I found this quote on youtube,
"Hitler was a national socialist i.e. facist, not a socialist. He strongly believed in the free market. The first people to oppose Hitler were the communists and socialists, while the Americans were among the last."
I do not even know how to respond to that. lol
Largely correct, with the glaring exception of "He strongly believed in the free market". I cannot put into words how utterly wrong-headed that idea is.
You could call Hitler a socialist, but you would have to specify that he was a "conservative socialist". Socialist states like the Soviet Union destroyed the previous power structures before building their own, while the Nazis mainly just entrenched the aristocracy and corporatocracy that already existed, a distinction that I think is important.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Free market capitalism does not entails a government mandating productions of war materials, which have little to sastify the general population.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
It depends on which era of Hitlerian thought you're talking about. Before his rise to power, he often talked favorably about the market (or whatever he meant by that term) since the market selection process that eliminates unproductive competitors seemed to match with his general social-darwinist philosophy.However, as soon as he'd become accustomed to his office, he would replace any market-based philosophy with vague blather about a socialist Volksgemeinschaft and how any enterprise that didn't serve the Volk needed to be nationalized. It was obvious that he believed in state-ownership of resources (that is, socialism) in the later stages of his political career much more than in the free market, a thing he only seemed to tolerate as long as it served its purpose.
Wombatron is, however, right about his corporatist and reactionary leanings. He kept all the previously existing social structures in Germany alive while filling them with Nazi thought, he did not act as a revolutionary, but as a subversive and infiltrating element.
How about with the ACTUAL 25 point Nazi Platform which includes the following:
Didn't Milton Friedman act as an advisor to Hitler during the Chilean coup?
Sphairon: It depends on which era of Hitlerian thought you're talking about. Before his rise to power, he often talked favorably about the market (or whatever he meant by that term) since the market selection process that eliminates unproductive competitors seemed to match with his general social-darwinist philosophy.
It depends on which era of Hitlerian thought you're talking about. Before his rise to power, he often talked favorably about the market (or whatever he meant by that term) since the market selection process that eliminates unproductive competitors seemed to match with his general social-darwinist philosophy.
Kind of like Bush.
John Ess:Didn't Milton Friedman act as an advisor to Hitler during the Chilean coup?
wombatron: You could call Hitler a socialist, but you would have to specify that he was a "conservative socialist". Socialist states like the Soviet Union destroyed the previous power structures before building their own, while the Nazis mainly just entrenched the aristocracy and corporatocracy that already existed, a distinction that I think is important.
That was more the case for conventional Fascists like Mussolini and Franco. Nazism was much more populist radical than classic Fascism so much that it was really a hybrid between a progressive and a reactionary movement. For example just take its flirting with paganism. During the Stalin-Hitler pact state propaganda in USSR emphasised this workers, socialist aspect of National Socialist Germany so when Hitler invaded they actually had to shift to calling Germany fascists rather than national-socialists, because they had previously given the term somewhat positive connotations.
Sphairon: Wombatron is, however, right about his corporatist and reactionary leanings. He kept all the previously existing social structures in Germany alive while filling them with Nazi thought, he did not act as a revolutionary, but as a subversive and infiltrating element.
One can even find approving remarks by Mussolini on capitalism (not necessarily laissez faire), where he extols its productive power. Many fascists are enamoured by that aspect of it (same with some Marxian socialists, including Marx himself), as it can be used to fuel a nation by providing it with ample economic power. It's no accident the formerly liberal regimes later became empires. The fascists though seem to have skipped this step anyway, by directing enterprise at their behest, even if they let it remain "private" nominally.
To darkness I condemn you...
Jon Irenicus:t's no accident the formerly liberal regimes later became empires.
