"Nazis - Right or Left?" Topic
141 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board
Action Log
07 Jul 2018 9:03 p.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Removed from TMP Poll Suggestions board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Profile ArticleAt long last, the Stalingrad winners have been revealed.
Featured Book Review
|
Pages: 1 2 3
Cacique Caribe | 08 Dec 2017 9:25 p.m. PST |
If one reads books like "The Prophet and the Proletariat"* you find that associations of convenience and victims of opportunity don't always jive with people's (and academia's) preconceived ideas of what Marxists are or aren't, or what they will or will not do. So the notion that the Nazis could not possibly be kin of the early 20th century Socialists because of XYZ reason(s) is very amusing. Those artificial blinders could turn out to be very costly and dangerous though. Dan * That book became a big hit with the Ikhwan (Hasan al-Banna's "Brethren", "al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen") after 1997, when it was translated into Arabic: link |
23rdFusilier | 08 Dec 2017 9:47 p.m. PST |
Jack Burton wrote: "Heather Heyer was a morbidly obese Leftist who died of a heart attack while rioting in an attempt to deprive American citizens of their rights of speech and assembly." I hope that you posted this as a joke. James Fields, a man with white nationalist sympathies, drove his car into a crowd of protesters, injuring at least 19 and killing Heyer. Fields has since been charged with second-degree murder. She died as a result of blunt-force injury to the chest, according to the medical report. The statement that she was morbidly obese and died as a result of a heart attack was started by Hunter Wallace a white nationalist and anti-Semitic writer on his blog Occidental Dissent. It was picked up by and repeated by various words right groups like the daily stormer. In other words they made up a story you are repeating defaming this young lady. On 4Chan trolls were Evan worse. As I said I hope you posted this as a joke, because otherwise I question your motivation for writing this as well as your sources. And Legion, as to your amusing comment i would expect something better out of someone who claims trolls bullied him. |
peterx | 08 Dec 2017 9:53 p.m. PST |
I think it is interesting and not unexpected that the current right wing wants to disassociate itself from Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. After all, they were the single most bloody regime in the 20th century through warfare, concentration camps and death squads. The rise of the Neo-Nazis, Neo-Fascists, the KKK, the white nationalists and other ultra-right wing nationalist groups whose goals are: anti-immigrant, anti-black, anti-Muslim, homophobic, anti-Jewish, anti-environmental, anti-left, and anti-feminist, makes the center corporate right of the US and Europe recoil at their reactionary "allies". It must particularly upset libertarian right people, whose goals and agenda are so different from the Neo-fascists authoritarian world view. There are other strands of right leaning thought: corporatism/ pure capitalists, monarchists, religious theocrats of different stripes, centrists, and various other types that disassociate themselves from these ring wing authoritarian militarists from the misty graveyard of the 20th century. Stalin and his misdeeds haunts the left too. Still, the Nazis were and are authoritarian right wing militarists whose past is clearly linked to current far right thinkers (I use the term loosely). |
Rudysnelson | 08 Dec 2017 10:04 p.m. PST |
I regarded the organization as a cult of personality. |
StoneMtnMinis | 08 Dec 2017 11:17 p.m. PST |
Authoritarians reside on the progressive/socialist/left. |
basileus66 | 09 Dec 2017 12:28 a.m. PST |
After all, they were the single most bloody regime in the 20th century through warfare, concentration camps and death squads Not really. That accolade should be claimed by Tutsi genocidical maniacs, with Pol Pot's Khmer Rouges a close second, if memory serves me. I would have added Stalin's USSR but even including the Holodomor, I am not sure that the ratio of murders/population would be higher in the USSR than in Nazi Empire. And I have not checked the numbers, but ultranationalist Japan was, probably, even more savage than Nazis and Soviets. On the other hand, Nazis didn't define themselves neither as Rightists nor Leftists. In their worldview, they had come to trascend the political divide. The only thing that would remain, in their fantasy Reich, was the German nation. Being German -Aryan, if you prefer the "integration" vision of a Nordic brotherhood, which wasn't shared by all Nazis, by the way- was what defined individuals. Left and Right were parlamentarian, political categories that the Nazis rejected as obsolete. They were, in a sense, political providentialists. Prophets that had been sent to lead the German nation into the Promised Land. Curiously, Stalin didn't categorized the Nazis as "Rightists". That label corresponded to opposition -presumed or real- in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, mainly Bukharinists and Zinovievists -i.e. those who had opposed collectivization and the radical dekulakzization-, and to the British, who were the epithome, in Stalin's mind, of capitalist domination. Nazis were classified as Fascists. At the time, Fascism was considered a revolutionary, antiliberal and ultranationalist ideology. The Right didn't identify with Fascists, even if they shared some traits, as nationalism and anti-Communism. Actually, the categorization of Fascists -and Nazis, which should be considered as a more radical iteration of original Fascism- as Rightists comes later, and rather as opposition to Communism than because their actual political ideas. Nowadays, on the other hand, Fascism is considered part of the Right. There you are correct. However, mind that it was a reaction to the end of WWII rather than to the actual Fascist ideologies. The reasoning was, more or less, as follows: Soviet Union is in the Left; Nazis attacked Soviet Union in order to carve an Empire in the East; Imperialism, as defined by Lenin, is a more developed iteration of Capitalism; Capitalism is a Rightist ideology; therefore Nazis were Rightists. In other words, it wasn't a classification based upon an objective analysis of Fascist ideologies, but on war and post-war propaganda. And was convenient too for the post-war Soviet Union. By throwing together Fascists and traditional conservatives -the Right- they de-legitimized parlamentarian Right by association (the same was done in the USA with Communists, by the way). You say that "Stalin and his misdeeds haunts the left too", and yet why should a Social-Democrat feel haunted by Stalin's brutal regime when Social-Democrats can count themselves between his main victims? You are falling into the logical trap explained above: whatever is not in the Right, is in the Left. Categorizing is not always useful. Using the same parameters to classify the 1930s totalitarian ideologies that we use today to understand parlamentarian politics is useless in the best of cases, or otherwise mere political propaganda. |
goragrad | 09 Dec 2017 12:31 a.m. PST |
The Nazis got a lot of early support due to the rather bad taste the Communists left behind due to their actions in Germany after WWI. As to single bloodiest regime, Mao's China has a stronger claim there. Although Ukrainians might want to argue the point. At any rate the aggregate total for 'isms' in the 20th Century has Naziism running a very distant second. |
Ten Fingered Jack | 09 Dec 2017 3:20 a.m. PST |
Editor Bill, Are we all going to get amnesty after all this? After all, you started this tempest in a tea cup. |
basileus66 | 09 Dec 2017 4:01 a.m. PST |
Jack So far, nobody has been DHd in this thread. Discussion has been, mostly, polite and to the point. |
Fred Cartwright | 09 Dec 2017 4:44 a.m. PST |
I think in AD&D terms they would be lawful evil. :-) |
princeman | 09 Dec 2017 6:54 a.m. PST |
