Business Under Nazis

[allixpeeke]

Another article I'd like to post in the anti-Fascism forum, but can't. Apparently my opposition to Right-Wing politics isn't welcome in the anti-Fascism forum. :\

LINK (http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=54&sortorder=articledate)

[Amusing Scrotum]

And what is the point of this article. To try and make us feel sympathetic to the poor exploited Capitalists. :lol:

You see the article misses out one important point. The Nazi Party, like your average Capitalist, wanted to control the means of production. Like Capitalists they wanted domination. Where as Socialism says that no one person, or group of persons can be allowed to hold control over the means of production. Socialism states that the means of production are everyones and no ones.

Also if you truly believe that Nazi Germany was Socialist, how do you explain the suppression of Trade Unions, the absence of any political mechanisms for the people and the killing of hundreds of thousands of Communists?

[Andy Bowden]

Weren't the Nazis backed by many large and powerful German Industrial Capitalists?

The Nazis were the Mad Dogs released by Businessmen, knowing it would be the only way to smash the workers. Unfortuantely for the businessmen, the "Mad Dogs" often went out of their reins, to put it lightly...

[Amusing Scrotum]

Weren't the Nazis backed by many large and powerful German Industrial Capitalists?


I believe they were. However, don't forget that allixpeeke and his band of merry idiots, that post here. Don't believe that a business that practises Capitalist economics and has a Capitalist structure, is necessarily Capitalist. They seem to scream "They are not real Capitalists" every time someone points out something bad about these businesses, however they are constantly moaning about the Government "fucking over" these same businesses. I think that there is a huge double standard here, don't you?


The Nazis were the Mad Dogs released by Businessmen, knowing it would be the only way to smash the workers. Unfortuantely for the businessmen, the "Mad Dogs" often went out of their reins, to put it lightly...

America, Britain and other Capitalist nations actively supported Hitler. As did the business owners of these nations. There was no appeasement, just full blown support.

[JKP]

http://www.traces.org/images/henryford.medal.jpg

http://www.traces.org/images/henryford.gif

"The Hitler regime honored Henry Ford for his enduring support by bestowing upon him this medal, the Verdienstkreutz Deutscher Adler (the Grand Service Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle). "

[JKP]

http://isurvived.org/Pictures_Isurvived/InTheNews-folder/IBM-punchcard_Nazi.GIF
It has bewildered historians for decades as to how the Nazi regime could track down 6 million people. This is how; with IBM's Hollerith punch card machines, done with the full knowledge of IBM.

http://news.com.com/i/ne/nm/2001/black/ibm1.jpg

*On chairman Watson, a statement from IBM*
"As chairman of a major international company and a strong supporter of international trade, he met and corresponded with senior government officials from many, many countries, Hitler and Germany among them, in the 1930s," Makovich wrote. "As far as we know, the nature of the contacts between IBM executives and German government officials during the 1930s were similar to those with other government officials in other countries and consistent with IBM practices in the various countries in which the company did business during that era."

[KC]

Fanta is a soft drink produced by The Coca-Cola Company. It was originally invented by Max Keith in Germany in 1940 when World War II made it difficult to get the Coca-Cola syrup to Nazi Germany.

[Zapata]

who exactly is this ludwig von mises guy?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 07:52 PM
I believe they were. However, don't forget that allixpeeke and his band of merry idiots, that post here. Don't believe that a business that practises Capitalist economics and has a Capitalist structure, is necessarily Capitalist. They seem to scream "They are not real Capitalists" every time someone points out something bad about these businesses, however they are constantly moaning about the Government "fucking over" these same businesses. I think that there is a huge double standard here, don't you?
I am pretty confused by their ideology. How would they implement their version of capitalism if business is dominated by the (in their view) "bad capitalists"? It seems like they would have to overthrow the government and then militarily give property and means of production from "bad capitalists" to the petty bourgoise. It dosn't make sense.

