WHAT IS FASCISM?

[Monty Cantsin]

Abstract from, What is Fascism? by Benito Mussolini



Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....

...The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after...

...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....

...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....

...even that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....

The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

...For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it.

[Monty Cantsin]

Economic Fascism
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


When most people hear the word "fascism" they naturally think of its ugly racism and anti-Semitism as practiced by the totalitarian regimes of Mussolini and Hitler. But there was also an economic policy component of fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and '30s as "corporatism," that was an essential ingredient of economic totalitarianism as practiced by Mussolini and Hitler. So- called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a "model" by quite a few intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe. A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day. In the United States these policies were not called "fascism" but "planned capitalism." The word fascism may no longer be politically acceptable, but its synonym "industrial policy" is as popular as ever.

The Free World Flirts With Fascism
Few Americans are aware of or can recall how so many Americans and Europeans viewed economic fascism as the wave of the future during the 1930s. The American Ambassador to Italy, Richard Washburn Child, was so impressed with "corporatism" that he wrote in the preface to Mussolini's 1928 autobiography that "it may be shrewdly forecast that no man will exhibit dimensions of permanent greatness equal to Mussolini. . . . The Duce is now the greatest figure of this sphere and time." Winston Churchill wrote in 1927 that "If I had been an Italian I am sure I would have been entirely with you" and "don the Fascist black shirt." As late as 1940, Churchill was still describing Mussolini as "a great man."

U.S. Congressman Sol Bloom, Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, said in 1926 that Mussolini "will be a great thing not only for Italy but for all of us if he succeeds. It is his inspiration, his determination, his constant toil that has literally rejuvenated Italy . . ."

One of the most outspoken American fascists was economist Lawrence Dennis. In his 1936 book, The Coming American Fascism, Dennis declared that defenders of "18th-century Americanism" were sure to become "the laughing stock of their own countrymen" and that the adoption of economic fascism would intensify "national spirit" and put it behind "the enterprises of public welfare and social control." The big stumbling block to the development of economic fascism, Dennis bemoaned, was "liberal norms of law or constitutional guarantees of private rights."

Certain British intellectuals were perhaps the most smitten of anyone by fascism. George Bernard Shaw announced in 1927 that his fellow "socialists should be delighted to find at last a socialist [Mussolini] who speaks and thinks as responsible rulers do." He helped form the British Union of Fascists whose "Outline of the Corporate State," according to the organization's founder, Sir Oswald Mosley, was "on the Italian Model." While visiting England, the American author Ezra Pound declared that Mussolini was "continuing the task of Thomas Jefferson."

Thus, it is important to recognize that, as an economic system, fascism was widely accepted in the 1920s and '30s. The evil deeds of individual fascists were later condemned, but the practice of economic fascism never was. To this day, the historically uninformed continue to repeat the hoary slogan that, despite all his faults, Mussolini at least "made the trains run on time," insinuating that his interventionist industrial policies were a success.

The Italian "Corporatist" System
So-called "corporatism" as practiced by Mussolini and revered by so many intellectuals and policy makers had several key elements: The state comes before the individual. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized, autocratic government." This stands in stark contrast to the classical liberal idea that individuals have natural rights that pre-exist government; that government derives its "just powers" only through the consent of the governed; and that the principal function of government is to protect the lives, liberties, and properties of its citizens, not to aggrandize the state.

Mussolini viewed these liberal ideas (in the European sense of the word "liberal") as the antithesis of fascism: "The Fascist conception of life," Mussolini wrote, "stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual."

Mussolini thought it was unnatural for a government to protect individual rights: "The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature's plans." "If classical liberalism spells individualism," Mussolini continued, "Fascism spells government."

The essence of fascism, therefore, is that government should be the master, not the servant, of the people. Think about this. Does anyone in America really believe that this is not what we have now? Are Internal Revenue Service agents really our "servants"? Is compulsory "national service" for young people, which now exists in numerous states and is part of a federally funded program, not a classic example of coercing individuals to serve the state? Isn't the whole idea behind the massive regulation and regimentation of American industry and society the notion that individuals should be forced to behave in ways defined by a small governmental elite? When the nation's premier health-care reformer recently declared that heart bypass surgery on a 92-year-old man was "a waste of resources," wasn't that the epitome of the fascist ideal-that the state, not individuals, should decide whose life is worthwhile, and whose is a "waste"?

The U.S. Constitution was written by individuals who believed in the classical liberal philosophy of individual rights and sought to protect those rights from governmental encroachment. But since the fascist/collectivist philosophy has been so influential, policy reforms over the past half century have all but abolished many of these rights by simply ignoring many of the provisions in the Constitution that were designed to protect them. As legal scholar Richard Epstein has observed: "[T]he eminent domain . . . and parallel clauses in the Constitution render . . . suspect many of the heralded reforms and institutions of the twentieth century: zoning, rent control, workers' compensation laws, transfer payments, progressive taxation." It is important to note that most of these reforms were initially adopted during the '30s, when the fascist/collectivist philosophy was in its heyday.

Planned industrial "harmony." Another keystone of Italian corporatism was the idea that the government's interventions in the economy should not be conducted on an ad hoc basis, but should be "coordinated" by some kind of central planning board. Government intervention in Italy was "too diverse, varied, contrasting. There has been disorganic . . . intervention, case by case, as the need arises," Mussolini complained in 1935. Fascism would correct this by directing the economy toward "certain fixed objectives" and would "introduce order in the economic field." Corporatist planning, according to Mussolini adviser Fausto Pitigliani, would give government intervention in the Italian economy a certain "unity of aim," as defined by the government planners.