Everything is perceived through the eyes of those in power. Since we let them define and decide what we see and hear. While we can debate these definitions until we have all passed into dust, the truth (to me) is that each will apply examples and statements from different people and time to make their point as they see history. Can we let go of the 50 shades of grey that this thread is addressing? There is no Left and Right just millions of people each believing what is best for them selves and the few who lead them and define their own actions to gain more followers who might not have followed if they understood the policies more than the label. |
Legion 4 | 09 Dec 2017 9:11 a.m. PST |
And Legion, as to your amusing comment i would expect something better out of someone who claims trolls bullied him. Was a joke as I am overweight/fat as well … That was meant as a little self deprecating humor. What I can't even make fun of myself ? I have to wait until a troll does it ! |
Jeigheff | 09 Dec 2017 9:45 a.m. PST |
Some believe that the political right favors less governmental control while the political left favors more. (I'm not sure I'd necessarily call nationalism a feature of the right.) A couple years ago, Joseph Farah pointed out a news headline mentioning "Left Wing Anarchists", which he believed to be a contradictory headline: people wanting the no amount of government control in their lives can't be left wing. On the other hand, pure left-wing government is totalitarian. This same author made the point that nazism and communism, both forms of socialism, are actually very much alike. For that reason, I consider nazism (like that of Hitler's Germany) to be a left wing ideology. Someone else made the observation that Hitler considered himself to be a revolutionary. That's something else he has in common with Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. |
huevans011 | 09 Dec 2017 9:54 a.m. PST |
Authoritarians reside on the progressive/socialist/left. If I ever have a conversation with Lloyd George and Czar Nicholas II in the afterlife, I'll pass on your words and all 3 of us will have a little chuckle. |
Blutarski | 09 Dec 2017 11:02 a.m. PST |
Before you reach the afterlife, try having a chat with David Horowitz. B |
tookey23 | 09 Dec 2017 12:53 p.m. PST |
The nazi party were far right. Many people simply focus on the word "socialist" and ignore the rest of their title, their policies or their actions simply because it suits their narrative. When the base is white nationalists, policies are brand of facism and minorities are ostracized I find it surprising people try to paint them as being "leftists". Sadly claiming ATIFA, BLM and others are terrorist groups fails to look at why they exist. Anti nazi\facists etc groups exist due to neo nazis\facist groups (Nazis, KKK etc) existing. Neo-Nazi\fascist groups usually exist due to ethnic minorities\immigrants. The claim "Authoritarians are leftists" is pretty weak so doesnt need to be picked apart. |
tookey23 | 09 Dec 2017 12:55 p.m. PST |
Jack Burton wrote: "Heather Heyer was a morbidly obese Leftist who died of a heart attack while rioting in an attempt to deprive American citizens of their rights of speech and assembly."I hope that you posted this as a joke. James Fields, a man with white nationalist sympathies, drove his car into a crowd of protesters, injuring at least 19 and killing Heyer. Fields has since been charged with second-degree murder. She died as a result of blunt-force injury to the chest, according to the medical report. The statement that she was morbidly obese and died as a result of a heart attack was started by Hunter Wallace a white nationalist and anti-Semitic writer on his blog Occidental Dissent. It was picked up by and repeated by various words right groups like the daily stormer. In other words they made up a story you are repeating defaming this young lady. On 4Chan trolls were Evan worse. As I said I hope you posted this as a joke, because otherwise I question your motivation for writing this as well as your sources. And Legion, as to your amusing comment i would expect something better out of someone who claims trolls bullied him
I have to say its pretty sad when you see someone posting a fake news article from the daily stormer. |
Legbiter | 09 Dec 2017 2:00 p.m. PST |
A WW1 marching song, retailed to me by my father's father: "I had a good job, at 30 bob, and I left, left, left, right, left, right, left, right, left." |
23rdFusilier | 09 Dec 2017 2:05 p.m. PST |
Tookey23, yes it is very, very sad. And very disturbing. I wish I had posted this sooner. But I did some homework before responding so I had my facts right. Legion, as I said I thought you of all people here would have had some respect for people being bullied. that You would not fall their level. You point out how people on an other site have done that to you and point out when you think people here are doing so to you. Saying it was a joke dies not cover it. |
Editor in Chief Bill | 09 Dec 2017 2:15 p.m. PST |
I have to say its pretty sad when you see someone posting a fake news article from the daily stormer. To the contrary, it is good for these things to be posted and refuted. |
Legion 4 | 09 Dec 2017 2:33 p.m. PST |
Legion, as I said I thought you of all people here would have had some respect for people being bullied. that You would not fall their level. You point out how people on an other site have done that to you and point out when you think people here are doing so to you. Saying it was a joke dies not cover it. Sorry you don't find my humor entertaining. I meant no harm to anyone, not even myself. Sometimes[not always] I try not to take things too seriously. I thought this thread might be a bit "controversial" and divisive, etc. So I tried to make sure I didn't say anything that would upset anyone. Guess you can't please everybody. I didn't even know of the fake news story beyond what I saw there. I was upset and annoyed about that incident that caused many injuries and the one death. The person that caused this should be/is being charged and should suffer the consequences metered out by law. I wouldn't know what the women killed even looked like. But it does not surprise me some sites would post such a thing and it not be the truth. But I think you may be transferring your upset and anger about the Nazis, Charlottesville, fake news, etc., in my direction and/or others ? these things to be posted and refuted. This is another good point. |
Blutarski | 09 Dec 2017 3:20 p.m. PST |
Here is an on the spot analytical summary of the economic program implemented by the National Socialist German Workers' Party, as of 1940. Briefly stated, the NAZI party effectively held fully centralized iron control of every aspect of the German economy – industry, agriculture, trade, finance, labor, even down to labor employment mobility and leisure. Original document here – link Document APA Citation Noyes, C. E. (1940). Economic controls in Nazi Germany. Editorial research reports 1940 (Vol. II). Washington, DC: CQ Press. Retrieved from link ________________________________________ German Plans for a New European Economy Germany is making a prodigious and unprecedented effort to reorganize the whole economy of continental Europe while the war is still in progress. Regardless of the final military result, the changes which have already been made, and the further changes in progress or in prospect, will make a complete return to the status quo practically impossible. Not only in the occupied territories of Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Luxembourg, Belgium and France, but also in Sweden and in the countries of southeastern Europe which remain technically independent, the Germans are using every possible pressure to force acceptance of German economic hegemony and to compel reorganization of the various national economies on National Socialist lines. Vera Micheles Dean says that: The long-term objective of the Nazis is to dovetail the industries of conquered countries into the Germany economy, and force them, as much as possible, to expand their agriculture. Under this scheme Germany, and perhaps Italy, would act as the industrial centers of Europe, drawing foodstuffs and raw materials from the occupied territories which, in turn, would be obliged to purchase German and Italian manufactured goods at prices set by the Axis powers.1 Not only political democracy, but also