For anybody interested see Hoppe's "The Paradox of Imperialism" on this.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Marko: wombatron: You could call Hitler a socialist, but you would have to specify that he was a "conservative socialist". Socialist states like the Soviet Union destroyed the previous power structures before building their own, while the Nazis mainly just entrenched the aristocracy and corporatocracy that already existed, a distinction that I think is important. That was more the case for conventional Fascists like Mussolini and Franco. Nazism was much more populist radical than classic Fascism so much that it was really a hybrid between a progressive and a reactionary movement. For example just take its flirting with paganism. During the Stalin-Hitler pact state propaganda in USSR emphasised this workers, socialist aspect of National Socialist Germany so when Hitler invaded they actually had to shift to calling Germany fascists rather than national-socialists, because they had previously given the term somewhat positive connotations. Sphairon: Wombatron is, however, right about his corporatist and reactionary leanings. He kept all the previously existing social structures in Germany alive while filling them with Nazi thought, he did not act as a revolutionary, but as a subversive and infiltrating element. You are right he did not destroy the previous establishment like the Bolsheviks. But he did bring them under his heel and limited their power. He cutt the wings of industrialists and of the military. Unlike latin fascists he also took on the church rather than try to seek an ally in it.
True. One could conceive of Hitler and Nazism as being the "left", as it were, of fascism. They weren't completely reactionary in the way that Mussolini and Franco were. In fact, a lot of the Nazi economic policies strongly resemble the New Deal (lol at statist liberals).
Also, about the "25-Point Plan", it is arguable how much of it is just rhetoric. Similar, again, to the New Deal: supposedly "anti-business", while business leaders were actually working with the state to stamp out competition and create monopolies.
wombatron: Marko: wombatron: You could call Hitler a socialist, but you would have to specify that he was a "conservative socialist". Socialist states like the Soviet Union destroyed the previous power structures before building their own, while the Nazis mainly just entrenched the aristocracy and corporatocracy that already existed, a distinction that I think is important. That was more the case for conventional Fascists like Mussolini and Franco. Nazism was much more populist radical than classic Fascism so much that it was really a hybrid between a progressive and a reactionary movement. For example just take its flirting with paganism. During the Stalin-Hitler pact state propaganda in USSR emphasised this workers, socialist aspect of National Socialist Germany so when Hitler invaded they actually had to shift to calling Germany fascists rather than national-socialists, because they had previously given the term somewhat positive connotations. Sphairon: Wombatron is, however, right about his corporatist and reactionary leanings. He kept all the previously existing social structures in Germany alive while filling them with Nazi thought, he did not act as a revolutionary, but as a subversive and infiltrating element. You are right he did not destroy the previous establishment like the Bolsheviks. But he did bring them under his heel and limited their power. He cutt the wings of industrialists and of the military. Unlike latin fascists he also took on the church rather than try to seek an ally in it. True. One could conceive of Hitler and Nazism as being the "left", as it were, of fascism. They weren't completely reactionary in the way that Mussolini and Franco were. In fact, a lot of the Nazi economic policies strongly resemble the New Deal (lol at statist liberals). Also, about the "25-Point Plan", it is arguable how much of it is just rhetoric. Similar, again, to the New Deal: supposedly "anti-business", while business leaders were actually working with the state to stamp out competition and create monopolies.
Actually, the recent Swiss study (which is proving more illuminating each time I remember it) that confirmed the Nazi's were elected by normal, rational voting behavior, also confirmed, more or less, that the Nazi's seduced the working class in order to get votes with their platform:
from: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/Vote_for_Hitler_normal_in_economic_context.html?siteSect=105&sid=9795885&cKey=1222879180000&ty=st Unlike industrial workers, these rural and domestic workers had no social security net in the form of unemployment insurance. Likewise, small shopkeepers did not officially become unemployed - they just made less money. Therefore these groups did not have any stake in the government's unemployment policies and were more drawn to the free enterprise promises of the Nazis. "That was our hypothesis: that blue-collar workers and the unemployed would regard either the government or the communists, who were for expropriation, as the party to vote for. Indeed, we found support for that."
Unlike industrial workers, these rural and domestic workers had no social security net in the form of unemployment insurance. Likewise, small shopkeepers did not officially become unemployed - they just made less money.
Therefore these groups did not have any stake in the government's unemployment policies and were more drawn to the free enterprise promises of the Nazis.
"That was our hypothesis: that blue-collar workers and the unemployed would regard either the government or the communists, who were for expropriation, as the party to vote for. Indeed, we found support for that."
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap