Was Hitler really an *economical* leftist?

[P2P]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1143131/posts

This article bugs me quite a bit. If anyone have any objections to it, or the idea that Hitler/Nazism/Fascism were on the economical left (wether it's center or radical), please share them. The last thing the left need is to be associated with yet another cruel dictator.

[Raúl Duke]

Well..I don't think so.

Although I'm not an expert historian...

Maybe this happened:

One could say he used more state control of Germany's economy to provide a very moderate "socialism" so to save capitalism. During the late 20s-40s many countries did 2 things to "save capitalism": 1) many reforms (think FDR and New Deal) that created "safety nets" and many things. Now these reforms are slowly being dismantled. 2)Go to fascism, maybe use a little reform but basically keep capitalism running by force.

However, neither Hitler nor the other reformists/fascists were truly economically left because they still preserved the original exploitive system (capitalism).

IMO, economically left is advocating workers control of the means of production.

[fabiansocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 08:16 pm
This article bugs me quite a bit. If anyone have any objections to it, or the idea that Hitler/Nazism/Fascism were on the economical left (wether it's center or radical), please share them. The last thing the left need is to be associated with yet another cruel dictator.
Hitler didn't see things in terms of "right" or "left." What guided his thinking were ideas of race and as a corollary to this, the notion of lebensraum, which was to be the solution to the contradictions and tensions of German society. He aimed to put Germany on the map in the same way that the UK and USA. To this purpose he kept both labor and capital on a tight leash as he furiously armed to put Germany on a war footing.

It's oversimplistic to call him a "cruel dictator." The German people were behind him to a large extent. A couple of recent books that may assist you would be Aly's "Hitler's Beneficiaries," and Tooze's "The Wages of Destruction."

[Marsella]

Hitler's economic model was very similar to Stalin's (and also to other capitalist nations e.g. USA). It revolved around various economic plans aimed at self-sufficiency (as did the USSR's).

Nazi germany had the National Labour Service (e.g. public works).

It couldn't be considered leftist: trade unions were banned, except for the GLF (which increased the work week to 72 hours). Workers were not allowed to quit there jobs without permission. Strikes were outlawed. Conscription was introduced.


It's oversimplistic to call him a "cruel dictator."
Tell that to 5.1 million Jews.

[Demogorgon]

You surely are not going tot ake anything on Free Republic seriously, are you?

Anyway Hitler's economic policies were mostly unremarkable. In line with standard capitalist ideas of the time. Maybe with a bit of an unfortunate leaning towards deficit spending without the necessary economic growth to pay for it.

It wasn't his economic policies that pople remember him for to say the least.

[fabiansocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 09:19 pm

It's oversimplistic to call him a "cruel dictator."
Tell that to 5.1 million Jews.
*Sigh* Here we go again. Being a dictator is distinct from being a mass murderer. Hitler couldn't have remained in power without the acquiesence of the public at large, and without the support of key groups such as the army and big business. As for the murder of the jews, it's childish and simplistic to say he single-handedly orchestrated it.

[Tower of Bebel]

It's not important whehter Hitler made Germany's economics personal or not, important are both the material conditions and the state of capitalism.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by fabiansocialist+August 02, 2007 12:54 am--> (fabiansocialist @ August 02, 2007 12:54 am)
[email protected] 01, 2007 09:19 pm

It's oversimplistic to call him a "cruel dictator."
Tell that to 5.1 million Jews.
*Sigh* Here we go again. Being a dictator is distinct from being a mass murderer. Hitler couldn't have remained in power without the acquiesence of the public at large, and without the support of key groups such as the army and big business. As for the murder of the jews, it's childish and simplistic to say he single-handedly orchestrated it. [/b]
Well it is childish and simplistic to say he single handedly did anything. It was obviously a wide ranging thing. But people tend to think of Hitler as the personification of the Nazi party, hence people refer to what "Hitler" did.

At any rate I really have tot ake issue with you saying Hitler had widespread support. Support to me implies the people freely backed hm rather than simply were kept under control. The Nazi party were able to control Germany because they had the backing of Big Business and the army. The two groups which really pulled the strings. That didn't mean the German people backed them, but rather there was no real way to oppose them.