economic organization along liberal capitalist lines has been virtually destroyed throughout Europe, at least for the present. Where the Nazi totalitarian economy has not been imposed, it is being imitated. Rumania was reorganized by the Iron Guard in September to conform to the National Socialist program, and Yugoslavia to all intents and purposes gave up its economic independence in October. In the economic field, National Socialism has been more opportunistic than theoretical: increasingly rigid government controls over agriculture, labor, industry and trade have been imposed to meet conditions rather than to conform to a preconceived plan. However, these steps have been taken in conformity with an absolute faith in the supreme importance and authority of the state as expressed through its Fuehrer. The economic history of Germany during the last eight years is therefore a fair indication of what will happen to Europe economically if Germany wins the war, and of what is already happening as far as the German influence extends. The Original National Socialist Program Economic planks of the "unalterable program" on the basis of which the National Socialists campaigned before they came to power in 1933 were designed to win the support of as many disgruntled voters as possible rather than to present a coordinated plan for a new economic system. Within the party there has always been, and there still is, serious disagreement about the extent to which the "socialist" part of the party's title is to be applied. Mein Kampf contains no clear blueprint for thoroughgoing reorganization of the German national economy. Many of the specific planks in the party platform were radical, but they were directed against particular capitalist institutions which were unpopular, not against capitalism in general. The most important of these planks were: We demand land and soil (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population. … We demand that the state shall make it its first duty to promote the industry and livelihood of citizens of the state. … We demand therefore: Abolition of incomes unearned by work. In view of the enormous sacrifice of life and property demanded of a nation by every war, personal enrichment due to war must be regarded as a crime against the state. We demand therefore ruthless confiscation of all war gains. We demand nationalization of all businesses which have been up to the present formed into companies (trusts). We demand that the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out. We demand extensive development of provisions for old age. We demand creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, immediate communalization of department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and extreme consideration for all small purveyors to the state, district authorities, and smaller localities. We demand land reform suitable to our national requirements; passing of a law for confiscation without compensation of land for common purposes; abolition of interest on land loans, and prevention of all speculation in land. We demand a ruthless struggle against those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals against the nation, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race. The planks calling for expropriation have been least honored in the fulfillment of this platform; in practice, the economic reorganizations undertaken by the Nazis have followed a very different pattern from the one which was originally projected. Pre-Nazi Government Economic Policies German governments have undertaken a considerable amount of interference with private enterprise ever since the days of Bismarck, who instituted a compulsory social insurance program in 1883. On top of this, the World War brought much more rigid government control in Germany than in the other major belligerent countries. As Gustav Stolper describes it: When Germany entered the war, her economic life was intrinsically free, built on liberal, capitalistic principles, although much more interspersed with governmental regulations than in the Western countries. When the war ended, she had a thoroughly militarized economy, which, half in earnest, half ironically, was dubbed "War Socialism."2 The Weimar Constitution, adopted by the new German Republic immediately after the war, was fashioned chiefly by the Social Democrats, and while it was essentially a "liberal" document, its provisions for government domination of the central bank, for centralized taxation and for land reform contained sufficient authority for many radical innovations. The difficulties of the inflation period, from 1920 through 1923, and the ensuing five years of somewhat hectic prosperity, supported to a considerable extent by foreign loans, diverted the Social Democrats from carrying out any basic reforms. Their promise to break up the huge agricultural estates of the Prussian Junkers was fulfilled on only an infinitesimal scale, and except for effective government encouragement of strong labor unions, business policies remained in the hands of business men. The collapse of German prosperity in 1929 was even more abrupt and disastrous than in most other countries, because a sudden cessation of loans from abroad occurred simultaneously with a rapid drop in the volume of foreign trade. In 1929, German exports were almost one-third of total industrial production; between 1929 and 1933 they shrank from 13,483,000,000 Reichsmarks to 4,871,000,000 Rm. a decline of 64 per cent. The German depression furnished the opportunity for which both National Socialists and Communists had been waiting. Both parties grew rapidly, but the National Socialists had the advantage of a shrewd exploitation of the "iniquities" of the Versailles Treaty which they superimposed upon economic discontent. At the same time, the Nazis often combined with the Communists to pursue tactics of sheer obstruction; the Bruening ministry was forced to turn to rule by decree because it was impossible to secure a parliamentary majority in the Reichstag for the transaction of important business. The Bruening cabinet further increased its own unpopularity by following a drastically deflationary policy which was intended to restore the foreign market by lowering the price of German goods, but succeeded in doing little more than to intensify the internal depression. The deflationary policies were partially reversed by the brief Von Papen and Von Schleicher cabinets, too late to prevent the Nazis from coming into power. Hitler was named chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on January 30, 1933. Growth of Government Control of Business In the meantime, the mechanisms for government control of the economic system had been extended and strengthened. During the banking crisis of 1932, almost all of Germany's large private banks were brought under the control of the Reichsbank. This was even more important in Germany than it would have been elsewhere, because the banks handled a large part of business investment as well as commercial loans, and consequently were in a position of very great influence in German industry. In this same period, the percentage of German national income which went to the state in one form of taxes or another was also increased, adding to the direct importance of the state in the economic life of the nation. The result, according to Stolper, was that: When it came to its end, the democratic Republic left as a heritage to the National Socialist state an economic system that corresponded rather closely to a complete system of "State Socialism." The state was, so to speak, in command of the whole blood circulation as represented in a modern economic system by the banking mechanism. The state held in its grip the most important "commanding heights" over business, such as the transportation system, the power supply, and the influence over cartel prices. The state had, furthermore, taken over vital functions of the trade unions and the employers' organizations. … The road to the totalitarian state had teen well laid out. The National Socialist government needed but to utilize for its own aims the instruments of state power forged by its predecessors.3 This observation is confirmed by Fritz Ermarth, who