These exact sentiments were expressed by Robert Reich (current U.S. Secretary of Labor) and Ira Magaziner (current federal government's health care reform "Czar") in their book Minding America's Business. In order to counteract the "untidy marketplace," an interventionist industrial policy "must strive to integrate the full range of targeted government policies-procurement, research and development, trade, antitrust, tax credits, and subsidies-into a coherent strategy . . . ."

Current industrial policy interventions, Reich and Magaziner bemoaned, are "the product of fragmented and uncoordinated decisions made by [many different] executive agencies, the Congress, and independent regulatory agencies . . . There is no integrated strategy to use these programs to improve the . . . U.S. economy."

In his 1989 book, The Silent War, Magaziner reiterated this theme by advocating "a coordinating group like the national Security Council to take a strategic national industrial view." The White House has in fact established a "National Economic Security Council." Every other advocate of an interventionist "industrial policy" has made a similar "unity of aim" argument, as first described by Pitigliani more than half a century ago.

Government-business partnerships. A third defining characteristic of economic fascism is that private property and business ownership are permitted, but are in reality controlled by government through a business-government "partnership." As Ayn Rand often noted, however, in such a partnership government is always the senior or dominating "partner."

In Mussolini's Italy, businesses were grouped by the government into legally recognized "syndicates" such as the "National Fascist Confederation of Commerce," the "National Fascist Confederation of Credit and Insurance," and so on. All of these "fascist confederations" were "coordinated" by a network of government planning agencies called "corporations," one for each industry. One large "National Council of Corporations" served as a national overseer of the individual "corporations" and had the power to "issue regulations of a compulsory character."

The purpose of this byzantine regulatory arrangement was so that the government could "secure collaboration . . . between the various categories of producers in each particular trade or branch of productive activity." Government-orchestrated "collaboration" was necessary because "the principle of private initiative" could only be useful "in the service of the national interest" as defined by government bureaucrats.

This idea of government-mandated and -dominated "collaboration" is also at the heart of all interventionist industrial policy schemes. A successful industrial policy, write Reich and Magaziner, would "require careful co-ordination between public and private sectors. Government and the private sector must work in tandem. Economic success now depends to a high degree on coordination, collaboration, and careful strategic choice," guided by government. The AFL-CIO has echoed this theme, advocating a "tripartite National Reindustrialization Board-including representatives of labor, business, and government" that would supposedly "plan" the economy. The Washington, D.C.-based Center for National Policy has also published a report authored by businessmen from Lazard Freres, du Pont, Burroughs, Chrysler, Electronic Data Systems, and other corporations promoting an allegedly "new" policy based on "cooperation of government with business and labor." Another report, by the organization "Rebuild America," co-authored in 1986 by Robert Reich and economists Robert Solow, Lester Thurow, Laura Tyson, Paul Krugman, Pat Choate, and Lawrence Chimerine urges "more teamwork" through "public-private partnerships among government, business and academia." This report calls for "national goals and targets" set by government planners who will devise a "comprehensive investment strategy" that will only permit "productive" investment, as defined by government, to take place.

Mercantilism and protectionism. Whenever politicians start talking about "collaboration" with business, it is time to hold on to your wallet. Despite the fascist rhetoric about "national collaboration" and working for the national, rather than private, interests, the truth is that mercantilist and protectionist practices riddled the system. Italian social critic Gaetano Salvemini wrote in 1936 that under corporatism, "it is the state, i.e., the taxpayer, who has become responsible to private enterprise. In Fascist Italy the state pays for the blunders of private enterprise." As long as business was good, Salvemini wrote, "profit remained to private initiative." But when the depression came, "the government added the loss to the taxpayer's burden. Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social." The Italian corporative state, The Economist editorialized on July 27, 1935, "only amounts to the establishment of a new and costly bureaucracy from which those industrialists who can spend the necessary amount, can obtain almost anything they want, and put into practice the worst kind of monopolistic practices at the expense of the little fellow who is squeezed out in the process." Corporatism, in other words, was a massive system of corporate welfare. "Three-quarters of the Italian economic system," Mussolini boasted in 1934, "had been subsidized by government."

If this sounds familiar, it is because it is exactly the result of agricultural subsidies, the Export-Import Bank, guaranteed loans to "preferred" business borrowers, protectionism, the Chrysler bailout, monopoly franchising, and myriad other forms of corporate welfare paid for directly or indirectly by the American taxpayer.

Another result of the close "collaboration" between business and government in Italy was "a continual interchange of personnel between the. . . civil service and private business." Because of this "revolving door" between business and government, Mussolini had "created a state within the state to serve private interests which are not always in harmony with the general interests of the nation." Mussolini's "revolving door" swung far and wide.

Signor Caiano, one of Mussolini's most trusted advisers, was an officer in the Royal Navy before and during the war. When the war was over, he joined the Orlando Shipbuilding Company. In October 1922, he entered Mussolini's cabinet, and the subsidies for naval construction and the merchant marine came under the control of his department. General Cavallero, at the close of the war, left the army and entered the Pirelli Rubber Company. In 1925 he became undersecretary at the Ministry of War. In 1930 he left the Ministry of War, and entered the service of the Ansaldo armament firm. Among the directors of the big companies in Italy, retired generals and generals on active service became very numerous after the advent of Fascism.

Such practices are now so common in the United States-especially in the defense industries-that it hardly needs further comment.

From an economic perspective, fascism meant (and means) an interventionist industrial policy, mercantilism, protectionism, and an ideology that makes the individual subservient to the state. "Ask not what the State can do for you, but what you can do for the State" is an apt description of the economic philosophy of fascism.

