.

You are not seeing the situation in historical terms but only bourgeoisie categorical terms. These Workers' States are not just "countries" they are the result of Revolutions from the Proletariat and Peasantry.

That confers initial benefits that, even in the midst of decay, can survive, and at times even be re-vitalized. Just as the American Revolution established several Progressive aspects within the system that still survive even under intense capitalist siege.

Dermezel
22nd May 2010, 16:18
This is the literal definition for fascism.

Well your definition is wrong. Fascism is about Private, not Public ownership. Privatization- not State ownership.

It is important you understand this because I see too many Socialists who believe Libertarians are some kind of anti-Fascist group, when in reality many of them are pretty much Fascists de facto.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/09/nazi_privatizat.html



This post on "The Origins of the Term "Privatization" (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/09/the_origins_of_.html)" based upon a Journal of Economic Perspectives article by Germa Bel called "The Coining of "Privatization" and Germany's National Socialist Party" (Summer 2006) (http://www.atypon-link.com/doi/abs/10.1257/jep.20.3.187) [author web page link (http://www.ub.es/graap/JEP.pdf#search=%22The%20Coining%20of%20%22Privatiz ation%22%20and%20Germany%27s%20National%20Socialis t%20Party%22)] elicited quite a response from Jane Galt and others (e.g. see Jane's comments on her site (http://www.janegalt.net/archives/009446.html) and in comments (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/09/the_origins_of_.html#comments) to the post (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/09/the_origins_of_.html)).
As the article was being discussed in comments, the discussion drifted to the characteristics of Nazi Privatization. The author of the paper left a comment (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/09/the_origins_of_.html#c22327425) to clarify that:

Hi,
I am the author of the article published in Journal of Economic Perspectives. The article in JEP does not contain an analysis of Nazi Privatization. It was not its purpose. For those of you interested in this analysis, here you will find a longer paper, which is currently under peers revision in a journal within the economic history field. http://www.ub.es/graap/nazi.pdf

Comments very welcome ( [email protected] )
Thanks for your attention.
Germà
Here's the introduction and conclusion to the paper which, as far as I'm concerned, answers Jane Galt's question about why we would be interested in tracing the term privatization to its origins:

Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany, by Germa Bel (http://www.ub.es/graap/nazi.pdf): I. Introduction Privatization of large parts of the public sector has been one of the defining policies of the last quarter of the twentieth century. The privatizations in Chile and the United Kingdom, implemented beginning in the 1970s and 1980s, are usually considered the first privatization policies in modern history (e.g. Yergin and Stanislaw, 1998, p.115). A few researchers find earlier instances. Some economic analyses of privatization (e.g. Megginson, 2005, p. 15) identify partial sales of state-owned firms implemented in Adenauer’s Germany in the late 1950s and early 1960s as the first large-scale privatization program, and others argue that, although confined to just one sector, the denationalization of steel and coal in the United Kingdom during the early 1950s should be considered the first privatization (e.g. Burk, 1988; Megginson and Netter, 2003, p. 31).



None of the contemporary economic analyses of privatization takes into account an earlier and important experience: the privatization policy applied by the Germany’s National Socialist Party (Nazi Party). The lack of reference to this early privatization experience in the modern literature on privatization is consistent with its invisibility in either the recent literature on the Germany economy in the twentieth century (e.g. Braun, 2003) or the history of Germany’s publicly owned enterprise (e.g. Wengenroth, 2000). Occasionally, some authors mention the re-privatization of banks with no additional comment or analysis (e.g. Barkai, 1990, p. 216; James, 1995, p. 291). Other works, like Hardach (1980, p. 66) and Buchheim and Scherner (2005, p. 17), mention the sale of state ownership in Nazi Germany only to support the idea that the Nazi government opposed widespread state ownership of firms. However, they do not carry out any analysis of these privatizations.
It is a fact that the government of the National Socialist Party sold off public ownership in several state-owned firms in the middle of the 1930s. The firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyard, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition to this, delivery of some public services produced by public administrations prior to the 1930s, especially social services and services related to work, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to several organizations within the Nazi Party. In the 1930s and 1940s, many academic analyses of the Nazi Economic Policy commented the privatization policies in Germany (e.g. Poole, 1939; 2 Guillebaud, 1939; Stolper, 1940; Sweezy, 1941; Merlin, 1943; Neumann, 1942, 1944; Nathan, 1944a; Schweitzer, 1946; Lurie,1947).[1]



Most of the enterprises transferred to the private sector at the Federal level had come into public hands in response to the economic consequences of the Great Depression. Many scholars have pointed out that the Great Depression spurred state ownership in Western capitalist countries (e.g. Aharoni, 1986, pp. 72 and ff.; Clifton, Comín and Díaz Fuentes, 2003, p. 16; Megginson, 2005, pp. 9-10), and Germany was no exception. Germany, however, was alone in developing a policy of privatization in the 1930s. Hence, a central question remains: Why did the Nazi regime depart from the mainstream on state ownership of firms?[2] Why did Germany’s government transfer firms and public functions to the private sector while the other Western countries did not so?