writes, "When the National Socialists seized power in Germany early in 1938, the German national economy was under Government control to a wider extent than ever before during peacetime."4 In addition to the railroads, telegraph and telephone lines, which had long been state-owned, the Reich had invested government funds directly in the German steel cartel, in a moving picture company, in numerous construction enterprises, and in other "private" businesses. Nazi Extension of Government Powers The most pressing problem the Nazis had to face when they came to power in 1933 was unemployment. The number of German unemployed at that time is usually estimated at 6,000,000 or slightly less; in proportion to the total population of 65,000,000 the number of unemployed was if anything slightly smaller than in the United States at the same time. There was, however, intense dissatisfaction because of the virtual breakdown of the unemployment insurance system, which paid out only 840,000,000 Rm. in 1932 and 420,000,000 Rm. in 1933, as compared with 1,780,000,000 Rm. in 1930. At the same time, emergency relief and welfare relief payments, on a low subsistence level, increased from 720,000,000 Rm. in 1930 to about 2,000,000,000 Rm. in 1932 and about 1,850,000,000 Rm. in 1933.5 The Hitler government immediately attacked the unemployment problem in a variety of ways: by forcing as many women as possible out of jobs; by extending the Labor Service (an organization similar to the Civilian Conservation Corps—it had been voluntary under the Republic but was made compulsory by the Nazis); by financial and other assistance to business; and by an extensive program of public works. Economic Recovery Beginning in 1933 A 5,000,000,000 Rm. public works program had in fact been projected and initiated by the Von Papen government; the Nazis merely continued this program and reaped the benefits of business improvement which it produced. Public works expenditures were between 500,000,000 and 600,000,000 Rm. up to the middle of 1933; 1,555,000,000 Rm. in the last six months of 1933; 2,450,000,000 Rm. in 1934; and 803,000,000 Rm. in 1935. The total allotment of public works funds was as follows: civil engineering, 1,002,000,000 Rm.; dwellings, 1,280,000,000 Rm.; communications, 1,684,000,000 Rm.; agriculture, 389,000,000 Rm.; food certificates, 70,000,000 Rm.; productive relief aid, 568,000,000 Rm.6 The public works program and other measures reversed the trend of depression and brought some improvement. The German national income was 45,200,000,000 Rm. in 1932, 46,600,000,000 Rm. in 1933, and 52,700,000,000 Rm. in 1934. But, according to Fortune, "By mid-1934 it had become apparent that little if any long-term benefit was being accomplished, and that the same problems remained as before. The recovery ideas of Schacht and other moderates were thereupon abandoned, and in their place was substituted secret military rearmament."7 The rearmament program was openly proclaimed and expanded a year later. From 1935 on, the arms program dominated the German economy, as indicated in the table on the next page. Once the progress of recovery was definitely geared to rearmament, it ceased to have any exact parallel with recovery in the remainder of the world. On this point, the comment of Kenyon Poole has particular bearing: The course of public and private investment during the years of the upswing provides an interesting case of the complete failure of Initialzundung or "priming the pump." For a time, there is reason to believe, the government hoped that relief expeditures would be effective in setting in motion a large volume of private investment. When this expectation was disappointed, however, the growing desire of the authorities to set up a planned economy received a considerable stimulus. Only strategic and autarchic industries were allowed funds with which to invest; the inability of private initiative to resume responsibility was found to fit in well with the desire of the government for a more complete control over the factors of production. Part of the responsibility for the failure of private initiative rests with the monetary policy of the government.8 German public and private investment combined rose from 4,200,000,000 Rm. in 1932 to 16,000,000,000 Em. in 1937; in the same years, public investment alone rose from 1,700,000,000 Rm. to 9,000,000,000 Rm.9 Success in eliminating unemployment was phenomenal. Although between 1932 and 1938, 800,000 workers left German farms to work in industry, although women were rapidly readmitted to industrial jobs after 1935, and although in 1937, 120,000 foreigners were admitted to Germany for temporary farm work, the shortage of workers in Germany at the beginning of 1939 was officially estimated at 1,000,000. The total number of workers employed in Germany was 17,870,000 in 1929; 12,580,000 in 1932; and 20,236,000 in 1938.10 Full employment of both manpower and productive capacity would necessarily have led to price inflation if the government had not simultaneously instituted an all-embracing system of wage and price controls, for the double purpose of keeping down the level of consumption so production could be used for armament, and of adjusting distribution to consumption. Regimentation of Peasant Agriculture One phase of the Nazi economic program which fitted especially well with the National Socialist political philosophy was the regimentation of agriculture. Hitler had always maintained that a vigorous, sturdy peasant class was the backbone of national power, and soon after he came to office, he set out to make sure that Germany should have one. (The Nazis have not, however, made much more rapid progress toward fulfilling their promise to break up the large estates than the Social Democrats did under the Weimar Republic.) The Reich Hereditary Farm Act of September 29, 1933, established farms of moderate size—ordinarily, just large enough to support one family—as "hereditary estates" which could not be sold, mortgaged, or foreclosed, and which must be passed on undivided to a single heir. The peasant owners of such farms must be of pure German blood dating back to 1800; and while they cannot lose their farms except for "unsocial" conduct, it is likewise virtually impossible for them to leave their farms for any other occupation. The system is thus essentially feudal, with the state as feudal overlord. In order to provide credit for the farms which could not be mortgaged, and eventually to control agricultural production, prices, and distribution, the Reichs-food-guild was established in the autumn of 1933 under the control of R. Walter Darré, minister of agriculture. Ermarth describes the purposes of the guild as follows: The functions of the Reichs-food-guild. … are twofold; the one group of functions is of a general and political character, the other of economic and technical nature. "To integrate the German peasantry into an organic unit," to "foster its interests," to "regulate the economic and social affairs of its members," to "reconcile the different interest-groups within the field of agriculture," to "educate the German peasant and make him conscious of his mission in the nation's life," and particularly to cooperate in the administration of the act on Hereditary Estates, are among the most important general aims of the guild, as enumerated in the law and statutes. … Under the act of September 13, 1933, the minister of agriculture can empower the guild or its subdivisions to regulate and supervise production and distribution of agricultural commodities, prices, and price differentials.11 To carry out the economic and technical functions of the guild, all of German agriculture is organized into central associations covering each type of production, such as dairying, cattle-raising, fruit-growing, etc. The Reich commissioner for each of these associations, who is appointed by the secretary of agriculture, determines not only prices and production quotas for both farmers and distributors, but also such details as the percentage of milk to be used in chocolate or ice cream. Ordinarily, the peasant is not allowed to sell anything direct to the consumer. The net result, according to Lothrop Stoddard, is that, "Before the farmer