The whole idea behind collectivism in general and fascism in particular is to make citizens subservient to the state and to place power over resource allocation in the hands of a small elite. As stated eloquently by the American fascist economist Lawrence Dennis, fascism "does not accept the liberal dogmas as to the sovereignty of the consumer or trader in the free market.... Least of all does it consider that market freedom, and the opportunity to make competitive profits, are rights of the individual." Such decisions should be made by a "dominant class" he labeled "the elite."

German Economic Fascism
Economic fascism in Germany followed a virtually identical path. One of the intellectual fathers of German fascism was Paul Lensch, who declared in his book Three Years of World Revolution that "Socialism must present a conscious and determined opposition to individualism." The philosophy of German fascism was expressed in the slogan, Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz, which means "the common good comes before the private good." "The Aryan is not greatest in his mental qualities," Hitler stated in Mein Kampf, but in his noblest form he "willingly subordinates his own ego to the community and, if the hour demands, even sacrifices it." The individual has "not rights but only duties."

Armed with this philosophy, Germany's National Socialists pursued economic policies very similar to Italy's: government-mandated "partnerships" between business, government, and unions organized by a system of regional "economic chambers," all overseen by a Federal Ministry of Economics.

A 25-point "Programme of the Party" was adopt-ed in 1925 with a number of economic policy "demands," all prefaced by the general statement that "the activities of the individual must not clash with the interests of the whole. . .but must be for the general good." This philosophy fueled a regulatory assault on the private sector. "We demand ruthless war upon all those whose activities are injurious to the common interest," the Nazis warned. And who are these on whom "war" is to be waged? "Common criminals," such as "usurers," i.e., bankers, and other "profiteers," i.e., ordinary businessmen in general. Among the other policies the Nazis demanded were abolition of interest; a government-operated social security system; the ability of government to confiscate land without compensation; a government monopoly in education; and a general assault on private-sector entrepreneurship (which was denounced as the "Jewish materialist spirit"). Once this "spirit" is eradicated, "The Party . . . is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest."

Conclusions
Virtually all of the specific economic policies advocated by the Italian and German fascists of the 1930s have also been adopted in the United States in some form, and continue to be adopted to this day. Sixty years ago, those who adopted these interventionist policies in Italy and Germany did so because they wanted to destroy economic liberty, free enterprise, and individualism. Only if these institutions were abolished could they hope to achieve the kind of totalitarian state they had in mind.

Many American politicians who have advocated more or less total government control over economic activity have been more devious in their approach. They have advocated and adopted many of the same policies, but they have always recognized that direct attacks on private property, free enterprise, self-government, and individual freedom are not politically palatable to the majority of the American electorate. Thus, they have enacted a great many tax, regulatory, and income-transfer policies that achieve the ends of economic fascism, but which are sugar-coated with deceptive rhetoric about their alleged desire only to "save" capitalism.

American politicians have long taken their cue in this regard from Franklin D. Roosevelt, who sold his National Recovery Administration (which was eventually ruled unconstitutional) on the grounds that "government restrictions henceforth must be accepted not to hamper individualism but to protect it." In a classic example of Orwellian doublespeak, Roosevelt thus argued that individualism must be destroyed in order to save it.

Now that socialism has collapsed and survives nowhere but in Cuba, China, Vietnam, and on American university campuses, the biggest threat to economic liberty and individual freedom lies in the new economic fascism. While the former Communist countries are trying to privatize as many industries as possible as fast as they can, they are still plagued by governmental controls, leaving them with essentially fascist economies: private property and private enterprise are permitted, but are heavily controlled and regulated by government.

As most of the rest of the world struggles to privatize industry and encourage free enterprise, we in the United States are seriously debating whether or not we should adopt 1930s-era economic fascism as the organizational principle of our entire health care system, which comprises 14 percent of the GNP. We are also contemplating business-government "partnerships" in the automobile, airlines, and communications industries, among others, and are adopting government-managed trade policies, also in the spirit of the European corporatist schemes of the 1930s.

The state and its academic apologists are so skilled at generating propaganda in support of such schemes that Americans are mostly unaware of the dire threat they pose for the future of freedom. The road to serfdom is littered with road signs pointing toward "the information superhighway, health security, national service, managed trade," and "industrial policy."

[ComradeRed]

That is pretty good, but nowadays it is shortened to three words: the republican party.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 08:00 AM
That is pretty good, but nowadays it is shortened to three words: the republican party.
lol pretty good and so true.


i just thought it was about time to have a talk about facscism moreover Corporatism. corporatism is what where headed into and must stop at all costs.

[Zanzibar]

http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/...44/1944-fas.htm (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm)

[Autarky]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 08:00 AM
That is pretty good, but nowadays it is shortened to three words: the republican party.
The US government is blatantly an inverted fascism system. There is little illusion of "national collaboration", business dictates and controls government rather than the reverse.

Oh, and that second article is obviously written by a free-market capitalist. Very trustworthy :rolleyes:

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 07:49 AM
Economic Fascism

More commonly referred to as socialism.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Feb 2 2004, 10:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Professor Moneybags @ Feb 2 2004, 10:12 AM)
[email protected] 2 2004, 07:49 AM
Economic Fascism

More commonly referred to as socialism. [/b]
NO More commonly referred to as Corporatism FOOL.

[Professor Moneybags]

No, definitely socialism; extremely authoritarian when it comes to economics and constantly insisting on a merger between the political and economic sector.

[Y2A]

Fascism is a one party, non-democratic system. I can understand how you can compare economic fascism with the U.S version in some ways, but the U.S does not hold a one-party, non-democratic system such as those of Hitler and Mussolini.

[LSD]

Fascism is a one party, non-democratic system. I can understand how you can compare economic fascism with the U.S version in some ways, but the U.S does not hold a one-party, non-democratic system such as those of Hitler and Mussolini.

