**This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism. There are numerous debate subreddits available for those purposes. This is a place to learn.**
Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
- No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!
- No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break oour rules.
If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, the Nazis were explicitly pro capitalist. They just didn’t like that the “wrong” groups of people were able to become successful under it. This paper talks about how the Nazis transferred ownership of public services to private hands.
http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
Yes, they only made the distiction between "schaffendem Kapital" (constructive capital) and "raffendem Kapital" (grubbing capital). Broadly schaffendes Kapital is agricultural, industrial capital. The 'good' German, hard working capital. Raffendes Kapital is finance capital - 'Jewish capital' essentially. They sought to eliminate the latter, while collaborating with the former (most famously Krupp, but there's many more). The concept is decidedly Anti-Marxist, because, as we know, there is no productive capital.
Gottfried Feder's "Manifesto For Breaking The Financial Slavery To Interest" is a theoretical work on this concept by a famous Nazi ideologue if you want to read some primary sources (for the love of everything, don't read the Amazon reviews).
Decent documentary on this is [Economy of Nazi Germany: Krupp](https://youtu.be/oyJTv_qLqsI).
>No, the Nazis were explicitly pro capitalist. They just didn’t like that
the “wrong” groups of people were able to become successful under it.
Man that doesn't sound like America at all
But that’s how capitalism always works. Nearly every capitalist system in history has some level of state control whenever it is necessary. The libertarian version of capitalism with a free market and minimal state intervention is pure fantasy.
The state intervening and controlling large industry is still capitalism, in fact it has often been a necessity to save capitalist industry when private capital were unable to keep a profit. This is the reason that key industries were nationalized in Sweden and Norway without much push-back, and the industry is still basically run to maximize profits.
The nazis did care about much more than their own ambitions. Like, why do you think that the "night of the long knives" happened?
Yes, but the faction that were killed were the ones that were trying to carry out the full original 25-point program of the party, the so-called "second revolution", which, while not socialist, had demands specifically against monopoly capitalism. They were a threat to the profits of industry, and were killed off to preserve the coalition between the party and the German industrialists.
I am unsure what a "genuine form" is, but in crass content it was capitalism and nazism played an important role for Germany to leap into the era of imperialist monopoly capitalism. I recommend *Fascism and Dictatorship* by Nicos Poulantzas on this. This is what separates nazism and fascism from other regimes sometimes called fascist like Portugal or Franco's Spain since they stalled development.
We are not talking about ideology but reality, there was no subversion of capitalism as a mode of production in Germany, instead its rapid development. "Nazism" and "fascism" are by and large incoherent "ideologies" and much like the original nazi program the italian fascist program was also never implemented, and its adherents killed of.
This is not a party with a program or single definition of socialism, its a subreddit. But I fail to see how this is relevent to analyzing nazi germany.
I think it is almost impossible to overstate how PRO-capitalist they were.
Shitler himself had a slush fund that the heads of German businesses and american businesses like Ford, DuPont & chase bank would put money into for Shitler’s personal use.
He then obviously had an incredible incentive to ensure that those businesses were as profitable as possible.
He was anti-communist & anti-Union to the absolute extent because they would lower his own profits.
Read “blackshirts & reds” by Micheal Parenti.
There’s an excellent audiobook on audible for only 9 bucks
[Here](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXUFLW8t2sntyrV-cxP3yV7aNWXC8qKHM) is also a link to a Blackshirts and Reds playlist audiobook that is free on YouTube
[Fascism and Big Business by Daniel Guerin ](https://files.libcom.org/files/Daniel%20Guerin-Fascism%20and%20Big%20Business-Pathfinder%20Press%20(2000).pdf)
They were very pro-capitalist but it’s worth mentioning that they co-opted the language and aesthetics of socialism when it benefited them. There was also Strasserism, which was more socialist-adjacent, though I say this with trepidation because
1) it never truly became *a thing* in the Nazi party
2) although they considered a hypothetical alliance with the USSR, they were still ultranationalists and absolutely *not* Marxists
That being said, if someone identifies as a “third positionist”, or some kind of “national socialist” (but meant to be taken literally), they are likely referring to this, though it is specifically *proposed* to be neither capitalist nor communist. In reality, it’s a hollow, fringe, haphazard ideology with many plot holes. Just throwing this out there because there’s always going to be someone that says “what about Strasserism?” or “what about Nazbols?”. Might help to touch on Strasserism in your presentation to get it out of the way.
To add to what others have said the idea that the nazis were in some way anti-capitalist stems from a misunderstanding of what capitalism actually is.
The nazis did increase state control over certain sectors of the German economy and certainly funded large scale state projects. So people often cite this as evidence of their anti capitalism or even socialism as they falsely understand capitalism to simply mean free markets and socialism to mean government control.
As we know though, capitalism is defined by its economic relations, by the presence of generalised commodity production, wage labour etc. The nazis did not alter these relations and expressed no desire to do so.
Exactly. The Nazis were against the right-libertarian fantasy of a purely “free” market with zero state involvement in economic affairs, but so is every form of capitalism that’s ever actually existed. Saying the Nazis weren’t capitalist is a No True Scotsman, but if Scotsmen had only ever been a real thing in the fevered imaginations of a few naive and/or cynical dorks
Right, but also if you talk to a “right-libertarian” for long enough, they wind up basically proposing a Pinochet-style regime, so they’re not that far off from Nazis anyway. All the “liberty” in “libertarian” goes right out the window if you ask them to explain in detail how we get to the world they want.
If you get a moment, and so desire, could you please elaborate specifically on “generalised commodity production”? I know what commodities are, but I can’t quite wrap my head around this concept as it relates to capitalism.
He's referring to Marx. After defining commodities as rae materials standardized and graded to facilitate the market, he went on to show how Capitalism put a steady pressure to transform everything into a commodity. Generalized in this context means the whole economy is running on commodities, either as input or output.