starts his spring planting, he knows that everything he raises will be bought at a figure which should normally enable him to make a slight profit. At the other end of the scale, when the housewife goes to market, she knows that the storekeeper cannot charge her more than the government permits."12 It is equally obvious that the farmer cannot exercise much initiative in the hope of making larger profits, and that it will do the housewife little good to shop around for bargains. Cartelization of German Business and Industry Under the Cartel Act of 1923, German business and industry were given more extensive privileges of organization and mutual cooperation than were common in other capitalist countries. Thurman Arnold, in Bottlenecks of Business (1940), says that the cartelization of German business during the period of the Weimar Republic was responsible for an unbalanced price structure which contributed to the seriousness of the depression in Germany and eventually to the fall of the Republic. In any event, when the Nazis came to power, German business was already widely organized; all the Nazis needed to do was to complete the existing pattern of organization and take control of it. In their earlier days, the Nazis had been considerably influenced by the Italian idea of the corporative state, in which business organizations particularly would have considerable independence in the regulation of their own affairs. But this theory was abandoned. As Ermarth describes it: Instead of creating corporative organizations with wide powers of self-rule and self-administration along the lines of the Standestaat philosophy, the National Socialists—in accordance with their fundamental principle of leadership—concentrated the power to formulate economic policies and to enforce them through a bureaucratic mechanism into the hands of the central political authorities: the leader and chancellor with his cabinet.13 The Cartel Act was amended on July 15, 1933, and supplemented at the same time by an Act for the Formation of Compulsory Cartels which placed existing cartels under the virtually complete control of the minister of economics, and also gave him power to force unorganized businesses into existing or new cartels. The Act stated expressly that it was not to be used as the basis for a planned economy, and it was intimated that it would be invoked as rarely as possible; but it was soon being used not only as a measure of control but also to cartelize many hitherto unorganized industries including cigarette, paper, radio equipment, electric bulbs, and steel wire makers. All organizations of entrepreneurs which were not brought under central control either dissolved voluntarily or were dissolved by the state. An Act Concerning Trade in Raw Materials and Half-finished Products, March 22, 1934, empowered the minister of economics "to supervise and regulate the trade in industrial raw materials and half-finished products, particularly their acquisition, distribution, storage and consumption." Under this act the use of certain materials for non-essential purposes was forbidden, such as the use of gold for tooth fillings, of copper for pipes, telephone wires, or gate equipment. An executive order of May 16, 1934, prohibited raising prices, without a special permit, of "all objects and services important for life and the supply of daily needs"—covering almost everything except purely luxury articles. In September, 1934, under Schacht's "New Plan" import-export bureaus were set up for 25 groups of commodities, all under the thumb of the Reich Bureau for Distribution of Foreign Currency. The Nazis did not carry out their promise to break up the department stores. On the contrary, as a labor shortage developed, they deliberately forced small merchants out of business and into the labor market, with almost complete disregard of the effect of this action upon individual incomes. At the same time, the licensing system for retail trade which had always been general in Germany was extended and tightened under the supervision of special trade police. The formation of new chain stores was forbidden, and likewise of new consumers cooperatives. Development of the German Labor Front Even before taking over control of agriculture and industry, the Nazis had taken drastic steps to break the power of the labor unions, only three months after Hitler became chancellor. Stolper describes what happened: May 1, 1933, was celebrated throughout the Reich with all the magnificence and splendor, all the impressive stage setting, for which National Socialism has since established its reputation. May 1, which for many years had been celebrated by the socialist parties and unions as a holiday of protest against the existing order, was suddenly converted into a holiday of allegiance to the new political system. With the workers the great industrialists, chairmen and presidents of the biggest corporations, had to march in the same lines, and sometimes not in the van but in the rear. The impression was enormous. On May 2, 1933, all offices of all unions in Germany were seized by Storm Troopers, their leaders and officers wore arrested, maltreated, or sent to concentration camps, their property was confiscated. The autonomous organizations of German labor, built up over several decades and enormously strengthened, particularly in the fifteen years of Republican regime, were destroyed in one day. They were inherited by the German Labor Front. This Labor Front was no longer an organization of workers. It was a section of the National Socialist party, and included not only workers and employees but also entrepreneurs and professional men.14 In January, 1934, a Law to Regulate National Labor was adopted, assigning to the Labor Front the task of regulating wages and hours. This task was delegated to 14 labor trustees, one for each of the geographical districts (gaue) into which the National Socialist party is divided. Twice after the creation of the Labor Front shop council elections were held, following the pre-Nazi trade union practice, but the councils had to be elected exclusively from a panel made up by the employer and the party representatives in the shop; even these elections have not been held since 1935. An Act of November 5, 1935, gave the government employment service board "full monopoly of employment service, vocational guidance, and the placing of apprentices, leaving to the private agencies only the employment service for actors and musicians."15 This act, together with the work card system which requires every German laborer to carry with him a complete record of previous employment, enables the government either to keep workers on the same jobs indefinitely or to shift them in accordance with government plans. Stolper says that "A black mark in the work book amounts to a death sentence." Wage rates have remained almost stationary since 1933. The working class as a whole has benefited to some extent by the elimination of unemployment and the increase of working hours, but to nothing like the extent of the increase in production. Ermarth reports that total salaries and wages increased only from 26,000,000,000 Rm. in 1932 to 31,000,000,000 in 1935; this comparatively small increase was reflected in the fact that retail trade in 1934 was only 10.8 per cent above the volume of 1933, and in the first eight mouths of 1935 was only 3.7 per cent above the corresponding period in the preceding year, despite the amazing progress of reemployment. Many of those employed have received only a bare subsistence wage. To quote Ermarth again: "The unskilled worker on road and waterway projects, the farm laborer, the Labor Service man, and many others who receive only either a small sold or their unemployment benefits plus a slight work premium—these bear the largest part of the labor expenses for the remarkable reemployment drive of the Hitler government." On the other side of the picture, the Labor Front has improved working conditions in many instances by requiring employers to provide improved sanitary facilities and rest rooms, and by setting a high standard of comfort, cleanliness and convenience for all new factories. The "Strength Through Joy" (Kraft durch Freude) organization, which is part of