No, the US is definetly not fascist. But I&#39;d say that it is far closer to fascism than it was, say, 50 years ago. There&#39;s definetly been a marked American movement to the right and to corporatism.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 10:12 PM
Fascism is a one party, non-democratic system. I can understand how you can compare economic fascism with the U.S version in some ways, but the U.S does not hold a one-party, non-democratic system such as those of Hitler and Mussolini.
agreed but I would think a two party system is not all that much better, considering that both parties still represent one portion of the society.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 2 2004, 11:20 PM

Fascism is a one party, non-democratic system. I can understand how you can compare economic fascism with the U.S version in some ways, but the U.S does not hold a one-party, non-democratic system such as those of Hitler and Mussolini.

No, the US is definetly not fascist. But I&#39;d say that it is far closer to fascism than it was, say, 50 years ago. There&#39;s definetly been a marked American movement to the right and to corporatism.
agreed, i think we every one knows that the us is moveing towards economic Fascism or corporatism.





Autarky are you a fascist?

[synthesis]

The second article was good in some aspects and rather silly in others. Like most libertarians, the author usually has valid criticisms but all the wrong conclusions. Other times it&#39;s just funny. For example.


As legal scholar Richard Epstein has observed: "[T]he eminent domain . . . and parallel clauses in the Constitution render . . . suspect many of the heralded reforms and institutions of the twentieth century: zoning, rent control, workers&#39; compensation laws, transfer payments, progressive taxation." It is important to note that most of these reforms were initially adopted during the &#39;30s, when the fascist/collectivist philosophy was in its heyday.

That&#39;s silly. Progressive taxes and worker&#39;s compensation laws were a result of the labor movement. The American progressives and the fascist intelligentsia hated each other.


More commonly referred to as socialism.

Marxian socialism? Not really. There was actually a great deal of private ownership under fascism.

Socialism is not state control of the economy, it is public control of the economy. Come on, Mr. Monopoly, do your homework.


Fascism is a one party, non-democratic system. I can understand how you can compare economic fascism with the U.S version in some ways, but the U.S does not hold a one-party, non-democratic system such as those of Hitler and Mussolini.

It is virtually impossible to gain any form of power in America when you challenge the corporate elite. America is not a dictatorship of the state but a bourgeois democracy. In other words, democratic to the point where bourgeois interests are threatened.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 2 2004, 04:01 PM
No, definitely socialism; extremely authoritarian when it comes to economics and constantly insisting on a merger between the political and economic sector.
Let&#39;s get this straight: capitalist economical order + ultra-authoritarian state = fascism

The "merger of corporate and state", the "chosen heroic leaders that will lead us to progress", the "competition of nations", the "conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest", the "Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism", the "Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute", the "The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual", the " growth of empire is an essential manifestation of vitality", the "survival of the fittest", just to give a few examples (some taken from the text euripidies posted), show the notorious differences between the theories of socialism and fascism.

[Autarky]

Originally posted by euripidies+Feb 3 2004, 04:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (euripidies @ Feb 3 2004, 04:36 AM)
Lysergic Acid [email protected] 2 2004, 11:20 PM

Fascism is a one party, non-democratic system. I can understand how you can compare economic fascism with the U.S version in some ways, but the U.S does not hold a one-party, non-democratic system such as those of Hitler and Mussolini.

No, the US is definetly not fascist. But I&#39;d say that it is far closer to fascism than it was, say, 50 years ago. There&#39;s definetly been a marked American movement to the right and to corporatism.
agreed, i think we every one knows that the us is moveing towards economic Fascism or corporatism.





Autarky are you a fascist? [/b]
Closer to corporatist with some socialist ideals.

The US, economically, was closer to a fascist state 50 years ago than it was now.

[Monty Cantsin]

Autarky I’ve never talked to a admitted corporatist, I just like to know what your political beliefs are and what brought you to that conclusion?


Edit: just a note to everyone thanks for telling Professor Moneybags what’s what.

[Professor Moneybags]

Autarky is mostly right. The US is a mixed system and is heading towards fascism.

[LSD]

The US, economically, was closer to a fascist state 50 years ago than it was now.

um.....you want to back that up??

50 years ago, the US was still at the height of the welfare state, social deconstruction was not even on the horizon yet.

[Autarky]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 3 2004, 08:25 AM

The US, economically, was closer to a fascist state 50 years ago than it was now.

um.....you want to back that up??

Sure. Fascism is not free-market capitalism. Fascism is extreme regulation and control.



Autarky I’ve never talked to a admitted corporatist, I just like to know what your political beliefs are and what brought you to that conclusion?


Basically, I believe in government direction for the good of the people and nation. Specially, government/semi-government control over major Industries including media while retaining a keynesian-like control over the rest of the economy. I reject economic equality and large scale democracy as undesirable for a nation.

[Monty Cantsin]

Fascist manifesto
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Fascist manifesto was the initial declaration of the political stance of the founders of Fascism in Italy.


Table of contents [showhide]
1 Origins of Italian Fascism

2 Contents of the Fascist Manifesto

3 The Manifesto in Practice

4 Source text




Origins of Italian Fascism
The classic definition of Italian Fascism applies to the latter part of the history of Italian Fascm, when Italy was firmly under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. Its initial political stance - in the June 1919 Manifesto - includes, however, non-exclusively right wing elements.
Originally, the leading committee of the Fascist Movement included both former Socialist Party members (among them Mussolini himself) and nationalists. The resulting Manifesto, united in the common aim of overturning the existing system, reflects a clear compromise between these strands . Only subsequently did Mussolini establish outright leadership of the movement.