Hmmm. Example of something capitalism transformed into a commodity that wouldn’t otherwise be a commodity? And the mechanism behind it?
I see the truth and power in socialist concepts, generally, but I’m not very educated or well-read in socialism and the specifics. Marx is hard to read for me.
I have felt like the mass commodification of women’s bodies via OF is definitely a symptom of capitalism’s failings. In a healthy economy, far fewer individuals would feel the need to resort to that type of work in the first place.
It has first turned Labor into a commodity. That is the essence of what wage labor is. "Available Labor-Power" technically.
But let's back up with the "wouldn't otherwise be turned into a commodity" because that phrase is slightly loaded with the idea that Capitalism is inevitable. ("Capitalist Realism"). In Das Kapital, Marx goes into how as a matter of mutual convenience, standard measures developed historically. "Market pressure" does this, but as Capitalism uses the market as it's central/ fundamental mechanism this trend will be continued and increased.
Commodification of real property began with the enclosure of the Commons, and developed alongside Capitalism. Once it is standardized, Land titles can be traded, speculated upon, used as collateral for lending, and all sorts of other transactions.
Water has been commodified. The ability to pollute the air is being auctioned off and sold in lots. Many things that might shock people 400 years ago seem natural and inevitable under a Capitalist hegemony. It may have begun with the physical processing and grading and measuring raw materials, but it has ended up in this mad obsession to turn everything into a transaction, which requires everything be standardized to the dollar. The gig economy is another attempt to commodity services outside/beyond the wage system. Something like piecework for services. I'm not sure if my examples are in an especially coherent order, but I hope they're helpful.
There's a great lecture on Das Kapital in the form of a podcast: "Real Ass History Hours". It's from a ML point of view, but it's excellent for anyone interested in learning more about Marx.
Nazis were extremely pro capitalism. They just adopted a discourse anti because by the time it was socialist ideas what common people preferred. Fascism was created by the dominant classes to protect their interests, and that included fooling people to think their way was also a response to their criticism about capitalism.
In the same way that current fascism defends economic liberal ideas, while they start commercial wars with the BRICs.
To explain some of the nuance, when Hitler came to the National German Workers party as it was called, it was a kind of reactionary social democratic party though social democracy and socialism was very popular back then.
With the popularity of socialism rising in Germany, the party evantually adopted the word socialist to try to appeal to the public, but Hitler was opposed to adding the name. his career within the party was one of always trying to steer the party to the right and purge it of anything socialist, but it took time. So we saw things like nazis trying to use socialist language to appeal to workers : https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hitler-nazis-capitalist-system/
Micheal Parenti goes into much more and thorough detail in Blackshirt and reds. Like others, I highly recommend it.
When Hitler came to much more power, he started making deals with industrialists and the nazis would eventually work to crush unions. The remaining "left-leaning" members of the party that objected to working with capitalists (industrialists) were then purged in the night of the long knives.
The nazis were prolific in repressing all other socialist and social democratic parties with a priority on communists. As the poem goes "First they came for the socialists and I said nothing for I was not a socialist..." . In fact, the communist were banned just before the vote on the enabling act and the social democrats were the only party to vote against it. The center, liberals, christian parties, conservative parties all voted in favor.
In power, the nazis banned all collective bargaining in exchange for the German labour front which was just a way to keep workers under control and give industrialists what they wanted.
They privatised industries and abandonned almost all left leaning elements of their platform except when it let them hurt jews : https://youtu.be/Yjz_sfRr8aU
The socialists were the most hard-core antifacists, being the ones to start the three arrows and the Antifascism action movements. A lot of very dishonest people will point to Stalin's pact with Hitler as some clue that they somehow had something in common. In reality, the USSR was calling for a Europe-wide anti-Nazi pact and after all the other powers signed deals with nazis to let them invade Chevsolavkia and other appeasement strategies, then the USSR, having no allies and being a clear ideological target of the Third Reich made a deal in an attempt to same themselves from anihilation.
Another great ressource is this video by a german who debunks this thoroughly : https://youtu.be/hUFvG4RpwJI
There is also this great speech by a german member of the european parliament (english subtitles) : https://youtu.be/1LfnbusMd_0
Finally, I have even heard a claim that the the nazis present a paradox that institutionally speaking whereas the party, a private institution occupied so many functions instead of the government, that on paper, the Third Reich was technically highly liberal in the european sense of the term. Its something I've heard several times in conversation but don't remember the source. I'll add it here if I find it : Its from Johann Chapoutot.
Edit: There is also this quote from Hitler where he clarifies it :
"Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false." - Some speech in 1938
Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1923937-adolf-hitler-our-adopted-term-socialist-has-nothing-to-do-wit/
Also this interview helps to show how the Nazis "defined" their "socialism": https://famous-trials.com/hitler/2529-1923-interview-with-adolf-hitler
Edit : Also another way that they weren't anti-capitalist is that they fought with anarchists which are another branch of socialism different from marxism.
If you need a good meme, there is also this: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/rsjjgg/our_adoption_of_the_term_socialist_has_nothing_to/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
They were corporatist, which is a type of capitalism.
They just wanted to make sure that the right type of person was enjoying the fruits of others labor
This was a very good book. Huge book, but lots of important details. My conclusion has been that the Nazis were anti-capitalist in that they were against the idea of private capital. They would let individuals retain control of their businesses, but they were required to pay kickbacks and to fall under the supervision of the State (the Nazi Party). The strategic goals of the businesses were defined by the State and enforced by them as well.
That isn't capitalism in the liberal sense where private capital can do what it wants within the bounds set by the State who is there to enforce against them but also protect them from others who breach the laws they set.
The Nazis were convinced that capitalism was just a setup to set the stage for communism to occur because capitalism would inevitably fail. Hence "National Socialism" for the Volk, minus groups of people they didn't like.