the Labor Front, has provided vacations on luxury liners, Alpine trips, and many other forms of recreation at low cost for all German workers. Recreation is not voluntary, however. Lothrop Stoddard quotes Dr. Ley, head of the Labor Front, as saying: "We do not intend to leave it to the individual to decide whether he desires, or does not desire, a holiday. It has become compulsory." Not only annual vacations, but day-by-day leisure time is regimented in community recreational activities. Nevertheless, Stoddard says, "There seems to be no doubt that Kraft durch Freude is generally popular and that it is prized as the outstanding benefit which the industrial masses have gained from the Nazi regime."16 German Methods of Borrowing and Taxation Contrary to common belief, National Socialist financial policies have apparently been no more inflationary than the government financing of other major powers during the last eight years. The Nazis were fortunate, to begin with, in that Germany had a relatively small public debt when they came into power. A reversal of the Bruening policy of deflation was politically necessary, and had already been undertaken by the Von Papen administration, but on the other hand the German people had retained from their experiences of 1923 such a fear of runaway inflation that expansion of debt and currency had to be undertaken with caution. As the United States and other countries have found, the volume of money and credit, including government borrowing, can be increased to a considerable extent without much general rise in the price level so long as there are idle men and machines which can be put to work to fill any normal growth in the demand for consumers' goods. But when Germany, through the rearmament program, not only reached full employment but had an actual shortage of men, machines, and raw materials, drastic government controls were necessary in order to prevent a rapid rise of commodity prices. Some observers believe that the Nazis' extension of government economic controls has been born of necessity to meet actual conditions and dangers, instead of being deliberately planned beforehand. The National Socialists have not hesitated, however, to depart from orthodox economic views and practices. Poole says: "By 1936, prices, incomes, and money in circulation had begun to rise warningly; and by the middle of 1937 it was the view of Schacht that no further expansion of expenditures on rearmament was possible without a considerable inflation. His dismissal from the Ministry of Finance, and in 1938 from the presidency of the Reichsbank, indicates that the party is willing to overlook this danger signal."17 German Government Receipts, 1932–39 One of the campaign pledges which the Nazis most conspicuously failed to fulfill was the promise to reduce tax rates, which had been very high under previous regimes. Consequently, as the national income rose from 45,200,000,000 Rm. in 1932–33 to 76,000,000,000 in 1938–39, tax collections increased accordingly. Official figures for total government receipts are not available, but the following figures given by Strachey18 correspond closely to other estimates, including those made by Vaso Trivanovitch for the National Industrial Conference Board through 1936: Fiscal Year Taxes and Customs Loans Total Receipts 1933–34 6,900,000,000 Rm. 2,400,000,000 Rm. 9,700,000,000 Rm. 1934–35 8,200,000,000 3,600,000,000 12,200,000,000 1935–36 9,700,000,000 6,400,000,000 16,700,000,000 1936–37 11,500,000,000 6,300,000,000 18,800,000,000 1937–38 14,000,000,000 6,500,000,000 22,000,000,000 1938–39 17,700,000,000 11,800,000,000 31,500,000,000 The discrepancies in the totals were made up by unemployment insurance and other collections. Stolper's figures for tax receipts are almost the same, and he says of the government borrowing: The best estimate is that … the national debt rose from 11,700,000,000 Rm. at the end of the fiscal year 1932–33 to about 40,000,000,000 or 45,000,000,000 by the end of 1938, of which about 15,000,000,000 or 20,000,000,000 are "secret," that is, not shown in the official statements of the Treasury—-chiefly technically short-term bills held in the portfolios of industrial corporations or various banks.19 The "short-term" financing was made possible by a government decree which permitted renewal of three-months' or six-months' notes, thus making it possible for the banks to hold them without a technical change in the law. This is explained by M. J. Bonn: The Nazi government "copied and very skillfully refined the methods by which Imperial Germany had financed the war: i. e., the issue of treasury bills which were taken up by the banks and could be rediscounted by the central bank, which used them as note cover. From time to time these outstanding bills were converted into funded loans, whenever credit expansion had served its purpose and had inflated monetary income."20 The percentage of the German national income taken by federal taxes, according to Poole, was 17.8 per cent in 1928–29, 22.6 per cent in 1932–33, and 24.6 per cent in 1937–38. He says that "the most important source of revenue since 1930 has been the turnover tax" which provided 20.4 per cent of all tax receipts in 1935–36. The corporation tax yielded 6.5 per cent of all taxes in the same year.21 In addition to paying regular taxes, employers and workers alike are required by law or by party pressure to contribute to the Labor Front—an amount for workers which is estimated as not much more than their former union dues—to a special relief fund known as the "Winter Help" and for other special purposes. The London Economist of July 21, 1934, estimated that 7 per cent of a worker's earnings go into fees and contributions, but Ermarth believes that this estimate is too high. On the other hand, Stolper thinks that 30 per cent of the average wage earner's income is taken by contributions, direct and indirect taxes. The heavy tax burden, as has been indicated, is imposed partly for the deliberate purpose of depressing the level of consumption so that the greatest possible proportion of total production may be devoted to armament. So far as the borrowing goes, Strachey points out that: "The proportion of the borrowing to taxation is moderate, especially if we remember the fact that the German government had little or no public, internal debt in 1932. As a matter of fact, the 1937–38 level of German public debt works out at some 40 per cent of the total national income, while the British public debt stood in 1936, before the new borrowing for rearmament, at 220 per cent of the national income."22 Bonn says that "Given the tendencies prevailing in Nazi Germany, a huge capital confiscation seems inevitable, and with it another step towards collectivism." But Balogh thinks that Germany already has a "collectivist war economy." He writes: It has often been contended that the burden of military preparation in Germany and Italy is so heavy that their economic structure must break down in the long run; that therefore the democracies merely have to sit back and wait until the impoverishment of these countries produce internal social troubles. