Hitler and the free market.

[Comrade_Stalin]

I’m looking for any facts that would support our view that Hitler supported the free market, and therefore the right wing we have today. Here one that I came across.


From “First they came” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

"They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wan't a Communist."

"Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wan't a trade unionists."

"Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wan't a Jews."

"Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."

As you can see Hitler attacked the communist and trade unions first and not the bank or the free market. So do you guy have any point or facts to add.

[Apoi_Viitor]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]I’m looking for any facts that would support our view that Hitler supported the free market, and therefore the right wing we have today.

I don't think Hitler would be in support of the current right-wing, but here's a brief introduction to Fascist Economics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

Although this is an oversimplification, I believe you can divide economic theories into three large categories.

Socialism = Markets determined by State, Production carried out by State

Fascism = Markets determined by State, Production carried out Privately

Capitalism = Markets determined Privately, Production carried out Privately

*When I say Market determined... I mean to show, who, ultimately, determines what Goods are going to be produced; whereas, production carried out... refers to, how the production is ultimately carried out.

There are lots of overlaps, but this is how I see it, anyway...

[Shining_Liberator]

Hitler was a socialist, but there is more than one kind of socialism. Hitler supported national socialism, which is basically slavery supporting an over class, which makes it close to corporatism, but still. Marxist socialism is the only good one there.

[#FF0000]

Hitler was a socialist

No, because you can't just make up something and say "okay this is socialism", which is exactly what people like Hitler and Oswald Mosley did.

[Nolan]

Hitler didn't support free markets, but he supported capitalists.

[MarxSchmarx]

Hitler was a socialist, but there is more than one kind of socialism. Hitler supported national socialism

This is absurd. Hitler was not a socialist.

This idiotic meme has more to do with Goebel's heirs on the right in American domestic politics in the 21st century.

[Q]

I don't think Hitler would be in support of the current right-wing, but here's a brief introduction to Fascist Economics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

Although this is an oversimplification, I believe you can divide economic theories into three large categories.

Socialism = Markets determined by State, Production carried out by State

Fascism = Markets determined by State, Production carried out Privately

Capitalism = Markets determined Privately, Production carried out Privately

*When I say Market determined... I mean to show, who, ultimately, determines what Goods are going to be produced; whereas, production carried out... refers to, how the production is ultimately carried out.

There are lots of overlaps, but this is how I see it, anyway...

By formulating it like that, you make it appear that the difference between socialism and fascism is one of nuance...

Of course, the "state" under socialism is one of decay, one in which the class apparatus is taken over by society as a whole as it is the vast majority (the working class) that rules over a tiny minority (the bourgeoisie, clergy, religious institutions, etc). You cannot properly equate a prletarian state with one of capitalism (or its decaying exponent, fascism).

[ZeroNowhere]

"We stand for maintenance of private property. We shall protect private enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible, economic order."

"Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."

[Demogorgon]

He maintained a low tax economy based upon close cooperation with big business.

[RadioRaheem84]

Hitler was about as socialist as Glenn Beck loves social justice.

[Comrade_Stalin]

Hitler was a socialist, but there is more than one kind of socialism. Hitler supported national socialism, which is basically slavery supporting an over class, which makes it close to corporatism, but still. Marxist socialism is the only good one there.

Hitler was for only "socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor". This still does not put him on the left.

[Comrade_Stalin]

Hitler didn't support free markets, but he supported capitalists.

Hate to tell you this, but the "free market" is just other label for capitalism, just like "Laissez faire" economics is.

[Comrade_Stalin]

"We stand for maintenance of private property. We shall protect private enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible, economic order."

"Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."

Thank you for at least trying to help me.

[Amado]

Hate to tell you this, but the "free market" is just other label for capitalism, just like "Laissez faire" economics is.No. Capitalism is not uniform. Laissez-faire is a form capitalism can present itself, stripped of any regulatory facade whatsoever. As far as I'm aware, the world has never experienced completely unfettered capitalism. (because it won't exist and its advocates play the useful idiots of the corporate status quo.)

The Nazis were definitely against the "free market", in the sense that the current right uses the term, there was a definite difference between Hitler's policies and, say, Pinochet's. There was some interference of the state in business, and I think small businesses were the ones that suffered the most during the Nazi era, but really, the capitalists didn't give a damn because they got epic profits due to labor suppression and slave labor. Profits, the law of value and surplus value were still in existence in Nazi Germany and that's enough to say that it was capitalist.

[Nolan]

Hate to tell you this, but the "free market" is just other label for capitalism, just like "Laissez faire" economics is.

No. Contrary to popular belief, not all capitalism is free market capitalism. As Amado pointed out, we've never seen a pure free market. And we never will.

[Apoi_Viitor]

By formulating it like that, you make it appear that the difference between socialism and fascism is one of nuance...

Well, I was just describing the aesthetic differences between them... The internal structure of a Fascist State and a Socialist one is obviously monumental.

[Revolutionair]

Free market capitalism is a lie. It is an idealist image that people put in front of the real world. 'Don't regulate our private armies, that's an infringement on the free market.' No! should be the answer.