[Dimentio]

Hitler's Germany was the first true interventionist welfare state of Europe, with rights to two weeks paid (and subsidised vacation), campaigns on public health, keynesian economic politics and social engineering. Under the war, it turned more and more into a planned economy, especially after Speer took over the armament.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 01:20 am
Hitler's Germany was the first true interventionist welfare state of Europe, with rights to two weeks paid (and subsidised vacation), campaigns on public health, keynesian economic politics and social engineering. Under the war, it turned more and more into a planned economy, especially after Speer took over the armament.
That isn't really true. Stuff like that was appearing all over Europe at the time. Indeed I believe the beginnings tot hat sort of thing were already appearing in Sweden by the time the Nazis came to power.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The people at FreeRepublic don't even know what a socialist is. I've witnessed users there claim Clinton is a Marxist. :rolleyes:

The economic platform of the NAZI Party was a tool for them to control the masses. The Nazis were hostile to the workers and never changed from a hierarchy structure to worker councils.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+August 02, 2007 01:23 am--> (Demogorgon @ August 02, 2007 01:23 am)
[email protected] 02, 2007 01:20 am
Hitler's Germany was the first true interventionist welfare state of Europe, with rights to two weeks paid (and subsidised vacation), campaigns on public health, keynesian economic politics and social engineering. Under the war, it turned more and more into a planned economy, especially after Speer took over the armament.
That isn't really true. Stuff like that was appearing all over Europe at the time. Indeed I believe the beginnings tot hat sort of thing were already appearing in Sweden by the time the Nazis came to power. [/b]
Actually, the true reforms in Sweden just started about 1946, when Sweden was booming because the country had escaped with an intact infrastructure due to it's compliance with Nazi Germany. One fun thing is that out of 24 economic points of NSDAP, the Swedish social democrats had copied about 20 (and they had 27 points in their programme).

[Cheung Mo]

Nothing legally obligates a political party to adopt a name that genuinely reflects their political ideology.

Accion Democratica claims to be for personal and political freedom and for social democracy and is a member of the Socialist Internatinalist.

Last time they were in power in Venezuela, workers and peasants were buried in mass graves for protesting the devastating material suffering they faced due to concession that the government had made to the IMF and to the World Bank. Furthermore, many parties who call themselves "socialist", or "radical", or "revolutionary", or "leftist" have struggled consistently against the Chavez government and have supported the bourgeoisie. The Stalinist-Hoxhaist Banderas Rojas (Red Flag) Party were the 2002 coup conspirators' most violent foot soldiers.

Likewise, Ceausescu's vision of socialism involved Romanian supremacism, letting the government control the uteruses of women, sucking and off Richard Nixon for money only to starve Romania's people to pay off the debt to Uncle Sam while he and his family lived opulently enough to make the Sauds blush.

Mao was friendlier to peasants and to cooperating capitalists than he was to the urban proletariat. (Material conditions for the Chinese people had nonetheles improved substantially more under Mao than they had under either the Kuomantang or under the Empire)

Japan's Liberal Democrats represent the more conservative and nationalistic interests within the bourgeoisie while the Democrats represent its more liberal.

The U.S. Democratic Party is not in favour of democracy in Latin America.

The Bloc Quebecois claims to be party specifically for representing and protecting the interests of Quebec people, and yet favours Canada and Quebec both adopting the U.S. dollars.

From the 1910s to the 1980s, Conservative governments in Ontario generally implemented social democratic policies, although this changed completely with Frank Miller and then Mike Harris.

[Marko]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 03:55 am
One fun thing is that out of 24 economic points of NSDAP, the Swedish social democrats had copied about 20 (and they had 27 points in their programme).
Word to word???

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 02, 2007 06:12 am
The Bloc Quebecois claims to be party specifically for representing and protecting the interests of Quebec people, and yet favours Canada and Quebec both adopting the U.S. dollars.

Really?