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Rearmament was achieved in the main by reemploying labor and capital rendered idle by the world crisis. So great was the productive power of the country that—at least until the general mobilization which prepared the way for the attack on Czechoslovakia—they could even afford some increase in consumption. … The German economy, as far as it could break down, has long ago broken down, namely it broke down in 1931, and what a breakdown in the collective economy means I simply do not know, except that some people are either purged or put in concentration camps.23 The extent of German borrowing since the beginning of the war is a carefully guarded secret, but there is as yet no reason to believe that the German war effort will be impeded by any internal financial difficulties. Currency Issue and Investment Capital In addition to long and short-term borrowing, the German government has increased its supply of money by mild currency inflation. Poole says that the note circulation of the Reichsbank was increased by 300,000,000 Rm. in 1934; by 900,000,000 in 1935; by 700,000,000 in 1936; and by 500,000,000 in 1937. In 1938, the increase was 2,686,000,000, but of this amount about 1,300,000,000 went to Austria and the Sudetenland. The German government has also obtained substantial "windfalls" by confiscating gold held in Austrian and Czechoslovak banks, and by confiscating Jewish property. As in the latter days of the Weimar Republic, the German government has continued to make heavy investments of government funds in private industry, particularly for the purpose of expanding the productive facilities of firms engaged in the manufacture of armament and strategic materials. At the same time, German industrial corporations have been forced to invest their own funds in plant expansion at government direction—or even to submit to industry-wide levies used to build new plants which will be in competition with themselves. Dividend payments are limited to 6 per cent, in most cases; if a firm is fortunate enough to earn more than 6 per cent after paying its corporation taxes, amounting to 30–35 per cent of income, the surplus must be invested in government loans or in new plant as directed by the government.24 From the German business man's point of view, Ermarth asks, "But are all these burdens and sacrifices not amply balanced by the fact that a strong state is protecting the position of the owners and business leaders, and, moreover, by rising profits … Is capital not in a better state than it has been, for a long time, regardless of lowered interest rates and dividend restrictions'"25 That question was framed, however, before Fritz Thyssen left Germany. Footnotes [1] Vera Micheles Dean, "Europe Under Nazi Rule," Foreign Policy Reports, October 15, 1940, p. 180. Footnote1. Vera Micheles Dean, "Europe Under Nazi Rule," Foreign Policy Reports, October 15, 1940, p. 180.Go to Footnotes [2] Gustav Stolper, German Economy, 1870–1940 (1940), p. 110. Footnote2. Gustav Stolper, German Economy, 1870–1940 (1940), p. 110.Go to Footnotes [3] Op. cit., p. 218; p. 220. Footnote3. Op. cit., p. 218; p. 220.Go to Footnotes [4] Fritz Ermarth, The New Germany (1936), p. 78. Footnote4. Fritz Ermarth, The New Germany (1936), p. 78.Go to Footnotes [5] Kenyon E. Poole. German Financial Policies, 1932–1939 (1938). p. 12. Footnote5. Kenyon E. Poole. German Financial Policies, 1932–1939 (1938). p. 12.Go to Footnotes [6] Poole, op. cit., pp. 94–5. No satisfactory figure can be given for conversion of the Germany currency into dollars, because many different types of marks with varying purchasing power were used. The official foreign exchange figure for the Reichmark was about 40 cents, but the actual value on the basis of internal purchasing power was probably between 20 and 25 cents. Footnote6. Poole, op. cit., pp. 94–5. No satisfactory figure can be given for conversion of the Germany currency into dollars, because many different types of marks with varying purchasing power were used. The official foreign exchange figure for the Reichmark was about 40 cents, but the actual value on the basis of internal purchasing power was probably between 20 and 25 cents.Go to Footnotes [7] "Germany. I. ‘We Are Living in a Fortress.'" Fortune, October, 1939. p. 126. Footnote7. "Germany. I. ‘We Are Living in a Fortress.'" Fortune, October, 1939. p. 126.Go to Footnotes [8] Poole, op. cit., p. 259. Footnote8. Poole, op. cit., p. 259.Go to Footnotes [9] Balogh, op. cit., p. 236. Footnote9. Balogh, op. cit., p. 236.Go to Footnotes [10] Ibid., p. 236. Footnote10. Ibid., p. 236.Go to Footnotes [11] Ermarth. op, cit., pp. 99–100. Footnote11. Ermarth. op, cit., pp. 99–100.Go to Footnotes [12] Lothrop Stoddard, Into the Darkness (1940), p. 90. Footnote12. Lothrop Stoddard, Into the Darkness (1940), p. 90.Go to Footnotes [13] Ermarth, op. cit., p. 87. Footnote13. Ermarth, op. cit., p. 87.Go to Footnotes [14] Stolper, op. cit., pp. 265–6. Footnote14. Stolper, op. cit., pp. 265–6.Go to Footnotes [15] L. Hamburger, How Nazi Germany Has Mobilized and Controlled Labor (1940). p. 10. Footnote15. L. Hamburger, How Nazi Germany Has Mobilized and Controlled Labor (1940). p. 10.Go to Footnotes [16] Stoddard, op. cit., p. 138. Footnote16. Stoddard, op. cit., p. 138.Go to Footnotes [17] Poole, op. cit., p. 258. Footnote17. Poole, op. cit., p. 258.Go to Footnotes [18] Strachey, op. cit., p. 231. Footnote18. Strachey, op. cit., p. 231.Go to Footnotes [19] Stolper, op. cit., p. 264. Footnote19. Stolper, op. cit., p. 264.Go to Footnotes [20] M. J. Bonn. "The Economic Future of Germany." Contemporary Review, November. 1939, p. 543. Footnote20. M. J. Bonn. "The Economic Future of Germany." Contemporary Review, November. 1939, p. 543.Go to Footnotes [21] Poole, op. cit., pp. 172–74. Footnote21. Poole, op. cit., pp. 172–74.Go to Footnotes [22] Op. cit., p. 233. Footnote22. Op. cit., p. 233.Go to Footnotes [23] Balogh, op. cit., pp. 234–5; p. 239. Footnote23. Balogh, op. cit., pp. 234–5; p. 239.Go to Footnotes [24] Cf. Stoddard. op. cit., p. 275. Footnote24. Cf. Stoddard. op. cit., p. 275.Go to Footnotes [25] Op. cit., p. 167. Footnote25. Op. cit., p. 167.Go to Footnotes *Statements and statistics about Nazi Germany, whether official or unofficial, are notoriously unreliable. Most of the figures used in this report have been checked against two or move sources, but complete accuracy of detail cannot be guaranteed. The authors quoted, while scarcely in agreement with National Socialist political or economic philosophy, all seem to have made a conscientious effort to examine the facts with care, and to present them with reasonable impartiality. Virtually all available sources corroborate the general overall picture of a thoroughly regimented economic organization. Footnote* Statements and statistics about Nazi Germany, whether official or unofficial, are notoriously unreliable. Most of the figures used in this report have been checked against two or move sources, but complete accuracy of detail cannot be guaranteed. The authors quoted, while scarcely in agreement with National Socialist political or economic philosophy, all seem to have made a conscientious effort to examine the facts with care, and to present them with reasonable impartiality. Virtually all available sources corroborate the general overall picture of a thoroughly regimented economic organization.Go to Footnotes Special Focus German Government Expenditures and National Income (in millions of Reichmarks) Fiscal Year Total Government Expenditures Armament Expenditures Total National Income(calendar year) 1932–33 6,700 1,000 45,200 1933–34 9,700 3,000 46,600 1934–35 12,200 5,500 52,700 1335–36 16,700 10,000 57,900 1936–37 18,800 12,600 64,900 1937–38 22,000 15,000 71,000 1938–39 31,500 24,000 76,000 Government expenditures and armament expenditures est1mated by John Strachey in A Programme for Progress (1940), p. 231. These estimates agree closely with others which are available, and bear out Hitler's statement, quoted in Fortune, November, 1939, "Germany, II," p. 61. that Germany spent $36,000,000,000 USD in preparation for the present war. Figures on German national income are from Thomas Balogh. "The Economic Background in Germany," International Affairs, March-April, 193 9, p. 235. The national income in 1938 exceeded the previous high of 75,400,000,000 Rm. In 1928. Approximately similar national income figures are given in Vaso Trivanovitch, Economic Development of Germany Under National Socialism. (National Industrial Conference Board, 1937). p. 134. - – - B
|
goragrad | 09 Dec 2017 5:18 p.m. PST |
Long but quite informative, blutarski. Had not seen that level of information in past readings on Nazi economic policy. Obviously then the Nazi's are most closely akin the small government, free market, limited regulation 'Right' in the US… And another good post from basileus on the corollary that if Communism is Left then anyone opposing the self proclaimed Communists (aka Soviets) is de facto on the Right. Of course as noted by several – none of the discussion here will change any views on the matter… |
Jeigheff | 09 Dec 2017 7:49 p.m. PST |