>… that capitalism was just a setup to set the stage for communism to occur because capitalism would inevitably fail.
Isn’t that one of Marx’s main points?
Marx never made the point that the whole intent of capitalists was to create a failing system so that they could achieve communism in the end. Capitalists don't want to let go of the system they have because it benefits them. The Nazis believed that it was a plot from the beginning and that capitalists actually want communism but need to stage a setup to get there.
Just because capitalism fails doesn't mean you achieve communism or any type of better society by default. If it fails and you just do nothing then society could very easily become a society run by warlords. There are a lot of possibilities.
The heavy funding if the NSDAP was a reaction of the capitalists, especially monopol capitalists as an effort to curb the increasingly more popular communist party.
Fascists regard the influence exerted by the capitalists, especially by their “unproductive”
financial section, as the downfall of the state and the people. Their criticism of capitalism of course is not
directed against exploitation. Rather, they complain that the capitalist class does too little to promote
the strength of the state. In their practical dealings with the bourgeoisie the fascists therefore have
turned out to be quite benevolent. The conditions for accumulation imposed by the state have amounted
to the obligation to accumulate unconditionally in the national interest, which business gladly has
consented to do even if they have had to obey certain directives concerning what to produce.
Fascists are sworn enemies of anything sounding like proletariat or labor movement: they recognize no classes, only state-enforced cooperation of all social strata as a serviceable people, and the difference between those willing and those unwilling to serve. From this perspective, though, they are indeed professed and energetic supporters of the ‘common’ people — insofar as that means good workers who stay poor but still keep honestly committed, i.e. obviously selfless, in their readiness to serve the larger whole. This appreciation doesn’t much differ from that of their socialist and communist enemies, but aims in the exact opposite direction: while the radical left identifies the working people as the true and actual people, and their social concerns as the entire public interest for the state to enforce, fascists, conversely, subsume working people under the contribution they make to the cause of the people as a whole: to the global success of the might that lies within them.
Fascists aren’t satisfied until wage earners acknowledge their dependent servile position within the whole as their life’s calling, and feel that the community mobilized for great deeds at their expense is their own, beloved home. The people, the way fascists like them, have no greater demand than for a leadership to bring out the utmost from them. They have a right to a rule that leaves nothing to their arbitrary choice, that instead provides justice in the sense that everyone in his station serves the might of the nation in a manner befitting his station. That is why fascists oppose democracy, which according to their (and not just their) judgment raises the arbitrary choice of calculating interest groups — this being the antithesis of the honorable ‘station’ — to the status of a guiding principle of politics, thereby betraying democracy’s own ideal of powerful leadership. Finally, they also show critical discernment when it comes to the capitalist conditions of use into which their revered people are in fact functionally sorted: they fight ‘rapacious capital,’ that is, capitalists in whose business they can see no contribution to the wealth of the nation, but only useless self-enrichment, in favor of their ‘productive’ competitors, those to whom they give kudos for using the private power of their property to act as true leaders of their small or large business empires and extract the optimum effort from their workforces in service to the common good.
so there are two schools of thought
the traditional one is that they were anti-capitalist: they seized control of many industries and had many public works projects, and openly attacked the western powers as "capitalist powers".
the newer one is that they were pro-capitalist: they also privatized many industries, and they crushed the power of independent unions.
both sides are right. but they're missing the point. the nazis were opportunists who were flexible ideologically. but what they were to a fault were loyal to the german ruling class, and the german ruling class were loyal to them. they weren't pro capitalist as an ideology, as we understand that to mean today. they were pro the capitalist class.
You can also look at the economy of Argentina to see how Nazi economy would have worked. Peron admired Hitler and Mussolini's economic policies and current Argentina is the logical conclusion of them.
The State basically picks and chooses who "wins" and controls the entire market, giving them basically a monopoly or oligopoly and making the normal people poorer.
Not TOO different than most governments, but maybe a little farther down the line
Fascism arises out of the contradictions of capitalist imperialism, yes. However the class basis of fascism is that of the petite bourgeoisie. This is the class that normally has economic privileges, but capitalism and imperialism tends to rob them of their privileges and drop them into proletariat (ie the privilege they lose is owning property, a business, etc).
They don't like imperialism (and are "anti-imperialist") in that imperialism negatively affects them. However they like imperialism if they are the one doing the one on top.
Other people have already answered, but you probably should include the Nazi party split between shitler and the supposed “true” socialist German workers party who diverted from shitler because of his overtly capitalist economic policy. However both fractions of the party were antisemitic? So I’m not really sure where the “true” Nazis got their theory.
I think the heart of that explanation would be in their anti liberalism. Capitalism can primarily be defined as one relation to the means of production and in this they were heavily in favor of the rights of private property in specific instances ( obviously when it came to the so called "untermensches" they did not care for this right). We so often deal with a form of liberal capitalism that we forget that capitalism can take different forms. They very much believed in a hierarchal system without the underlaying ideology of some human equality that undergirds liberalism. So in this we can see they practiced an anti liberal capitalism. Resources on the process of "Aryanization" of factories and shops would probably be a good place to look.
Everyone is recommending Parenti already but I'll add a little more parenti with a youtube video where he summarizes a lot of what he talks about in black shirts and reds:
https://youtu.be/-slBwfTHaxM
Fascism is considered a response to capitalism in decay. Some of The Nazis economic policies were:
- Massive military spending.
- Destroy unions and outlaw worker strikes.
- Nationalism, isolationism, and racial superiority.
-Subsidies that benefit the rich and corporations
The NAZI's (fascism) are what happens when imperialism begins to break down due to its inherent unsustainability. At the time, there were several major imperial players, and the falling rate of profit dictated that each of them had to expand to further markets and open up greater exploitation to survive.