Answering these questions requires an analysis on the objectives of Nazi privatization. While some of the analyses in the 1930s and 1940s are valuable, their authors lacked the theories, concepts and tools needed to complete the analysis. Recent economic literature has shown the multiplicity of objectives usually targeted by privatization policies (Vickers and Yarrow, 1988, 1991) and the general and widespread priority of financial objectives within the larger framework of multiple and coexisting objectives (Yarrow, 1999). In addition, modern theoretical developments have provided valuable insights into the motives of politicians choosing between public ownership and privatization (Shleifer and Vishny, 1994) and the consequences of each option on political rent seeking, through either excess employment or corruption and financial support (Hart, Shleifer and Vishny, 1997). Also, the theoretical literature has provided interesting results concerning the use of privatization to obtain political support (e.g. Perotti, 1995; and Biais and Perotti, 2002).



With the analysis of privatization in Nazi Germany this paper seeks to fill a hole in the economic literature. On one hand, I extensively document the course of privatization in the period from the Nazi take over of government until 1937.[3] These limits are sensible because all the relevant reprivatization operations had been concluded before the end of 1937. Some of the privatization operations explained in this paper have not been previously noticed in the literature. On the other hand, analyzing the Nazi privatization with the tools of modern theories and concepts allows us to conclude that the objectives pursued by the Nazi government were multiple. Of particular relevance were increased political support and, especially, a combination of increased revenue and expenditure relief to the German Treasury. In short, these motives are quite similar to those that have driven privatization policies in most of the EU countries.[4] The rest of the paper is organized as follows. First, I document the Nazi privatization policy, and I compare its quantitative relevance to that of more recent privatizations. Then, I discuss the analyses of Nazi privatization in the economic literature of the late 1930s and 1940s. After this, I analyze the objectives of privatization policy in Nazi Germany. Finally, I conclude.
...


[B]VII. Conclusions Although modern economic literature usually fails to notice it, the Nazi government in 1930s Germany undertook a wide scale privatization policy. The government sold public ownership in several state-owned firms in different sectors. In addition to this, delivery of some public services previously produced by the public sector was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the Nazi Party.
Ideological motivations do not explain Nazi privatization. On the contrary, political motivations were important. The Nazi government may have used privatization as a tool to improve its relationship with big industrialists and to increase their support for Nazi policies. Privatization was also likely used to enhance more general political support to Nazi party. Finally, financial motivations did play a central role in Nazi privatization. The proceeds from privatization in 1934-37 had relevant fiscal significance: Not less than 1.37 per cent of total fiscal revenues were obtained from selling shares in public firms. Moreover, the government avoided including a huge expenditure in the budget by using outside-of-the-budget tools to finance the public services franchised to Nazi organizations.



Nazi economic policy in the middle thirties was against the mainstream in several dimensions. The huge increase in public expenditure programs was unique, as was the increase in the armament programs, and together they heavily constrained the budget. To finance this exceptional expenditure, exceptional policies were put in place. Privatization was just one among them. It was systematically implemented in a period in which no other country did so, and this drove Nazi policy against the mainstream, which flowed against privatization of state ownership or public services until the last quarter of the twentieth century.
_______________
1 Other less academic works from this period, with essay characteristics, also comment on the privatization in Nazi Germany [e.g. Reimann (1939) and Heiden (1944)].
2 A recurring question in the literature on Nazi Economic Policy is why the Nazis refrained of implementing a policy of wide-scale nationalization of private firms [See Buchheim and Scherner (2005) for a recent example]. Indeed, this question is interesting since Nazi official economic program and Nazis electoral manifestos regularly included this proposal. However, it is not a central concern of this paper. Although it is worthwhile noticing that by avoiding largescale nationalization, the Nazi government joined the mainstream in Western capitalist countries, which were, in the 1930s, more prone to intervention through regulation and fiscal policy. As explained in Megginson (2005, p. 10), nationalization of private firms was not a relevant policy in Western capitalist countries after the worst phase of the Great Depression was over.
3 Choosing this period is also very useful because this permits avoiding confusion between privatization and the aryanization process. As explained by James (2001, p. 38-51), after 1936-37 there was an intensification of the aryanization process, in what was a “state-driven aryanization.” Many of the largest Jewish-owned businesses had survived until 1938. The anti-Jewish apogee was reached in November 1938, in the pogrom of the so-called Reichskristallnacht. In addition, analyzing Nazi privatization until 1937 permits avoiding confusion with the business processes put forward after the annexation of successive territories, beginning with Austria in 1938.
4 Mention has to be made to the fact that the general orientation of the Nazi economic policy was the opposite one to the EU countries in the late 1990s. Whereas modern privatization in the EU has been parallel to liberalization policies, in Nazi Germany privatization was applied within a framework of increasing control of the state over the whole economy through regulation and political interference.