Or are they just utopian capitalist who spend their time imagining a "better" capitalism that could exist if they had a magic wand or if the "bad capitalists" reform themselves. Or do they think without a government, "bad capitalism" would fall and be replaced by "good capitalism"... fat chance, without a government to enforce the status quo, there would be a open class war as soon as the first strike came up.

[FleasTheLemur]

Ah, this remind me of the time when my history teacher told us a little known but true story about how the depression-era capitalists was going to oust FDR and replace him with fascist leader. Had one former general not ratted them out, they'd probably would have succeeded.

[LSD]

Another article I'd like to post in the anti-Fascism forum, but can't.

Good thing too considering its utterly useless.

Yet another cappie posts an uncited unacademic article from a horribly biased website. The commies = Nazis comparison never gets old... <_<

But let&#39;s look at this particular argument. Oh wait, there isn&#39;t one. What the hell did that article even say? That the germany economy was acapitalist because some German wrote a book? Because he cites red tape and bureaucracy?

How about providing evidence instead of a glorified partisan book-report.

While you&#39;re at it check out (if you have access):

German Corporate Profits: 1926-1938, by Maxine Yaple Sweezy, The Quarterly Journal of Economics © 1940 (http://www.jstor.org/view/00335533/di951677/95p02435/0?currentResult=00335533%2bdi951677%2b95p02435%2b0 %2cFFFF&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBa sicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D)

or

Profits Under Nazi Planning, by Arthur Scheweitzer, The Quarterly Journal of Economics © 1946 (http://www.jstor.org/view/00335533/di951706/95p0263c/0?currentResult=00335533%2bdi951706%2b95p0263c%2b0 %2cBFFFEF03&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBa sicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26Query%3Dbusiness%2 Bunder%2Bthe%2Bnazis)

The National Socialist economic was not laissez faire, was not unbriddled, it was not what von Mises would call "free", but it was assuredly capitalist.


Or do they think without a government, "bad capitalism" would fall and be replaced by "good capitalism"

Yes.

Although they largely don&#39;t care. They believe that the free market is in and of itself a moral value and that private property is an innate right. Accordingly it doesn&#39;t matter to them whether or not enforcing property rights is demonstrably socialy benneficial; not respecting property is simply not an option.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I am pretty confused by their ideology. How would they implement their version of capitalism if business is dominated by the (in their view) "bad capitalists"? It seems like they would have to overthrow the government and then militarily give property and means of production from "bad capitalists" to the petty bourgoise. It dosn&#39;t make sense.

Or are they just utopian capitalist who spend their time imagining a "better" capitalism that could exist if they had a magic wand or if the "bad capitalists" reform themselves. Or do they think without a government, "bad capitalism" would fall and be replaced by "good capitalism"... fat chance, without a government to enforce the status quo, there would be a open class war as soon as the first strike came up.

I doesn&#39;t confuse me, as much as it amuses me. I mean, they look at the world and see what damage Government and big business does. Yet, they blame the Government and absolve the business. Its idiotic.

The most amusing thing is how a certain Anarcho Capitalist, claims Anarcho Capitalism and Anarcho Capitalism alone, is true Capitalism. Failing to acknowledge the simplest of concepts. This concept is that Anarcho Capitalism is Capitalism without hierarchy. Which obviously means that there can and is Capitalism with hierarchy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well it still confuses me. So do they desire a revolution to get rid of the government? Big business would be one of their main opponents to this goal. If government was not useful and a tool of business, then government would be replaced: when there have been populist reformers in governments who try and take on business, there are bosses strikes and capitalists take their money out of the country. If the US or European governments were really a threat to business then you&#39;d see that in these countries too. Instead you have GW Bush threatening Dockworkers before they even have their strike-vote that if they strike he will send the national gaurd out and "force" them to work (this was in 2002). Yeah, governmnent is really a threat to business intrests&#33;?