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+August 02, 2007 12:32 pm--> (Demogorgon @ August 02, 2007 12:32 pm)
Cheung [email protected] 02, 2007 06:12 am
The Bloc Quebecois claims to be party specifically for representing and protecting the interests of Quebec people, and yet favours Canada and Quebec both adopting the U.S. dollars.

Really? [/b]
Gilles Duceppe has advocated Canada's adoption of the U.S. dollar in a speech he had given to business interests in Toronto. I dislike Duceppe more than just about anyone else in Canadian politics: He used to be a true believer and a revolutionary Marxist who dedicated his life to organising exploited immigrant workers in Montreal's tourism and hospitality industries...Now he's just a generic socially liberal neocon.

To me it's human nature: The friend who uses you and stabs you on the back is far worse than the prick who bullied you when you were 10.

[Invader Zim]

Hitlers ideology is hard to place within the left-right spectrum when it comes to an over all economic position.

On the one hand Hitler's authoritarianism, militarism and desire to be idolised by the German people necessitated a strong centralised grip on the economy, which is why the Nazi economy was a mix of government controlled cartels and in some cases national initatives. That, many on the right, is an example of a leftwing economic policy. On that point, state control of the economy, it is rather hard to argue with. However when we consider that Hitler and the Nazis were in full support of private property, private buisness men and economic individualism as long as these individuals towed the nationalistic nazi Line. This is of course a position of the right of the spectrum.

As such it is important to remember that Hitler and the nazis were all about control and nationalism. They were extreme conservatives and they believed in preserving, while nazifing the system, that included preserving capitalism. But obviously they ideologically, and when it came to total war required, control of the economy. So it is better to not consider the Nazi economic policy in a tradition left-right perspective but more as capitalism under a tight authoritarian leash.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

One could say he used more state control of Germany's economy to provide a very moderate "socialism"
Socialism isn't something you can just "add on" to the status quo. It's not like adding spices to a dish.

[peaccenicked]

Hilter was quite simply an agent of international finance capital paid to operate as a counter revolutionary leader to overcome the communist threat.

The holocaust was fundamentally about the theft of Jewish property.

The corporate State existed to neutralise the revolution and the idea of the welfare state which frightened the international capitalists as they thought it would be the carrot on the stick to win the western workers to communism. They sought a minimal compromise that was never far from charity or in reality Nazi theft. The bulk of Hitler's financial efforts went into warfare.

'Left' as a term here is utterly blind to the economic reality of the times.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:54 am
Hilter was quite simply an agent of international finance capital paid to operate as a counter revolutionary leader to overcome the communist threat.

The holocaust was fundamentally about the theft of Jewish property.

The corporate State existed to neutralise the revolution and the idea of the welfare state which frightened the international capitalists as they thought it would be the carrot on the stick to win the western workers to communism. They sought a minimal compromise that was never far from charity or in reality Nazi theft. The bulk of Hitler's financial efforts went into warfare.

'Left' as a term here is utterly blind to the economic reality of the times.
So the goal was to stop the idea of a welfare state by instituting a... welfare state?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Serpent+August 04, 2007 02:07 am--> (Serpent @ August 04, 2007 02:07 am)
[email protected] 04, 2007 12:54 am
Hilter was quite simply an agent of international finance capital paid to operate as a counter revolutionary leader to overcome the communist threat.

The holocaust was fundamentally about the theft of Jewish property.

The corporate State existed to neutralise the revolution and the idea of the welfare state which frightened the international capitalists as they thought it would be the carrot on the stick to win the western workers to communism. They sought a minimal compromise that was never far from charity or in reality Nazi theft. The bulk of Hitler's financial efforts went into warfare.

'Left' as a term here is utterly blind to the economic reality of the times.
So the goal was to stop the idea of a welfare state by instituting a... welfare state? [/b]
Eh? One of Hitlers first moves was rounding up those most in need of a welfare state, ie the homeless, and placing them in Dachau.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Serpent+August 04, 2007 02:07 am--> (Serpent @ August 04, 2007 02:07 am)
[email protected] 04, 2007 12:54 am
Hilter was quite simply an agent of international finance capital paid to operate as a counter revolutionary leader to overcome the communist threat.