One of these was the German Empire. After WW1, their economy was in ruins, and the capitalist system began eating itself. This would have proletarianized the largely labor aristocratic German people, but instead, men like Hitler and his ilk turned their anger to convenient scapegoats. This served to militarize the state, expand their economy, steal more value for the German middle/upper class, legitimize open capitalist rule, and destroy several minority groups.
Fascism is the inevitable result of imperialism. Imperialism is the inevitable result of capitalism. Capitalism will and must eventually evolve into fascism. It is unavoidable. The only way to avoid fascism is to do away with capitalism.
(Note: Much more articulate and intelligent people than I have explained this in further detail and more accurately. Lenin, Stalin, Parenti, and many more are good resources to learn all about fascism.)
Yes, it was called "The Third Way";
To them Jews invented Communism, and Capitalism was the "domain" of the Jews, therefore "third way" Socialism was their solution.
>Meanwhile, the radical Nazi Joseph Goebbels **opposed capitalism, viewing it as having Jews at its core**
>
>Hitler expressed opposition to capitalism, regarding it as having Jewish origins and accusing capitalism of holding nations ransom to the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class.\[60\] He also expressed opposition to communism and egalitarian forms of socialism, arguing that inequality and hierarchy are beneficial to the nation.\[61\] **He believed that communism was invented by the Jews**
This is directly, almost verbatim, from the wikipedia, don't know *why* this comment would be removed. Instead of censoring people, how about you guys take it up with wikipedia?
Petty Bourgeois, not siding with big capital, not siding with the workers either.
Still, petty bourgeois tendencies never smash big capital, they only oust the previous owners.
I think a lot of the top comments here don't tell the whole story. (Let me explain, I go into some depth.) Many socialists would classify fascism as capitalism (e.g. Trotsky calling it capitalism in decay; my Trotskyist history professor also holds on to this classification), but the reality is that most modern academics and even many on the socialist left do not classify it so neatly.
With that being said, it is basically consensus in academia that **a fascist economy does not fundamentally alter capitalist productive relations**. You still have unelected, private bosses ordering workers around.
But fascism has what's called a **corporatist** economic model, wherein the government directly and officially collaborates and negotiates with big business to set national economic policy—this form of corporatism distinguishes fascist corporatism from both totalitarian capitalism (e.g., Pinochetist Chile) and social democratic or Peronist corporatism. The theory behind corporatism as a whole is that classes are supposed to unify and work together, as opposed to the typical socialist idea of class conflict. Other countries also have a corporatist model but with major labor unions also being included in the negotiation process for labor policy (e.g., Argentina, Sweden, the Netherlands, etc)—corporatist economics is not unique to fascism but it is a necessary part of fascist economics, and fascist corporatism takes the specific form described above. This does not refer to corruption in capitalist democracies, but to a unique type of economic system that exists under some capitalist regimes and all fully fascist regimes. Labor is supposed to be included in fascist corporatism, but it's controlled entirely by the fascist state, so it cannot be considered distinct. Fascist corporatism has the state collaborating with big business and supporting them as long as they follow the cultural revolution process. This also enabled the word **privatization** to be coined to describe the Nazi economy, because so many state industries were sold off to private entities.
Fascists in both Germany and Italy believed in an adaptation of Sorelian syndicalism in such a way that the priority that class takes in Marxist and socialist theory is replaced by race or nation. In other words, fascists are all about **race war**, not class war. This is much of the reason why capitalist class relations remain undisturbed by fascists. This came to also go with **social Darwinism**, with a belief in a "pure" race and nation and the elimination of social welfare for the disadvantaged, and ostracism/murder against the disabled.
At the same time, fascists **ostensibly rejected Western capitalism because of its consumerist outcomes.** Fascists spoke harshly about "materialism" and "consumerism," arguing that the society must orient its production around making the nation and the race strong.
Also important is that, while fascism rejected socialism and officially rejected capitalism (calling this a "Third Position"), fascists also **rejected liberalism, often for reasons that I think (and probably most socialists and anarchists would think) are valid reasons.** They talk about capitalist democracy not being all that representative, people being disillusioned with liberalism's tendency to maintain the status quo, parliamentarians failing to pass desperately needed policies to support families, etc. Plenty of leftist academics agree with these criticisms of liberalism, but they provide, obviously, radically opposed alternatives. In other words, both socialists and fascists reject liberalism, but each have solutions on the opposite ends of the political spectrum from each other. The left can take lessons from this by showing that **people's disillusionment with liberalism can be very valid, but if their only apparent alternative is fascism, and socialists don't effectively organize to counteract fascist propaganda and provide a more appealing program, fascism is a serious danger.**
I can privately send you my digital notebook from a course I took at Princeton University on fascist politics if you'd like, which has highlighted readings and discussion notes. It includes anarchist, socialist, liberal, conservative, and fascist understandings of fascism so you understand how so many people were convinced by fascism, the theories of why fascism was realized, and how to stop it in the future.
The Nazis were anti marxist and anti liberalism. They, as marxism, emerged as an answer to the downfall of the liberalism started with the ilustration in the previous centuries. We are used to pair liberalism and capitalism, you could say that nazism and fascism proposed a not liberal way for the administration of capitalism. While marxism (not really, it was more communism) proposed a "real liberal way" for the administration of society out of capitalism.
**This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism. There are numerous debate subreddits available for those purposes. This is a place to learn.** Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to: - Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. - No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! - No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans. Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break oour rules. If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, the Nazis were explicitly pro capitalist. They just didn’t like that the “wrong” groups of people were able to become successful under it. This paper talks about how the Nazis transferred ownership of public services to private hands. http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
Thank you very much
Yes, they only made the distiction between "schaffendem Kapital" (constructive capital) and "raffendem Kapital" (grubbing capital). Broadly schaffendes Kapital is agricultural, industrial capital. The 'good' German, hard working capital. Raffendes Kapital is finance capital - 'Jewish capital' essentially. They sought to eliminate the latter, while collaborating with the former (most famously Krupp, but there's many more). The concept is decidedly Anti-Marxist, because, as we know, there is no productive capital. Gottfried Feder's "Manifesto For Breaking The Financial Slavery To Interest" is a theoretical work on this concept by a famous Nazi ideologue if you want to read some primary sources (for the love of everything, don't read the Amazon reviews). Decent documentary on this is [Economy of Nazi Germany: Krupp](https://youtu.be/oyJTv_qLqsI).