Given that Fascism is recognised (with a few exceptions) as being dictatorial, it is noteworthy that elements of the Manifesto call for wider democracy. What was enacted during two decades of Fascist government was quite contrary in substance. During 21 years of Fascist government, not all Manifesto pledges were achieved, and many were simply ignored; forgotten by the system. Interestingly, many elements were subsequently imposed by the Italian democratic republic during the post-Fascist era.


Contents of the Fascist Manifesto
The Manifesto is divided into four sections, describing Fascist objectives in political, social, military and financial fields.
Politically, the Manifesto calls for:

universal suffrage at age 18
proportional representation on a regional basis
voting for women
representation at government level of newly created National Councils by economic sector, and
the abolition of the Senate
The National Councils would combine workers, professionals and employers. The concept was rooted in corporatist ideology and derived in part from Catholic church social doctrine,

At the time, the Senate, as the upper house of parliament, was elected by the wealthier citizens; with the practical agreement of the King. (It has been described as a sort of extended council of the Crown.)

In labour and social policy, the Manifesto calls for:

an 8-hour day and a minimum wage
involvement of workers&#39; representatives in industry
reorganisation of the transport sector
revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance, and
reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55.
In military affairs, the Manifesto advocates:

creation of a short-service national militia with specifically defensive responsibilities
armaments factories are to be nationalised (an echo of socialist doctrine), and
a peaceful but competitive foreign policy.
In finance, the Manifesto advocates:

a heavy progressive tax on capital (envisaging a "partial expropriation" of concentrated wealth)
expropriation of the property of religious congregations
revision of all contracts for military provisions and
sequestration of 85% of all war profits by the state.
The Manifesto thus combined elements of contemporary democratic and progressive thought (franchise reform, Senate abolition, labour reform, limited nationalisation, taxes on wealth and war profits) with corporatist emphasis on the subsuming of class antagonisms in national effort. It is to be noted that none of these statements are specifically influenced by Marxism.


The Manifesto in Practice
Of the Manifesto&#39;s proposals, the commitment to corporative organisation of economic interests which was to be the longest lasting. Far from becoming a medium of extended democracy, parliament became by law an exclusively Fascist-picked body in 1929; being replaced by the "Chamber of Corporations" a decade later.
Fascism&#39;s pacifist foreign policy ceased during its first year of Italian government. In September 1923, the Corfu crisis demonstrated the regime&#39;s willingness to use force internationally. Perhaps the greatest success of Fascist diplomacy was the Lateran Treaty of February 1929: which accepted the principle of non-interference in the affairs of the Church. This ended the 59 year old dispute between Italy and the Papacy.


Source text
Original Italian version
Il manifesto dei fasci di combattimento published in Il Popolo d&#39;Italia (the newspaper directed by Mussolini) on June 6 1919

Italiani&#33; Ecco il programma di un movimento genuinamente italiano. Rivoluzionario perché antidogmatico; fortemente innovatore antipregiudiziaiolo.

Per il problema politico: Noi vogliamo:

a) Suffragio universale a scrutinio di lista regionale, con rappresentanza proporzionale, voto ed eleggibilità per le donne.
b) II minimo di età per gli elettori abbassato ai I8 anni; quello per i deputati abbassato ai 25 anni.
c) L&#39;abolizione del Senato.
d) La convocazione di una Assemblea Nazionale per la durata di tre anni, il cui primo compito sia quello di stabilire la forma di costituzione dello Stato.
e) La formazione di Consigli Nazionali tecnici del lavoro, dell&#39;industria, dei trasporti, dell&#39;igiene sociale, delle comunicazioni, ecc. eletti dalle collettività professionali o di mestiere, con poteri legislativi, e diritto di eleggere un Commissario Generale con poteri di Ministro.
Per il problema sociale: Noi vogliamo:

a) La sollecita promulgazione di una legge dello Stato che sancisca per tutti i lavori la giornata legale di otto ore di lavoro.
b) I minimi di paga.
c) La partecipazione dei rappresentanti dei lavoratori al funzionamento tecnico dell&#39;industria.
d) L&#39;affidamento alle stesse organizzazioni proletarie (che ne siano degne moralmente e tecnicamente) della gestione di industrie o servizi pubblici.
e) La rapida e completa sistemazione dei ferrovieri e di tutte le industrie dei trasporti.
f) Una necessaria modificazione del progetto di legge di assicurazione sulla invalidità e sulla vecchiaia abbassando il limite di età, proposto attualmente a 65 anni, a 55 anni.
Per il problema militare: Noi vogliamo:

a) L&#39;istituzione di una milizia nazionale con brevi servizi di istruzione e compito esclusivamente difensivo.
b) La nazionalizzazione di tutte le fabbriche di armi e di esplosivi.
c) Una politica estera nazionale intesa a valorizzare, nelle competizioni pacifiche della civiltà, la Nazione italiana nel mondo.
Per il problema finanziario: Noi vogliamo:

a) Una forte imposta straordinaria sul capitale a carattere progressivo, che abbia la forma di vera espropriazione parziale di tutte le ricchezze.
b) II sequestro di tutti i beni delle congregazioni religiose e l&#39;abolizione di tutte le mense Vescovili che costituiscono una enorme passività per la Nazione e un privilegio di pochi.
c) La revisione di tutti i contratti di forniture di guerra ed il sequestro dell&#39; 85% dei profitti di guerra.
In II popolo d&#39;Italia, 6 giugno 1919

[Don't Change Your Name]

very interesting post

Especially, I found very interesting that they said to want "voting for women". Think about it: this gets the support of most of the people, because after there are more women than men. That&#39;s a very interesting populist attemp to gain control over the masses.

[BOZG]

For most people on this site and on the left in general, fascism is a reactionary political swear word. Too many idiots scream it without understanding the scientific meaning behind the word. I think LAD was quite correct to say that the US is not fascist but it closer to fascism than it was 50 years ago.