During World War 2 the United States conducted a series of studies on the link between Fascism and Privatization. These studies have been suppressed since the McCarthy era.


http://sonic.net/~doretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/M%20P/Parenti%20on%20Fascism.html



In Germany, there was a very similar pattern of complicity between fascists and capitalists. German workers and farm laborers had won the eight-hour day, unemployment insurance, the right to unionize. They had built very powerful political organizations, but heavy industry and big finance were in a state of near total collapse. Business wanted to cut wages and get tax-cuts and massive state subsidies to revive profit levels. The German tycoons greatly increased their subsidies to Hitler, and the Nazi party was propelled onto the national stage.

Who did Mussolini and Hitler support once they seized state power? In both countries a strikingly similar agenda was pursued. Labor unions and strikes were outlawed, union property and publications were confiscated, farm cooperatives were handed over to rich private owners, big agribusiness farming was heavily subsidized. In both Germany and Italy the already modest wages of the workers were cut drastically; in Germany, from 25-40%; in Italy, 50%. In both countries the minimum wage laws, overtime pay, and factory safety regulations were abolished or turned into dead letters. Taxes were increased for the general populace, but lowered or eliminated for the rich and big business. Inheritance taxes for the wealthy were greatly reduced or abolished. Both Mussolini and Hitler showed their gratitude to their business patrons by handing over to them publicly owned and perfectly solvent steel mills, power plants, banks, steamship companies ("privatization," it's called here). Both regimes dipped heavily into the public treasury to refloat or subsidize heavy industry (corporate welfarism). Both states guaranteed a return on the capital invested by giant corporations and assumed most of the risks and losses on investment. (Sounds like S&Ls, doesn't it?)


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





The Peace Preservation Law of 1925 (治安維持法, Chian Iji Hō? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Installing_Japanese_character_sets)) was enacted on 12 May 1925, under the administration of Kato Takaaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kato_Takaaki), specifically against socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism), Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism), and anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism). It was one of the most significant laws of pre-war Japan.


The main force behind the law was Minister of Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Justice_%28Japan%29) (and future Prime Minister) Hiranuma Kiichiro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiranuma_Kiichiro), although a strict law to control the activities of leftist radicals had wide support in the Diet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_of_Japan) and widespread popular support.

Anyone who has formed an association with altering the kokutai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokutai), or the system of private property, and anyone who has joined such an association with full knowledge of its object, shall be liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding ten years.
By using the highly vague and subjective term kokutai, the law attempted to blend politics and ethics, but the result was that any political opposition could be branded as “altering the kokutai”. Thus the government had carte blanche (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/carte_blanche) to outlaw any form of dissent.


Renewed activity by underground Japan Communist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Communist_Party) in 1928 led to the March 15 Incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_15_incident), in which police arrested more than 1,600 Communists and suspected Communists under the provisions of the Peace Preservation Law of 1925. The same year, the highly anti-Communist government of Tanaka Giichi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanaka_Giichi) pushed through an amendment to the law, raising the maximum penalty from ten years to death.


A “Thought Police (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police)” section, named the Tokkō (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokk%C5%8D), was formed within the Home Ministry, with branches all over Japan and in overseas locations with high concentrations of Japanese subjects to monitor activity by socialists and Communists. A Student Section was also established under the Ministry of Education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Education_%28Japan%29) to monitor university professors and students. Within the Ministry of Justice, special “Thought Prosecutors” (shiso kenji) were appointed to suppress “thought criminals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_criminal)”, either through punishment or through “conversion” back to orthodoxy via reeducation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeducation).


In the 1930s, with Japan's increasing militarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism) and totalitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism), dissent was tolerated less and less. In early February 1941, the Peace Preservation Law of 1925 was completely re-written. Terms for people suspected of Communist sympathies became more severe, and for the first time religious organizations were included in the purview of the Thought Police. In addition, the appeals court for thought crimes was abolished, and the Ministry of Justice given the right to appoint defense attorneys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_attorney) in cases of thought crime. The new provisions became effective on 15 May 1941.