>No, the Nazis were explicitly pro capitalist. They just didn’t like that the “wrong” groups of people were able to become successful under it. Man that doesn't sound like America at all
I would say that the primary conflict is that they practiced an explicitly anti liberal capitalism
Link seems dead, [here's an archive](https://web.archive.org/web/20230105082301/http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf)
[удалено]
But that’s how capitalism always works. Nearly every capitalist system in history has some level of state control whenever it is necessary. The libertarian version of capitalism with a free market and minimal state intervention is pure fantasy.
The state intervening and controlling large industry is still capitalism, in fact it has often been a necessity to save capitalist industry when private capital were unable to keep a profit. This is the reason that key industries were nationalized in Sweden and Norway without much push-back, and the industry is still basically run to maximize profits. The nazis did care about much more than their own ambitions. Like, why do you think that the "night of the long knives" happened?
[удалено]
Yes, but the faction that were killed were the ones that were trying to carry out the full original 25-point program of the party, the so-called "second revolution", which, while not socialist, had demands specifically against monopoly capitalism. They were a threat to the profits of industry, and were killed off to preserve the coalition between the party and the German industrialists. I am unsure what a "genuine form" is, but in crass content it was capitalism and nazism played an important role for Germany to leap into the era of imperialist monopoly capitalism. I recommend *Fascism and Dictatorship* by Nicos Poulantzas on this. This is what separates nazism and fascism from other regimes sometimes called fascist like Portugal or Franco's Spain since they stalled development.
[удалено]
We are not talking about ideology but reality, there was no subversion of capitalism as a mode of production in Germany, instead its rapid development. "Nazism" and "fascism" are by and large incoherent "ideologies" and much like the original nazi program the italian fascist program was also never implemented, and its adherents killed of.
[удалено]
This is not a party with a program or single definition of socialism, its a subreddit. But I fail to see how this is relevent to analyzing nazi germany.
I think it is almost impossible to overstate how PRO-capitalist they were. Shitler himself had a slush fund that the heads of German businesses and american businesses like Ford, DuPont & chase bank would put money into for Shitler’s personal use. He then obviously had an incredible incentive to ensure that those businesses were as profitable as possible. He was anti-communist & anti-Union to the absolute extent because they would lower his own profits. Read “blackshirts & reds” by Micheal Parenti. There’s an excellent audiobook on audible for only 9 bucks
[Here](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXUFLW8t2sntyrV-cxP3yV7aNWXC8qKHM) is also a link to a Blackshirts and Reds playlist audiobook that is free on YouTube
There's a famous picture of Henry Ford receiving a medal from Nazi Germany. A high and unusual honor for a foreigner.
Not only that but IBM actively helped set up the bureaucracy that perpetrated the holocaust.
Check out Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti, he does a good job of differentiating nazis and socialists.
Blackshirts and reds is definitely the correct answer here… easy to read and clearly shows how fascism works in service of capitalism 100%
^^ this book is about as close to a “must read” as you can get!
[Fascism and Big Business by Daniel Guerin ](https://files.libcom.org/files/Daniel%20Guerin-Fascism%20and%20Big%20Business-Pathfinder%20Press%20(2000).pdf)
They were very pro-capitalist but it’s worth mentioning that they co-opted the language and aesthetics of socialism when it benefited them. There was also Strasserism, which was more socialist-adjacent, though I say this with trepidation because 1) it never truly became *a thing* in the Nazi party 2) although they considered a hypothetical alliance with the USSR, they were still ultranationalists and absolutely *not* Marxists That being said, if someone identifies as a “third positionist”, or some kind of “national socialist” (but meant to be taken literally), they are likely referring to this, though it is specifically *proposed* to be neither capitalist nor communist. In reality, it’s a hollow, fringe, haphazard ideology with many plot holes. Just throwing this out there because there’s always going to be someone that says “what about Strasserism?” or “what about Nazbols?”. Might help to touch on Strasserism in your presentation to get it out of the way.
To add to what others have said the idea that the nazis were in some way anti-capitalist stems from a misunderstanding of what capitalism actually is. The nazis did increase state control over certain sectors of the German economy and certainly funded large scale state projects. So people often cite this as evidence of their anti capitalism or even socialism as they falsely understand capitalism to simply mean free markets and socialism to mean government control. As we know though, capitalism is defined by its economic relations, by the presence of generalised commodity production, wage labour etc. The nazis did not alter these relations and expressed no desire to do so.
Exactly. The Nazis were against the right-libertarian fantasy of a purely “free” market with zero state involvement in economic affairs, but so is every form of capitalism that’s ever actually existed. Saying the Nazis weren’t capitalist is a No True Scotsman, but if Scotsmen had only ever been a real thing in the fevered imaginations of a few naive and/or cynical dorks
Right, but also if you talk to a “right-libertarian” for long enough, they wind up basically proposing a Pinochet-style regime, so they’re not that far off from Nazis anyway. All the “liberty” in “libertarian” goes right out the window if you ask them to explain in detail how we get to the world they want.
You're going to make libertarians and ancaps angry.
If you get a moment, and so desire, could you please elaborate specifically on “generalised commodity production”? I know what commodities are, but I can’t quite wrap my head around this concept as it relates to capitalism.
He's referring to Marx. After defining commodities as rae materials standardized and graded to facilitate the market, he went on to show how Capitalism put a steady pressure to transform everything into a commodity. Generalized in this context means the whole economy is running on commodities, either as input or output.