[Autarky]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 07:29 PM
I think LAD was quite correct to say that the US is not fascist but it closer to fascism than it was 50 years ago.
Why?

[LSD]

Why?

Because I&#39;m right.

Fascism promotes strong political controls while generally allowing free-market corporate power to sustain, much as the US is doing today.
Fascism was always economically capitalist. Corporatist, but capitalist.

[BOZG]

Why what? Why is the US not fascist or why is it closer to fascism today than 50 years ago?

[Autarky]

Fascism promotes strong political controls while generally allowing free-market corporate power to sustain, much as the US is doing today.
Fascism was always economically capitalist. Corporatist, but capitalist.

If you examine the economic policies of Nazi Germany, you will find it is Keynesian. Much closer to USA in the 1950s. If you were to compare both economic models you would find that they are both very different.



Why what? Why is the US not fascist or why is it closer to fascism today than 50 years ago?


Why it is closer to fascism today.

[dark fairy]

all i know is that this involves a lot of nationalism... an nationalism is crazy... i mean yeah how about i don&#39;t get into it because this is going to be too long but yeah

[LSD]

If you examine the economic policies of Nazi Germany, you will find it is Keynesian. Much closer to USA in the 1950s. If you were to compare both economic models you would find that they are both very different.

Nazi Germany was marginally Keynesian. Remember that most of Nazi economic planning was an attempt to recover from the Depression. By &#39;36 you notice they stop central economic planning (except for the miltary build up, of course) and allow a type of corporate system the likes of which the US wouldn&#39;t have for another four decades.

And in terms of tje political sphere, the US today is far more centralized than 50 years ago. Even at the height of McCarthyism, the exutive has never been this powerfull.

[Autarky]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 6 2004, 10:52 PM

Nazi Germany was marginally Keynesian. Remember that most of Nazi economic planning was an attempt to recover from the Depression. By &#39;36 you notice they stop central economic planning (except for the miltary build up, of course) and allow a type of corporate system the likes of which the US wouldn&#39;t have for another four decades.

Marginally? That is blatantly false.

By 1936 Goering had taken even tighter control over the economy.


And in terms of tje political sphere, the US today is far more centralized than 50 years ago. Even at the height of McCarthyism, the exutive has never been this powerfull.

*Cough*


The US, economically, was closer to a fascist state 50 years ago than it was now.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 06:15 AM
If you examine the economic policies of Nazi Germany, you will find it is Keynesian. Much closer to USA in the 1950s. If you were to compare both economic models you would find that they are both very different.
1) Fascism and nazism aren&#39;t the same thing
2) As it was mentioned Germany had a very deep crisis (which helped the growth of nazism)
3) They are different systems, yes, however the ideological base of nazism was more "socialist" in economics, because it aimed to help the "Aryan race", especially because they had been exploited by the Jews (and amny capitalists were Jews).

[LSD]

Marginally? That is blatantly false.

What you think Shacht was rading General theory?
Now people may associate Keynes with Germany&#39;s early "pump-priming" moves, but I maintain that it was "marginally" Keynsian because Shacht&#39;s economic models adhered to aspects of Keynes&#39; ideas and have only been linked after the fact.


By 1936 Goering had taken even tighter control over the economy.

Tight control?

The major domestic economic policy was subsidizing corporations and breaking labour movements. "Aryan" companies were funded and coroporate power reigned. Goerring was no economist and when he took control of the economy he basically just seved corporate interest. He may have "taken even tighter control" but he effectively gave that control to corporate interest.


*Cough*

Fine, so it was a non sequitor, but an interesting one nonetheless.

[LSD]

3) They are different systems, yes, however the ideological base of nazism was more "socialist" in economics, because it aimed to help the "Aryan race", especially because they had been exploited by the Jews (and amny capitalists were Jews).

Tell me that you&#39;re just pointing out Nazi ideology, because you can&#39;t possible really believe that....


I believe economically, Nazi-ism was actually USSR economics done right...

There are similarities, but German centralization was effectively a private sector affair. Corporations were given free reign and there were no worker rights whatsoever. There were a lot of public works projects and pumping movements orginally in an attempt to fix the crises of the early thirties, but after Goering took over, the economy shifted to a war-footing/corporatist system and any similarities with the Soviet Union disappear.

[Autarky]

What you think Shacht was rading General theory?
Now people may associate Keynes with Germany&#39;s early "pump-priming" moves, but I maintain that it was "marginally" Keynsian because Shacht&#39;s economic models adhered to aspects of Keynes&#39; ideas and have only been linked after the fact.

I believe his policies shows a definite Keynsian influence.


Tight control?

The major domestic economic policy was subsidizing corporations and breaking labour movements. "Aryan" companies were funded and coroporate power reigned. Goerring was no economist and when he took control of the economy he basically just seved corporate interest. He may have "taken even tighter control" but he effectively gave that control to corporate interest.


I disagree. It seems that it was exactly the opposite. Goering ensured that the corporations sacrificed for the good of the nation, rather than hand them more power.

The point remains that the government remained the dominant factor. These companies essentially became state owned and central planning continued.


Fine, so it was a non sequitor, but an interesting one nonetheless.

Yes, yes :)

[LSD]

I believe his policies shows a definite Keynsian influence.

People tend to overestimate the early influence of Keynes. In the early thirties his writings had not really permeated German economic circles.


I disagree. It seems that it was exactly the opposite. Goering ensured that the corporations sacrificed for the good of the nation, rather than hand them more power.