Question the premise. What is a free market? The person will say: competition + deregulation. But without regulation, corporations will not compete. They will make price deals.

The 'free market right' is a scam. Right wingers have historically been opposed to things that came close to free market societies. Free marketeers: Proudhon, Tucker, Spooner. On the other hand we have right wingers: Reagan, Hitler. Reagan created a protectionist economy to shield American production from the Japanese. Hitler guarded private property in times of revolution.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Franz Neumann, Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism 1933–1944. Neumann argued that the structures of Nazism remained capitalist,against Adorno, Marcuse and others, who thought they'd moved beyond that. First I hear that Adorno was an optimist...

[Comrade_Stalin]

No. Contrary to popular belief, not all capitalism is free market capitalism. As Amado pointed out, we've never seen a pure free market. And we never will.

Then the "free market" is nothing more than a "ideal" label for capitalism. The fact that it never will be, only show that the capitalist only use the "free market" label to say why capitalism will be good.

[Comrade_Stalin]

No. Capitalism is not uniform. Laissez-faire is a form capitalism can present itself, stripped of any regulatory facade whatsoever. As far as I'm aware, the world has never experienced completely unfettered capitalism. (because it won't exist and its advocates play the useful idiots of the corporate status quo.)

The Nazis were definitely against the "free market", in the sense that the current right uses the term, there was a definite difference between Hitler's policies and, say, Pinochet's. There was some interference of the state in business, and I think small businesses were the ones that suffered the most during the Nazi era, but really, the capitalists didn't give a damn because they got epic profits due to labor suppression and slave labor. Profits, the law of value and surplus value were still in existence in Nazi Germany and that's enough to say that it was capitalist.

There always some interference of the state in business, under capitalism. That because capitalism always needs the police man to gather there the "debt" that they are owned. "free market", "Laissez-faire" are nothing more then ideal labels to say why there non-working system will work.

[Agnapostate]

Hitler didn't support free markets, but he supported capitalists.

This is critical; the perpetual nonexistence of free markets does need to be kept in mind. The "free market" is a utopian textbook model that has never been implemented, with capitalism always characterized by extensive statism. This needs to be mentioned whenever some idealist explains that the "free market" will discriminate against anti-worker capitalists and employers.

As for Hitler's regime's support of capitalism, Buchheim and Scherner note in The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=449534) that, "Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment profiles. Even regarding war-related projects, freedom of contract was generally respected; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency."

Hitler and the Nazis never supported socialism, but even the worker-populist elements that were associated with the NSDAP were destroyed after the purge of Ernst Röhm and the Sturmabteilung in the Night of the Long Knives.

[#FF0000]

Hate to tell you this, but the "free market" is just other label for capitalism, just like "Laissez faire" economics is.

Sorry, no. Capitalism as Marxists understand it isn't defined by a free-market. It'll surprise a ton of people to hear this but it's true.

[RadioRaheem84]

People argue that Hitler was a socialist because of his public works programs.

In reality he was a basic Keynesian, economic nationalist, anti-finance capitalism.

No, he was not a Rothbardian, Randian, type of guy but he was a capitalist.

[Amphictyonis]

The means of production stayed in private hands under Hitler- there has never been a "free market" ,anywhere, ever. Capitalism has always depended on the state. If you want to make comparisons point out how both the USA and Nazi Germany depended on slavery to be prosperous. The slavery of African Americans gave rise to the industrial revolution and the slavery of the Jews gave rise to Germany's ability to manufacture so much in a time of war.

American colonialists/military also exterminated millions of native Americans. US capitalism is not based on some "free market". It has the same foundations as Nazi Germany's economic success. Murder slavery and exploitation with a whole hell of a lot of racism mixed in.

If you want to get technical you can compare the capitalists in the US running/controlling the state, the line between the private sector and state has been pretty much non existent, the same was the case in Germany.

[Comrade_Stalin]

Sorry, no. Capitalism as Marxists understand it isn't defined by a free-market. It'll surprise a ton of people to hear this but it's true.

So are you guy having a problem with the title? It all the same thing. "Free market" never real and never will be. Capitalism, needs the state and so there will never be a non-state free market.

[Comrade_Stalin]

The means of production stayed in private hands under Hitler- there has never been a "free market" ,anywhere, ever. Capitalism has always depended on the state. If you want to make comparisons point out how both the USA and Nazi Germany depended on slavery to be prosperous. The slavery of African Americans gave rise to the industrial revolution and the slavery of the Jews gave rise to Germany's ability to manufacture so much in a time of war.

American colonialists/military also exterminated millions of native Americans. US capitalism is not based on some "free market". It has the same foundations as Nazi Germany's economic success. Murder slavery and exploitation with a whole hell of a lot of racism mixed in.

If you want to get technical you can compare the capitalists in the US running/controlling the state, the line between the private sector and state has been pretty much non existent, the same was the case in Germany.

Is that why are highway system is the same as Nazi Germany autobahn?