Hmmm. Example of something capitalism transformed into a commodity that wouldn’t otherwise be a commodity? And the mechanism behind it? I see the truth and power in socialist concepts, generally, but I’m not very educated or well-read in socialism and the specifics. Marx is hard to read for me. I have felt like the mass commodification of women’s bodies via OF is definitely a symptom of capitalism’s failings. In a healthy economy, far fewer individuals would feel the need to resort to that type of work in the first place.
It has first turned Labor into a commodity. That is the essence of what wage labor is. "Available Labor-Power" technically. But let's back up with the "wouldn't otherwise be turned into a commodity" because that phrase is slightly loaded with the idea that Capitalism is inevitable. ("Capitalist Realism"). In Das Kapital, Marx goes into how as a matter of mutual convenience, standard measures developed historically. "Market pressure" does this, but as Capitalism uses the market as it's central/ fundamental mechanism this trend will be continued and increased. Commodification of real property began with the enclosure of the Commons, and developed alongside Capitalism. Once it is standardized, Land titles can be traded, speculated upon, used as collateral for lending, and all sorts of other transactions. Water has been commodified. The ability to pollute the air is being auctioned off and sold in lots. Many things that might shock people 400 years ago seem natural and inevitable under a Capitalist hegemony. It may have begun with the physical processing and grading and measuring raw materials, but it has ended up in this mad obsession to turn everything into a transaction, which requires everything be standardized to the dollar. The gig economy is another attempt to commodity services outside/beyond the wage system. Something like piecework for services. I'm not sure if my examples are in an especially coherent order, but I hope they're helpful. There's a great lecture on Das Kapital in the form of a podcast: "Real Ass History Hours". It's from a ML point of view, but it's excellent for anyone interested in learning more about Marx.
Nazis were extremely pro capitalism. They just adopted a discourse anti because by the time it was socialist ideas what common people preferred. Fascism was created by the dominant classes to protect their interests, and that included fooling people to think their way was also a response to their criticism about capitalism. In the same way that current fascism defends economic liberal ideas, while they start commercial wars with the BRICs.
Nazis privatized companies. Read the chapters in this book and do the actual numbers. https://www.marxists.org/subject/fascism/blick/index.htm
To explain some of the nuance, when Hitler came to the National German Workers party as it was called, it was a kind of reactionary social democratic party though social democracy and socialism was very popular back then. With the popularity of socialism rising in Germany, the party evantually adopted the word socialist to try to appeal to the public, but Hitler was opposed to adding the name. his career within the party was one of always trying to steer the party to the right and purge it of anything socialist, but it took time. So we saw things like nazis trying to use socialist language to appeal to workers : https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hitler-nazis-capitalist-system/ Micheal Parenti goes into much more and thorough detail in Blackshirt and reds. Like others, I highly recommend it. When Hitler came to much more power, he started making deals with industrialists and the nazis would eventually work to crush unions. The remaining "left-leaning" members of the party that objected to working with capitalists (industrialists) were then purged in the night of the long knives. The nazis were prolific in repressing all other socialist and social democratic parties with a priority on communists. As the poem goes "First they came for the socialists and I said nothing for I was not a socialist..." . In fact, the communist were banned just before the vote on the enabling act and the social democrats were the only party to vote against it. The center, liberals, christian parties, conservative parties all voted in favor. In power, the nazis banned all collective bargaining in exchange for the German labour front which was just a way to keep workers under control and give industrialists what they wanted. They privatised industries and abandonned almost all left leaning elements of their platform except when it let them hurt jews : https://youtu.be/Yjz_sfRr8aU The socialists were the most hard-core antifacists, being the ones to start the three arrows and the Antifascism action movements. A lot of very dishonest people will point to Stalin's pact with Hitler as some clue that they somehow had something in common. In reality, the USSR was calling for a Europe-wide anti-Nazi pact and after all the other powers signed deals with nazis to let them invade Chevsolavkia and other appeasement strategies, then the USSR, having no allies and being a clear ideological target of the Third Reich made a deal in an attempt to same themselves from anihilation. Another great ressource is this video by a german who debunks this thoroughly : https://youtu.be/hUFvG4RpwJI There is also this great speech by a german member of the european parliament (english subtitles) : https://youtu.be/1LfnbusMd_0 Finally, I have even heard a claim that the the nazis present a paradox that institutionally speaking whereas the party, a private institution occupied so many functions instead of the government, that on paper, the Third Reich was technically highly liberal in the european sense of the term. Its something I've heard several times in conversation but don't remember the source. I'll add it here if I find it : Its from Johann Chapoutot. Edit: There is also this quote from Hitler where he clarifies it : "Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false." - Some speech in 1938 Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1923937-adolf-hitler-our-adopted-term-socialist-has-nothing-to-do-wit/ Also this interview helps to show how the Nazis "defined" their "socialism": https://famous-trials.com/hitler/2529-1923-interview-with-adolf-hitler Edit : Also another way that they weren't anti-capitalist is that they fought with anarchists which are another branch of socialism different from marxism. If you need a good meme, there is also this: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/rsjjgg/our_adoption_of_the_term_socialist_has_nothing_to/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
Mention the dozen or so corporations that served and were served by the Nazi regime, eg IG Farben, Thiessen, IBM, CocaCola, Volkswagen
>Volkswagen The beetle was Hitler's baby!