The holocaust was fundamentally about the theft of Jewish property.

The corporate State existed to neutralise the revolution and the idea of the welfare state which frightened the international capitalists as they thought it would be the carrot on the stick to win the western workers to communism. They sought a minimal compromise that was never far from charity or in reality Nazi theft. The bulk of Hitler's financial efforts went into warfare.

'Left' as a term here is utterly blind to the economic reality of the times.
So the goal was to stop the idea of a welfare state by instituting a... welfare state? [/b]
Eh? One of Hitlers first moves was rounding up those most in need of a welfare state, ie the homeless, and placing them in Dachau, where they were employed as slave labour. Thats not what I would call a welfare state.

[peaccenicked]

Welfare for the master race, was on the cards but it was indeed brutal towards the poorest.

[peaccenicked]

web article (http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2005/06/hitlers_welfare.html)

Basically bribery to the population. It is part of imperialist culture in general.

[fabiansocialist]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 04, 2007 01:10 am
Eh? One of Hitlers first moves was rounding up those most in need of a welfare state, ie the homeless, and placing them in Dachau.
A welfare state for Germans, for "Aryans," and not for Jews, gypsies, and Slavs. Racist ideology and racial Darwinism were central to Hitler´s outlook.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by fabiansocialist+August 04, 2007 04:25 pm--> (fabiansocialist @ August 04, 2007 04:25 pm)
Invader [email protected] 04, 2007 01:10 am
Eh? One of Hitlers first moves was rounding up those most in need of a welfare state, ie the homeless, and placing them in Dachau.
A welfare state for Germans, for "Aryans," and not for Jews, gypsies, and Slavs. Racist ideology and racial Darwinism were central to Hitler´s outlook. [/b]
Most of the homeless would have been 'Aryan'.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by Invader Zim+August 04, 2007 04:18 pm--> (Invader Zim @ August 04, 2007 04:18 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 04:25 pm

Invader [email protected] 04, 2007 01:10 am
Eh? One of Hitlers first moves was rounding up those most in need of a welfare state, ie the homeless, and placing them in Dachau.
A welfare state for Germans, for "Aryans," and not for Jews, gypsies, and Slavs. Racist ideology and racial Darwinism were central to Hitler´s outlook.
Most of the homeless would have been 'Aryan'. [/b]
And if they ever supported Hitler, I'd be plesed to let them starve unless they do something drastic to atone.

[Djehuti]

Sure they were leftists! They smashed the unions, stole their funds and threw their leaders in prison. They reduced pay and social benefits and basicly divided the national income in favour of the finance capital.

The fascist movement in germany derived from the freikorps who during the socialist november revolution in 1918 took counter-revolutionary activity on contract, and with weapons in hand interfeared in the battles between the working class and capital. These were the predecessors of nazism, lost existances and superannuated elements who did not belong to any fixed class. They were just tools for mightier interests, who in the continuation would play a decisive role for the nazi take over: leadersof industrial- and financial empires such as Hugo Stinnes, Albert Vögler, Karl Friedrich v. Siemens, Felix Deutsch, etc. The nazis dependence on the ruling class became even clearer in autumn 1932, when the nazi party found itself in a severe political and financial crisis. The support from the millions of middle class voters, who had been impoverished by the inflation ten years prior and by the present world crisis, was starting to sink, at the same time as the workers became more and more revolutionary minded and tended to back the communist. Then it was once again time for the leaders of the cartels and the industrial- and bank associations to step forward and put their weight in the bowl.
And they plew the way for the nazis.