From 1925 through 1945, over 70,000 people were arrested under the provisions of the Peace Preservation Law of 1925, but only about 10% reached trial, and the death penalty was only imposed on two offenders, spy Richard Sorge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sorge) and his informant Ozaki Hotsumi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozaki_Hotsumi). The Peace Preservation Law of 1925 was repealed after the end of World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) by the American occupation authorities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCAP).


The entire point of Fascism is to protect Property Rights. Fascism is when you place Private Property over Democracy.

Hence anyone who believes, as I know some Comrades do, that Libertarians with their privatization schemes are creating a buffer against "Fascist State Control" is walking off a cliff blind folded- probably because they know nothing about the actual nature of Fascism, and believe, as the capitalist revisionists have stated- that Fascism equals Socialism.

As for how they financed their military- it was through massive debt to foreign owned companies. In fact Nazi Germany experienced severe economic crisis and near collapse due to the extent of this massive owned foreign debt.

Keep in mind that the Allies, under the Martial Plan socialized multiple German Industries by law:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/facts/capitalism-love-story



The post-World War II German constitution said that the State has the right to take over property and the means of production for the common good. (http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/facts/capitalism-love-story#)

German Basic Law: (http://www.constitution.org/cons/germany.txt) "Article 15 (Socialization). Land, natural resources and means of production may for the purpose of socialization be transferred into public ownership or other forms of publicly controlled economy by a law which provides for kind and extent of the compensation."

The Nazi tax rate for top income earners was 13%. The current German tax rate for the equivalent is almost 30%. So according to your "definition" the Germans were less Fascist under the Nazis, then they were following the war.

Dermezel
22nd May 2010, 16:28
189-90: “In the late 1930s and the early 1940s, a number of works were devoted to the analysis of economic policy in Germany under the rule of the National Socialist Party. One major work was Maxine Yaple Sweezy’s (1941) The Structure of the Nazi Economy. Sweezy stated that industrialists supported Hitler’s accession to power and his economic policies: “In return for business assistance, the Nazis hastened to give evidence of their good will by restoring to private capitalism a number of monopolies held or controlled by the state” (p. 27). This policy implied a large-scale program by which “the government transferred ownership to private hands” (p. 28). One of the main objectives for this policy was to stimulate the propensity to save, since a war economy required low levels of private consumption. High levels of savings were thought to depend on inequality of income, which would be increased by inequality of wealth. This, according to Sweezy (p. 28), “was thus secured by `reprivatization’ …. The practical significance of the transference of government enterprises into private hands was thus that the capitalist class continued to serve as a vessel for the accumulation of income. Profit-making and the return of property to private hands, moreover, have assisted the consolidation of Nazi party power.” Sweezy (p. 30) again uses the concept when giving concrete examples of transference of government ownership to private hands: “The United Steel Trust is an outstanding example of `reprivatization.’” This may be the first use of the term “reprivatization” in the academic literature in English, at least within the domain of the social sciences.”


192-3: “The primary modern argument against privatization is that it only enriches and entrenches business and political elites, without benefiting consumers or taxpayers. The discussion here suggests a rich historical irony: these modern arguments against privatization are strikingly similar to the arguments made in favor of privatization in Germany in the 1930s. As Sweezy (1941) and Merlin (1943) explicitly point out, German privatization of the 1930s was intended to benefit the wealthiest sectors and enhance the economic position and political support of the elite.

http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2006/09/11/the-nazi-heritage-of-privatization/

Conquer or Die
22nd May 2010, 17:34
You are a little over the top here, don'cha think?

She has a chin mole in the 21st century and she has money. She has a chin mole to appear to the superficial image of Mao Zedong, which itself is profoundly revolting.

If you're talking about Dermezel, then I'm simply talking about forum policy. Fascists are banned here.

Bud Struggle
22nd May 2010, 17:48
She has a chin mole in the 21st century and she has money. She has a chin mole to appear to the superficial image of Mao Zedong, which itself is profoundly revolting.


So you're saying she had it "added?" If that's the case--then I agree with you and withdraw my previous comment.

Atlee
23rd May 2010, 03:17
Well your definition is wrong. Fascism is about Private, not Public ownership. Privatization- not State ownership.

It is important you understand this because I see too many Socialists who believe Libertarians are some kind of anti-Fascist group, when in reality many of them are pretty much Fascists de facto.

I have the original book, The Political Doctrine of Fascism by Alfredo Rocco as part of a 1934 composite book Social Reformers by Donald O. Wagner, Ph.D. who was an Instructor in History, New York University. What you copied were opinions of others who made their own truth after the fact post 1934 and more or less what happened post Hitler bias. If we must know what this was originally designed to do and not the perverted version then I suggest we all go back to this text and have a nice long talk.