[JKP]

In the summer of 1933, shortly after Roosevelt&#39;s "First 100 Days," America&#39;s richest businessmen were in a panic. It was clear that Roosevelt intended to conduct a massive redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. Roosevelt had to be stopped at all costs.

The answer was a military coup. It was to be secretly financed and organized by leading officers of the Morgan and Du Pont empires. This included some of America&#39;s richest and most famous names of the time:

* Irenee Du Pont - Right-wing chemical industrialist and founder of the American Liberty League, the organization assigned to execute the plot.
* Grayson Murphy - Director of Goodyear, Bethlehem Steel and a group of J.P. Morgan banks.
* William Doyle - Former state commander of the American Legion and a central plotter of the coup.
* John Davis - Former Democratic presidential candidate and a senior attorney for J.P. Morgan.
* Al Smith - Roosevelt&#39;s bitter political foe from New York. Smith was a former governor of New York and a codirector of the American Liberty League.
* John J. Raskob - A high-ranking Du Pont officer and a former chairman of the Democratic Party. In later decades, Raskob would become a "Knight of Malta," a Roman Catholic Religious Order with a high percentage of CIA spies, including CIA Directors William Casey, William Colby and John McCone.
* Robert Clark - One of Wall Street&#39;s richest bankers and stockbrokers.
* Gerald MacGuire - Bond salesman for Clark, and a former commander of the Connecticut American Legion. MacGuire was the key recruiter to General Butler.

The plotters attempted to recruit General Smedley Butler to lead the coup. They selected him because he was a war hero who was popular with the troops. The plotters felt his good reputation was important to make the troops feel confident that they were doing the right thing by overthrowing a democratically elected president. However, this was a mistake: Butler was popular with the troops because he identified with them. That is, he was a man of the people, not the elite. When the plotters approached General Butler with their proposal to lead the coup, he pretended to go along with the plan at first, secretly deciding to betray it to Congress at the right moment.

What the businessmen proposed was dramatic: they wanted General Butler to deliver an ultimatum to Roosevelt. Roosevelt would pretend to become sick and incapacitated from his polio, and allow a newly created cabinet officer, a "Secretary of General Affairs," to run things in his stead. The secretary, of course, would be carrying out the orders of Wall Street. If Roosevelt refused, then General Butler would force him out with an army of 500,000 war veterans from the American Legion. But MacGuire assured Butler the cover story would work:

"You know the American people will swallow that. We have got the newspapers. We will start a campaign that the President&#39;s health is failing. Everyone can tell that by looking at him, and the dumb American people will fall for it in a second…"

The businessmen also promised that money was no object: Clark told Butler that he would spend half his &#036;60 million fortune to save the other half.

And what type of government would replace Roosevelt&#39;s New Deal? MacGuire was perfectly candid to Paul French, a reporter friend of General Butler&#39;s:

"We need a fascist government in this country… to save the nation from the communists who want to tear it down and wreck all that we have built in America. The only men who have the patriotism to do it are the soldiers, and Smedley Butler is the ideal leader. He could organize a million men overnight."

Indeed, it turns out that MacGuire travelled to Italy to study Mussolini&#39;s fascist state, and came away mightily impressed. He wrote glowing reports back to his boss, Robert Clark, suggesting that they implement the same thing.


Looks like fascism is the ideology of choice for capitalists.

The free marketeers keep forgetting that a free market is not totally in the interest of capitalists. Who wants to actually submit themeselves to market forces? The government provides numerous benefits to capitalists, something that a market can&#39;t. It&#39;s unfortunate that some of the capitalists during the nazi era had to go through some red tape, but looking at the massive profits that were made during the nazi era, it&#39;s ridiculous to call nazism an enemy of business. Quite the contrary.

[truthaddict11]

oh yes we&#39;re are all nazis. sieg heil :rolleyes:

[CrazyModerate]

Central Planning does not equal Socialism. I find it very odd that one would associate a party that banned trade unions with socialism.