There was definitely an "understanding" reached between state and corporation, but the private sector got far more than it gave up. The "sacrifices" were few, minor, and durring the "stable" times (1936-1939 and 1941-1942) almost non-existant. Goering didn&#39;t have the patience, the party didn&#39;t have the structure, and the state couldn&#39;t really afford to effectively control corporate power. The Nazis always depended on the support of corporate interest so they gave them significant domestic freedom, far more than nearly anywhere else in the world at that time. While the rest of Europe was creating social programs, Germany was smashing unions.


The point remains that the government remained the dominant factor. These companies essentially became state owned and central planning continued.

There was central planning in theory but the chaotic nature of applied National Socialism and Goering&#39;s deference led to corporatism in practice.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 04:27 AM
Infiltrado--In no time were the Jews exploiting Germans...they themselves had been persecuted greatly, well, since they entered Europe...to say that Jews are generally strong capitalists (actually, they were the biggest supporters of the Nov. Russian Revolution) or that they were living well against the Germans are simply untruths. Although you may have just been quoting the Nazi stand, no offense.
Yep. That&#39;s what they would say. If that&#39;s truth or not, then that&#39;s a different thing. They used this whole "racial socialism" to gain support of their race.


Tell me that you&#39;re just pointing out Nazi ideology, because you can&#39;t possible really believe that....

I was refering to what they believed. And nope, not all rich people are Jews. And not all Jews are rich people. But using the argument that the Jews were exploiting the aryans they could gain support to "overthrow" them.

[Autarky]

People tend to overestimate the early influence of Keynes. In the early thirties his writings had not really permeated German economic circles.

I still maintain that Kenyes was more than a "marginal" influence.



There was definitely an "understanding" reached between state and corporation, but the private sector got far more than it gave up. The "sacrifices" were few, minor, and durring the "stable" times (1936-1939 and 1941-1942) almost non-existant. Goering didn&#39;t have the patience, the party didn&#39;t have the structure, and the state couldn&#39;t really afford to effectively control corporate power. The Nazis always depended on the support of corporate interest so they gave them significant domestic freedom, far more than nearly anywhere else in the world at that time. While the rest of Europe was creating social programs, Germany was smashing unions.


The Soviet Union also smashed unions :)

Goering did punish and control corporations that disagreed with his aims. Of course, he gave some more power, but it was more of an engulfing of these corporations by the German state and reward for submitting. Corporate "Interests" were forcibly aligned with those of Party.



There was central planning in theory but the chaotic nature of applied National Socialism and Goering&#39;s deference led to corporatism in practice.


I simply cannot agree. Goering expanded government projects and planning extensively.

[LSD]

The Soviet Union also smashed unions

And much worse.


Goering did punish and control corporations that disagreed with his aims. Of course, he gave some more power, but it was more of an engulfing of these corporations by the German state and reward for submitting. Corporate "Interests" were forcibly aligned with those of Party.

Yes but the "engulfing" was symbolic whereas the power was practical. The four year plan basically served corporate interest in that it was effectively a massive production call. The "central planning" was merely an order to produce. Sure small businesses were crushed, but the large German corporations were in a better position than they had ever been in before: free labour, small competition smashed, unions smashed, state-funding, state risk-socialization, a need for massive production, an incompetent ministry of economics, and, for the first time, an ideological ally in the government.


I simply cannot agree. Goering expanded government projects and planning extensively.

What, the Reich Chamber of Economics? Symbolism.
You&#39;re right in that Goering furthered "government projects" but then the country was gearing for war and that can hadly be avoided, but most of these "projects" were publicly-funded private sector affairs which bennefited the corporation in question mightely.
As for "planning", again, the four year plan was not only vague but was remarkably corporatist. It lead to record profits and production by major German firms and very little state interference in their operations. The Reich happened to become the largest purchaser at the time because of its massive rearmament project, but its relationship to its corporate suppliers was a business one and not an oppresive one.

[Autarky]

I&#39;m sorry, but my sources of information indicate that Goering massively expanded state production and planning, particularly through the Reichwerke. They also indicate that he punished larger business for refusal to cooperate.


These corporations were at the mercy of the German state.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 05:37 AM
I&#39;m sorry, but my sources of information indicate that Goering massively expanded state production and planning, particularly through the Reichwerke. They also indicate that he punished larger business for refusal to cooperate.


These corporations were at the mercy of the German state.
well what are you sources?

[LSD]

I&#39;m sorry, but my sources of information indicate that Goering massively expanded state production and planning, particularly through the Reichwerke.

Well I&#39;m afraid your sources are trusting the offical and ignoring practical events.
What is "government production"?
In the third rech, production meant rearmament and "self-sufficiency" that meant corporate production, with profit and freedom for the corporations involved.


They also indicate that he punished larger business for refusal to cooperate.

Example?


These corporations were at the mercy of the German state.

In every society, corporations are ultimately at the mercy of the state, but Germany chose not to take advantage of that implicit power and expanded industrial control.

[Autarky]

Well I&#39;m afraid your sources are trusting the offical and ignoring practical events.
What is "government production"?
In the third rech, production meant rearmament and "self-sufficiency" that meant corporate production, with profit and freedom for the corporations involved.


Production through the state-owned Reichwerke, which included resources (such as coal, steel, oil etc) and other heavy industrial applications.



Example?


The Ruhr. They refused to co-operate with the party and were punished.



well what are you sources?


Several small books and a string of documentaries relating to Nazi Germany.

[LSD]

Production through the state-owned Reichwerke, which included resources (such as coal, steel, oil etc) and other heavy industrial applications.

Yes, the Reichwerke Hermann Goering.... it did contribute to German production, but was not by any means a majority of it. The Reichwerke was basically just a crown corporation competing in Ruhr steel production. In fact, the Reichwerke was only the second largest steel firm in Germany&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Hardly an example of a government monopoly.


The Ruhr. They refused to co-operate with the party and were punished.