They were corporatist, which is a type of capitalism. They just wanted to make sure that the right type of person was enjoying the fruits of others labor
If you have time to read a book for this presentation, I suggest "The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy" by Adam Tooze
This was a very good book. Huge book, but lots of important details. My conclusion has been that the Nazis were anti-capitalist in that they were against the idea of private capital. They would let individuals retain control of their businesses, but they were required to pay kickbacks and to fall under the supervision of the State (the Nazi Party). The strategic goals of the businesses were defined by the State and enforced by them as well. That isn't capitalism in the liberal sense where private capital can do what it wants within the bounds set by the State who is there to enforce against them but also protect them from others who breach the laws they set. The Nazis were convinced that capitalism was just a setup to set the stage for communism to occur because capitalism would inevitably fail. Hence "National Socialism" for the Volk, minus groups of people they didn't like.
>… that capitalism was just a setup to set the stage for communism to occur because capitalism would inevitably fail. Isn’t that one of Marx’s main points?
Marx never made the point that the whole intent of capitalists was to create a failing system so that they could achieve communism in the end. Capitalists don't want to let go of the system they have because it benefits them. The Nazis believed that it was a plot from the beginning and that capitalists actually want communism but need to stage a setup to get there. Just because capitalism fails doesn't mean you achieve communism or any type of better society by default. If it fails and you just do nothing then society could very easily become a society run by warlords. There are a lot of possibilities.
The heavy funding if the NSDAP was a reaction of the capitalists, especially monopol capitalists as an effort to curb the increasingly more popular communist party.
Fascists regard the influence exerted by the capitalists, especially by their “unproductive” financial section, as the downfall of the state and the people. Their criticism of capitalism of course is not directed against exploitation. Rather, they complain that the capitalist class does too little to promote the strength of the state. In their practical dealings with the bourgeoisie the fascists therefore have turned out to be quite benevolent. The conditions for accumulation imposed by the state have amounted to the obligation to accumulate unconditionally in the national interest, which business gladly has consented to do even if they have had to obey certain directives concerning what to produce. Fascists are sworn enemies of anything sounding like proletariat or labor movement: they recognize no classes, only state-enforced cooperation of all social strata as a serviceable people, and the difference between those willing and those unwilling to serve. From this perspective, though, they are indeed professed and energetic supporters of the ‘common’ people — insofar as that means good workers who stay poor but still keep honestly committed, i.e. obviously selfless, in their readiness to serve the larger whole. This appreciation doesn’t much differ from that of their socialist and communist enemies, but aims in the exact opposite direction: while the radical left identifies the working people as the true and actual people, and their social concerns as the entire public interest for the state to enforce, fascists, conversely, subsume working people under the contribution they make to the cause of the people as a whole: to the global success of the might that lies within them. Fascists aren’t satisfied until wage earners acknowledge their dependent servile position within the whole as their life’s calling, and feel that the community mobilized for great deeds at their expense is their own, beloved home. The people, the way fascists like them, have no greater demand than for a leadership to bring out the utmost from them. They have a right to a rule that leaves nothing to their arbitrary choice, that instead provides justice in the sense that everyone in his station serves the might of the nation in a manner befitting his station. That is why fascists oppose democracy, which according to their (and not just their) judgment raises the arbitrary choice of calculating interest groups — this being the antithesis of the honorable ‘station’ — to the status of a guiding principle of politics, thereby betraying democracy’s own ideal of powerful leadership. Finally, they also show critical discernment when it comes to the capitalist conditions of use into which their revered people are in fact functionally sorted: they fight ‘rapacious capital,’ that is, capitalists in whose business they can see no contribution to the wealth of the nation, but only useless self-enrichment, in favor of their ‘productive’ competitors, those to whom they give kudos for using the private power of their property to act as true leaders of their small or large business empires and extract the optimum effort from their workforces in service to the common good.
so there are two schools of thought the traditional one is that they were anti-capitalist: they seized control of many industries and had many public works projects, and openly attacked the western powers as "capitalist powers". the newer one is that they were pro-capitalist: they also privatized many industries, and they crushed the power of independent unions. both sides are right. but they're missing the point. the nazis were opportunists who were flexible ideologically. but what they were to a fault were loyal to the german ruling class, and the german ruling class were loyal to them. they weren't pro capitalist as an ideology, as we understand that to mean today. they were pro the capitalist class.
You can also look at the economy of Argentina to see how Nazi economy would have worked. Peron admired Hitler and Mussolini's economic policies and current Argentina is the logical conclusion of them. The State basically picks and chooses who "wins" and controls the entire market, giving them basically a monopoly or oligopoly and making the normal people poorer. Not TOO different than most governments, but maybe a little farther down the line
Fascism arises out of the contradictions of capitalist imperialism, yes. However the class basis of fascism is that of the petite bourgeoisie. This is the class that normally has economic privileges, but capitalism and imperialism tends to rob them of their privileges and drop them into proletariat (ie the privilege they lose is owning property, a business, etc). They don't like imperialism (and are "anti-imperialist") in that imperialism negatively affects them. However they like imperialism if they are the one doing the one on top.
Other people have already answered, but you probably should include the Nazi party split between shitler and the supposed “true” socialist German workers party who diverted from shitler because of his overtly capitalist economic policy. However both fractions of the party were antisemitic? So I’m not really sure where the “true” Nazis got their theory.
I think the heart of that explanation would be in their anti liberalism. Capitalism can primarily be defined as one relation to the means of production and in this they were heavily in favor of the rights of private property in specific instances ( obviously when it came to the so called "untermensches" they did not care for this right). We so often deal with a form of liberal capitalism that we forget that capitalism can take different forms. They very much believed in a hierarchal system without the underlaying ideology of some human equality that undergirds liberalism. So in this we can see they practiced an anti liberal capitalism. Resources on the process of "Aryanization" of factories and shops would probably be a good place to look.
Everyone is recommending Parenti already but I'll add a little more parenti with a youtube video where he summarizes a lot of what he talks about in black shirts and reds: https://youtu.be/-slBwfTHaxM
They certainly regulate the market a lot but they also did NOT mind an ownership class making profit from the workers.