[Master Che]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 11:30 PM
oh yes we&#39;re are all nazis. sieg heil :rolleyes:
It&#39;s seig heil :lol: . Not sieg heil.

[FleasTheLemur]

http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/smedley.htm

[Freedom Works]

Central Planning does not equal Socialism.

Socialism is a branch of Statism; they are related.

[Reds]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 5 2005, 06:57 PM
Weren&#39;t the Nazis backed by many large and powerful German Industrial Capitalists?

The Nazis were the Mad Dogs released by Businessmen, knowing it would be the only way to smash the workers. Unfortuantely for the businessmen, the "Mad Dogs" often went out of their reins, to put it lightly...
Yes, bush`s grand father was one of these.
http://www.rense.com/general42/bshnazi.htm

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 9 2005, 01:40 AM
Since there has never been a true capitalist society, this is obviously theory.
Now that you&#39;re back, how would your utopian capitalism be implemented?

As far as your above statement, there have been times where capitalism existed in a small scale without much government control of the market in history, isn&#39;t that what you are talking about?

Why did capitalists take over and actually build larger states (more unified so that trade could cross borders more easily) if government is not in the intrests of business? In the US (post civil war), France (post-revolution), and Germany (Kaiser), for example, the capitalists in power favored more centralized government and this helped capitalism grow:

There couldn&#39;t have been industrialization as we knew it without the rail roads in the US and government was heavily involved with this. Additionally, in France, getting rid of provincilism (building roadways, unified currency and language) was part of the industrialization of this state. So I really don&#39;t see how you can say that government has ever hurt or not been in the intrests of business if you have any understanding of history beyond the last 30 years.

[Freedom Works]

Now that you&#39;re back, how would your utopian capitalism be implemented?
It&#39;s not utopian. Education.



As far as your above statement, there have been times where capitalism existed in a small scale without much government control of the market in history, isn&#39;t that what you are talking about?
I am talking about the &#39;Capitalism without government is chaos and horror.&#39; statement.


Why did capitalists take over and actually build larger states (more unified so that trade could cross borders more easily) if government is not in the intrests of business?
Because there was "government" in the first place.


In the US (post civil war), France (post-revolution), and Germany (Kaiser), for example, the capitalists in power favored more centralized government and this helped capitalism grow:
It&#39;s not Capitalism, it&#39;s Statism.


There couldn&#39;t have been industrialization as we knew it without the rail roads in the US and government was heavily involved with this.
Yes, and it did a HORRIBLE job (slaughtered Indians, extremely inefficient) compared to the private sector (paid for rights across Indian land, was extremely efficient and never took any American taxmoney).


So I really don&#39;t see how you can say that government has ever hurt or not been in the intrests of business if you have any understanding of history beyond the last 30 years.
Capitalists seek to profit. This is not good OR bad, it simply is. If their is a "government" it is bad, because the capitalists will try to harness "government&#39;s" powers, if there is not "government", then it is in the best interest of the individuals.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by URSB_Revolution+Oct 7 2005, 07:11 PM--> (URSB_Revolution @ Oct 7 2005, 07:11 PM)
[email protected] 7 2005, 11:30 PM
oh yes we&#39;re are all nazis. sieg heil :rolleyes:
It&#39;s seig heil :lol: . Not sieg heil. [/b]
ooh wow mispelled one word lets make a post about it

[Zapata]

what do you mean by truth addict?

[Luís Henrique]

Well it still confuses me. So do they desire a revolution to get rid of the government? Big business would be one of their main opponents to this goal.

Their ideology is a petty-bourgeois ideology. They oppose capitalism (which they label "corporatism") because it has dispossessed and subordinated the petty-bourgeoisie. Against it, they propose a kind of simple-exchange economy (which they label "capitalism" out of opportunistic concerns).


If government was not useful and a tool of business, then government would be replaced: when there have been populist reformers in governments who try and take on business, there are bosses strikes and capitalists take their money out of the country.