In January 1933, when Adolf Hitler was asked to form his goverment, this happened with the full support from the big industries and banks. At a meeting in Berlin, February 20th 1933, one week before the Reichstag Fire and two weeks before the terror elections in March 5th, Hitler met with the leaders of Germanys industrial- and finance world: Hjalmar Schacht, Albert Vögler, Friedrich Flick, Krupp von Bohlen, George von Schnitzler, Carl Bosch etc. Hitler announced that his goal was to win totalitarian control over the nation, smash the parliamentary system, strike down every opposition with violence and re-establish the army. After the meeting Schact preposed 3 million marks as a thanks, it became 7 million. It was not a coincidence that the most eager supporters of nazism within the financial world was those groups who had been most affected by the world crisis and were threatened by socialization: The steel and coal-producers, the chemical industry and the major banks. The same branches who also had the most to win through a military rearmament.

There is a few ways toward the fulfillment of unlimited expansion for the big capital:

#1: Internal capital acumulations in the corporations through the normal process of capitalist production.

#2: Capital acumulation at the expense of lesser corporations, with other words to such up capital that by some means or another has succumbed in the competition.

#3: Expansion at the expense of other nations.

#4: Expension at the expense of other major corporations, a method that admittedly will risk the big corporations' common existance and intrest, but that obviously does occur.

In the economy of the third reich all four were practiced. Especially the first two methods were practiced in large scale even before the direct foreign expansion begun. Before one can hope to crack the resistance of other nations' workers, competitors and corporations, one has to krack the resistance of one's own. And that was exactly what happened.

As known, a corporation earns more the lower the wages are, the more labour force that can be employed, the longer the work time and the less organized the workers are. So it did not pass more than three months after the nazi takeover before the unions were smashed. The militant workers were thrown in prison or concentration camps, the collective-agreement negotiations were abolished and strikes became forbidden. Before one year had passed there were laws legislated that made the empoyer absolute master in the corporations and the workers freedom in the choice of empoyment was severely limited. Youth who quit the common school had two weeks to sign up for work. The wages were nailed at a low level. In 1936 a skilled worker earned less than in 1932. The average german consumer consumed less of provisions such as wheat flour, eggs and milk than in 1929. Dispite the ascending level om employment the workers' share of the national income sank from 57% in 1932 to 54% in 1938, while the income from capital rose from 17% to 27%.

Even those who had shared any hope of the nazis as the representatives of the middle class and the small business were brought out into the light. In October 1937 all corporations with less capital than approx 30,000$ dissolved, and new corporations could only be founded if the share capital totaled approx 300,000$.
This ment that a fifth of all small business were ordered to dissappear. In fact, only during the years of 1936, 1937 and 1938 close to 400,000 craft businesses stoped existing. From this, the large corporations benefited dubble. Partly competitors were removed, partly more labour became available. Thereafter followed #3.



The argument that the state had much power in Germany, and that it thus can't be capitalist is a particularly weak one. A society does not need a small state to be capitalistic, and during this period capitalism rather demanded a larger state. In the United States the state's share of the national product rose from 10% in 1929 to 46% in 1944. In England it rose from 8% in 1904 to 31% in 1954. This depends on a lot, the war and crisis of cource but also the general tendency of capitalism during this period. And the state often continued to grow years into the 70ies. Planned economy (Germany was rather a market economy with elements of commando-economy) is also not socialist as such, that totally depends on which economy is being planned: A socialist economy or a capitalist economy.

Anyway, the nazis were not economicly left in any way, they were the *****es of finance- and industrial capital.

[Red Flag Rising]

The Nazis had a left wing and a right wing. Hitler tilted to the right in order to win the support of the establishment in Germany (who wanted to use him as a cat's paw against the Communists) to gain power.

Although he did not institute a full-on socialist program, the state was in control in Nazi Germany. If the state wanted your property for something, it took it. Many Nazis said that the illiusion of private ownership was important to keep people supportive of the regime. Just as the more radical elements of Mussolini's fascism was tempered by the church and the Italian establishment, so was Hitler's socialism. But, in the Salo Republic, Mussolini unleashed his pent up socialism as did Hitler after the start of the war.

There was a revolutionary, anti-establishment, anti-traditional aspect to Nazism that was similar to other variants of leftist groups and ideas and Nazism did spring from many left-wing ideas and thinkers. A great many German Communists and socialists (who should have known better) had no problem joining up with the Nazis because they saw the basic revolutionary quality of Nazism.