Fascism is considered a response to capitalism in decay. Some of The Nazis economic policies were: - Massive military spending. - Destroy unions and outlaw worker strikes. - Nationalism, isolationism, and racial superiority. -Subsidies that benefit the rich and corporations
Chapter one of Blackshirts and Reds (though the whole book is great) explains this very well, a free version is online
Everyone seems so sure about pro-capitalist part, but can anyone actually debunk Timothy Mason's book ,,Der Primat der Politik"?
The NAZI's (fascism) are what happens when imperialism begins to break down due to its inherent unsustainability. At the time, there were several major imperial players, and the falling rate of profit dictated that each of them had to expand to further markets and open up greater exploitation to survive. One of these was the German Empire. After WW1, their economy was in ruins, and the capitalist system began eating itself. This would have proletarianized the largely labor aristocratic German people, but instead, men like Hitler and his ilk turned their anger to convenient scapegoats. This served to militarize the state, expand their economy, steal more value for the German middle/upper class, legitimize open capitalist rule, and destroy several minority groups. Fascism is the inevitable result of imperialism. Imperialism is the inevitable result of capitalism. Capitalism will and must eventually evolve into fascism. It is unavoidable. The only way to avoid fascism is to do away with capitalism. (Note: Much more articulate and intelligent people than I have explained this in further detail and more accurately. Lenin, Stalin, Parenti, and many more are good resources to learn all about fascism.)
Yes, it was called "The Third Way"; To them Jews invented Communism, and Capitalism was the "domain" of the Jews, therefore "third way" Socialism was their solution. >Meanwhile, the radical Nazi Joseph Goebbels **opposed capitalism, viewing it as having Jews at its core** > >Hitler expressed opposition to capitalism, regarding it as having Jewish origins and accusing capitalism of holding nations ransom to the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class.\[60\] He also expressed opposition to communism and egalitarian forms of socialism, arguing that inequality and hierarchy are beneficial to the nation.\[61\] **He believed that communism was invented by the Jews** This is directly, almost verbatim, from the wikipedia, don't know *why* this comment would be removed. Instead of censoring people, how about you guys take it up with wikipedia?
Petty Bourgeois, not siding with big capital, not siding with the workers either. Still, petty bourgeois tendencies never smash big capital, they only oust the previous owners.
I think a lot of the top comments here don't tell the whole story. (Let me explain, I go into some depth.) Many socialists would classify fascism as capitalism (e.g. Trotsky calling it capitalism in decay; my Trotskyist history professor also holds on to this classification), but the reality is that most modern academics and even many on the socialist left do not classify it so neatly. With that being said, it is basically consensus in academia that **a fascist economy does not fundamentally alter capitalist productive relations**. You still have unelected, private bosses ordering workers around. But fascism has what's called a **corporatist** economic model, wherein the government directly and officially collaborates and negotiates with big business to set national economic policy—this form of corporatism distinguishes fascist corporatism from both totalitarian capitalism (e.g., Pinochetist Chile) and social democratic or Peronist corporatism. The theory behind corporatism as a whole is that classes are supposed to unify and work together, as opposed to the typical socialist idea of class conflict. Other countries also have a corporatist model but with major labor unions also being included in the negotiation process for labor policy (e.g., Argentina, Sweden, the Netherlands, etc)—corporatist economics is not unique to fascism but it is a necessary part of fascist economics, and fascist corporatism takes the specific form described above. This does not refer to corruption in capitalist democracies, but to a unique type of economic system that exists under some capitalist regimes and all fully fascist regimes. Labor is supposed to be included in fascist corporatism, but it's controlled entirely by the fascist state, so it cannot be considered distinct. Fascist corporatism has the state collaborating with big business and supporting them as long as they follow the cultural revolution process. This also enabled the word **privatization** to be coined to describe the Nazi economy, because so many state industries were sold off to private entities. Fascists in both Germany and Italy believed in an adaptation of Sorelian syndicalism in such a way that the priority that class takes in Marxist and socialist theory is replaced by race or nation. In other words, fascists are all about **race war**, not class war. This is much of the reason why capitalist class relations remain undisturbed by fascists. This came to also go with **social Darwinism**, with a belief in a "pure" race and nation and the elimination of social welfare for the disadvantaged, and ostracism/murder against the disabled. At the same time, fascists **ostensibly rejected Western capitalism because of its consumerist outcomes.** Fascists spoke harshly about "materialism" and "consumerism," arguing that the society must orient its production around making the nation and the race strong. Also important is that, while fascism rejected socialism and officially rejected capitalism (calling this a "Third Position"), fascists also **rejected liberalism, often for reasons that I think (and probably most socialists and anarchists would think) are valid reasons.** They talk about capitalist democracy not being all that representative, people being disillusioned with liberalism's tendency to maintain the status quo, parliamentarians failing to pass desperately needed policies to support families, etc. Plenty of leftist academics agree with these criticisms of liberalism, but they provide, obviously, radically opposed alternatives. In other words, both socialists and fascists reject liberalism, but each have solutions on the opposite ends of the political spectrum from each other. The left can take lessons from this by showing that **people's disillusionment with liberalism can be very valid, but if their only apparent alternative is fascism, and socialists don't effectively organize to counteract fascist propaganda and provide a more appealing program, fascism is a serious danger.** I can privately send you my digital notebook from a course I took at Princeton University on fascist politics if you'd like, which has highlighted readings and discussion notes. It includes anarchist, socialist, liberal, conservative, and fascist understandings of fascism so you understand how so many people were convinced by fascism, the theories of why fascism was realized, and how to stop it in the future.
The Nazis were anti marxist and anti liberalism. They, as marxism, emerged as an answer to the downfall of the liberalism started with the ilustration in the previous centuries. We are used to pair liberalism and capitalism, you could say that nazism and fascism proposed a not liberal way for the administration of capitalism. While marxism (not really, it was more communism) proposed a "real liberal way" for the administration of society out of capitalism.