Yes, were punished by the establishment of a rival corporation&#33;&#33;&#33;

Probably the lightest punishment the government could have imposed, and well within the frame of market capitalism.

[Osman Ghazi]

Nazi Germany is generally said to be &#39;state capitalist&#39; becuase business was privately owned but state controlled. Actually, during WW2, Britain was alos state capitalist.

[Maynard]

Two most interesting articles, thank you for posting them. I learnt a great deal.


However, the quote
Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism

Has to be used way too often to those coming in her saying "Hitler was a communist" or whatever claims they make.


Though, I would agree that the US is not a fascist state and more Corporatism, which is the way most states are heading. Businesses seem to have more control over government decisions than ever. Berlusconi seems to be an updated version of Mussolini in many ways. Though I do believe fascist symbols are banned in Italy.

[Osman Ghazi]

Though, I would agree that the US is not a t state and more Corporatism, which is the way most states are heading.

The point he was trying to make is that corporatism is the economic system of m, which would in fact make the U&#036; corporatist, although not officially, for obvious reasons.

[Autarky]

Yes, the Reichwerke Hermann Goering.... it did contribute to German production, but was not by any means a majority of it. The ; was basically just a crown corporation competing in Ruhr steel production. In fact, the Reichwerke was only the second largest steel firm in Germany&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Hardly an example of a government monopoly.


The Reichwerke wasn&#39;t simply a steel operation. It expanded into a multitude of different areas with numerous subsideries. I believe it eventually became the largest industrial company in europe.


Yes, were punished by the establishment of a rival corporation&#33;&#33;&#33;

Probably the lightest punishment the government could have imposed, and well within the frame of market capitalism.


After a little poking around on the internet, I stand corrected.

Some corportations may have been treated nicely, but the Nazis were still the boss. They dictated all prices, what to produce and wages. Corporations had little input on the matter.

[LSD]

The Reichwerke wasn&#39;t simply a steel operation. It expanded into a multitude of different areas with numerous subsideries. I believe it eventually became the largest industrial company in europe.

The Reichwerke Hermann Goerring, founded in 1936 as a rival industrial corporation was briefly the "largest industrial company in europe" (between 1939 and 1940), by the time the war ended it was the second-largest in Germany. For almost all of the Reichwerke&#39;s history, Gelsenskirchener Bergwerke A G was larger.


Some corportations may have been treated nicely, but the Nazis were still the boss. They dictated all prices, what to produce and wages. Corporations had little input on the matter.

Yes and no.

The government did control resource allocation. Therefore they could indirectly manipulate what could or could not be produced. Mostly, however, this just meant having corporations produce more of what they would anyway as Germany was on her "Self-sufficiency" drive. The state neverused this implicit authority to force any industry to produce against its will.

As far as price and wages, you&#39;re wrong.

The point of the four-year plan&#39;s cartelization was that industry controlled labour unions, set wages, and could set prices, that way the government didn&#39;t need to bother.

[Autarky]

The Reichwerke Hermann Goerring, founded in 1936 as a rival industrial corporation was briefly the "largest industrial company in europe" (between 1939 and 1940), by the time the war ended it was the second-largest in Germany. For almost all of the Reichwerke&#39;s history, Gelsenskirchener Bergwerke A G was larger.


As I said, it was a large and diverse government operation.



As far as price and wages, you&#39;re wrong.


http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp...der=articledate (http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=369&sortorder=articledate)

In 1936, Göring&#39;s Four Year Plan was inaugurated. This made Göring, who was almost as ignorant about economics as Hitler, Germany&#39;s economic dictator. In the drive for a total war economy, protectionism was decreed and autarchy the desire-the so-called "Battle of Production." Consumer imports were nearly eliminated, price and wage controls were enacted, and vast state projects were built to manufacture raw materials.

[Osman Ghazi]

Exactly as I said: privately-owned and state controlled

i.e. State capitalism

[LSD]

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp...der=articledate

In 1936, Göring&#39;s Four Year Plan was inaugurated. This made Göring, who was almost as ignorant about economics as Hitler, Germany&#39;s economic dictator. In the drive for a total war economy, protectionism was decreed and autarchy the desire-the so-called "Battle of Production." Consumer imports were nearly eliminated, price and wage controls were enacted, and vast state projects were built to manufacture raw materials.

A computer science student&#39;s essay written in a very biased publication which cites no sources is hardly reliable.

Try:

German Corporate Profits: 1926-1938, by Maxine Yaple Sweezy The Quarterly Journal of Economics © 1940 The MIT Press (http://www.jstor.org/view/00335533/di951677/95p02435/0?currentResult=00335533%2bdi951677%2b95p02435%2b4 %2c3130%2b19400500%2b9989%2b80599499&searchID=8dd5533b.10765607650&frame=noframe&sortOrder=SCORE&[email protected]/018dd5533b005010ab23b&dpi=3&viewContent=Article&config=jstor)

or

Hitler&#39;s War and the German Economy: A Reinterpretation, by R. J. Overy The Economic History Review © 1982 Economic History Society (http://www.jstor.org/view/00130117/di011799/01p0305w/0?currentResult=00130117%2bdi011799%2b01p0305w%2b1 %2c8B3308%2b19820500%2b9981%2b80179499&searchID=8dd5533b.10765607650&frame=noframe&sortOrder=SCORE&[email protected]/018dd5533b005010ab23b&dpi=3&viewContent=Article&config=jstor)


As I said, it was a large and diverse government operation.

Yes, but by no means a controlling or dominating one. In fact, it was smaller (as a percentage of GDP and population) than the crown/state corporations of several other states at the time.

[Autarky]

Apparently I don&#39;t have access to view those files.

Email them to me?