Unhappily for them, the petty-bourgeoisie has not that capability.


If the US or European governments were really a threat to business then you&#39;d see that in these countries too. Instead you have GW Bush threatening Dockworkers before they even have their strike-vote that if they strike he will send the national gaurd out and "force" them to work (this was in 2002). Yeah, governmnent is really a threat to business intrests&#33;?

If by business you mean the shop around the corner, well, it probably is. Especially if it is a government concerned about increasing capital concentration to increase national economy&#39;s competitiveness...

Luís Henrique

[Djehuti]

The nazis were allied with the great cooperations and banks but fought the working class, bit also the middle class and smaller cooperations. Hitler had great support among the biggest capitalists in Germany (and outside Germany for that matter) such as Hjalmar Schacht, Albert Vögler, Friedrich Flick, Krupp von Bohlen, George von Schnitzler, Carl Bosch et cetera (with who he met in Berlin the 20ieth February 1933. Where they agreed to support him financially.)

And as sharp economists and historians such as Thorstein Veblen, J. A. Hobson and above else Rudolf Hilferding have pointed out, finance capital seeks domination, not freedom. Hilferding continues:

But in order to achieve this, to preserve its overwhelming power and expand it further, [finance capital] needs the state, which ensures its command of the domestic market by way of import duties and tariff policies. Ultimately it needs a powerful state which can promote its financial interests abroad and utilise its political power... A state which can intervene everywhere in the world in order to transform the entire world into an investment sphere for its finance capital.

Finally, finance capital needs a state which is powerful enough to pursue
expansionary policies and acquire new colonies ... in this way the
unbridled politics of power becomes a prerequisite of finance capitalism.
But the demand of expansionism also revolutionised the worldview of the bourgeoisie.

The ideal of peace vanishes, in lieu of the humanitarian ideal there
appear the ideals of state size and state power ... the goal is now to
secure for one&#39;s own nation dominance over the world; a goal which is as
boundless as capital&#39;s striving after profits, which was at its origin ...

This goal now becomes an economic necessity, because all falling-behind
reduces the profit of finance capital lowers its competitive ability, and
finally turns the smaller economic territory into a dependence of the
bigger one ...

Racial ideology, hidden behind a scientific cloak, justifies finance
capital&#39;s striving for power. An oligarchic concept of dominance has
replaced the democratic ideal of equality.


Those who have held any hopes that the nazis were the represents of middle class and small cooperations (and they were actually quite many, it was here Hitler had most of his followers) where brutally taken out of their illusions. In October 1937 all business with capital less than [the value of money change all the time, so I cant estimate how much it would be in todays dollars, but not very much] were dispersed, and new cooperations was only permitted to start if the stock capital totaled at least [ten times the last number]. This meant that a fifth of all small business where ordered to disappear. Actually around 400:000 craft business stoped with their activity only during the three years 1936, 1937 and 1938. This served the big cooperations in two ways. Partly competitors were removed, partly labour force were added.




Originally posted by "URSB_Revolution"+--> ("URSB_Revolution") It&#39;s seig heil :lol: . Not sieg heil.[/b]

It&#39;s sieg heil.


"Freedom Works"

Socialism is a branch of Statism; they are related.


The capitalist tendency of that era meant statism. Not only in the third reich but also in the USA and all over the world. Just because the capitalist tendency of today points away from statism, it does not mean that capitalism as such is anti-statist.

Capitalism does not equal anarcho-capitalism, I don&#39;t understand where anarcho-capitalists got this from. We have had a mutual definition of capitalism since way back, shared by liberals as well as socialist. But in the 80ties some neo-liberals decided to use capitalism as the name of their ideology, even though they allready had a name for that ideology. Why can&#39;t you use neo liberalism, classic liberalism, laizzes faire capitalism, anarcho-capitalism, free market liberalism, objectivism or whatever, as the name of your ideology? The capitalism that you favors is not the one and only capitalism, deal with it.