No, the Nazi's [sp] obviously aren't most akin to small government and "Right" in the U.S. How on earth did you draw that conclusion? Living under a totalitarian government, earning bare minimum wages which the government dictates, being taxed to death, labor leaders thrown into concentration camps . . . how is this "right wing"? Why do modern day left-wingers claim to hate Hitler and the Nazis, and then shudder when the similarities between communism and fascism are pointed out? Do you really want a new Stalin or Mao? (Never mind Hitler.) Should this happen, what makes you think you'll get special treatment and avoid the things that others are suffering when the new regime comes? |
Old Contemptibles | 10 Dec 2017 12:23 a.m. PST |
On the political far left is communism and on the far political right is Fascism. Don't let the term National "Socialism" fool you. The term was hijacked by the Nazis. Nazism is a radical variant of fascism. While communism and fascism depend on a dictatorial leader and a single party system. Fascism works with capitalist to produce goods. The free market operates for the "will of the state." Communism is direct government/social control with no free market what so ever. Socialism is not Communism. Although some say Communism is an extreme form of Socialism. Socialism comes in many flavors but exist within a democratic society. Their are many flavors of socialism and each type my include more or less government control over major industries and services. According to the "Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice": "Democratic Socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production with an emphasis on self-management or democratic management of economic institutions within a socialist market or decentralized socialist planned economy." In communism and fascism (and therefore Nazism) there is no political democracy. There is only one political party. Fascism works within a capitalist economic system to serve the "will of the state". Communism is both the economic and political systems. This is the major difference between the two. They are natural enemies. That is why Germany and Italy supported the right wing fascist side in the SCW and the USSR the democratic left leaning republicans. This is why the German-Soviet Pact was such a surprise when it was announce. It is also why Communist in Germany were sent to concentration camps. It was the reason for the order to execute all Commissars during the war. While communism is a system based around a theory of economic equality and advocates for a classless society, fascism is a nationalistic, top-down system with rigid class roles. |
Wolfhag | 10 Dec 2017 7:43 a.m. PST |
There really is no Left or Right. It's an artificial construct designed by the media to define Us vs Them. It's really about the human struggle of Liberty versus Tyranny. Self-Rule versus Slavery and Serfdom. Self-Sufficiency versus false government promises (Socialism). When a Dictator or Political Party (same things really) come into power they want to run things themselves and need to centralize the power to rule (tyranny). This eliminates self-rule of the people. There are various tools that will enable Dictators and Political Parties to do that based on how willing the people are to give up their personal freedoms, the current social norms and economic efficiency of the country. Think of it as a "Toolset for Tyrants and Dictators". The worse the economy is the easier for government take over. It also depends on the willingness of the people to walk themselves into bondage. Anyone that tries to warn them is labelled a nutcase (Alt-Right) and dangerous to the well being of society and must be silenced (gulags, psych wards, hate speech). The Tyrants first order of business is to define a propaganda message that will get the "Useful Idiots" to back him and get them "agitated" to do his bidding (AntiFA, Occupy Groups, SJW's, Brown Shirts, Bolsheviks, Black Lives Matter, etc). Tell them what they want to hear, make promises you can't keep (social and economic equality) and focus them on an outside or internal real or perceived enemy (race, religion, the rich, opposite political philosophies, white privilege, etc). The correct propaganda message will get the apathetic masses of people to be actively behind you to do your bidding which is to vote, revolt or squash the opposition – or ideally all of the above. Violence will be justified because truly free people will not go down without a fight. It's very easy to show short-term "progress" by nationalizing industries, inflating your currency, creating government jobs, making the trains run on time, seizing private property and redistributing it (telling the people they own it), putting your enemies in prison, and having government control over the press. Whether you call it Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Democratic Socialism, Democracy (tyrannical rule of the majority over the minority) really does not matter. The means justify the ends. Different agendas and goals call for using different tyrannical tools. What it is called really does not matter. All Dictators hold free elections, just no one runs against them or stays alive long enough to take office. If you are a Dictator with complete power over the people, nationalized all industry and private property and then call your country the Democratic Republic of XYZ are you really democratic and a republic with the people sharing in the power? It's just propaganda. It does not matter what it is called. The people in the Democratic Republic North Korea think they are free. It is a country of 99.9% successfully propagandized Useful Idiots run by a lunatic tyrant that everyone thinks is a god. If you were brought up in North Korea you would be the same way. When Hitler visited Mussolini to see how he was being successful it was not a philosophical discussion they had about Left versus Right. By the way, Franklin Roosevelt sent a delegation to check out Mussolini's Socialist success too in order to implement it. It was for Hitler to see what tyrannical tools he was using to rule the people of Italy and turn them into Useful Idiots to make them think they had self-determinism. Mussolini called his tyranny "fascism". He could have called it Democratic Socialism, Benitoism, Democracy or whatever. It does not matter. He was a Dictator. Today, Socialism and Progressive ideas are the terms wannabe tyrants and political parties use to fool the "Useful Idiots" of their country that by electing them they will get something for "free" (altruism, equality) and make them "equal" (steal from the rich and give to the poor). Little do the idiots understand that tyranny can only make them equal to the lowest common denominator: equally stupid, equally poor, equally unhealthy and equally hungry. Except of course for the ruling elite. Ask any North Korean defector. I think it was Marx that wrote that democracy leads to socialism which leads to communism. This happens when the people, using their democratic right to vote, realize they can "vote" themselves a pay raise or get something for free. Now, the wannabe tyrants, hiding under the cloak of a political party, that have been elected by the Useful Idiots need to implement altruistic government social programs to fulfil their Progressive promise of change. Hey, let us call it the "War on Poverty". Great idea! Here's another great idea, "Free college education for everyone". Still not getting enough votes from the Useful Idiots to get elected: promise free healthcare! Get the idea yet? You start with a little bit of socialism. Call it the War on Poverty. Great idea to help people. Who can disagree? Unfortunately, it does not work and it increases the number of poor people. Well, now we need to spend more money by going into debt, temporary of course. Let's use that money for more government and more government programs, that's a logical solution. Damn, that didn't work either, we still have poor people and inequality, lets tax the rich more. I can't believe it – that isn't working either! Now we have more poor people, more inequality and the rich have gotten richer! How the hell did that happen! Now you get the propaganda machine into full swing and have a candidate that promises to take everything from those evil rich people and use the government to redistribute to everyone so they can have free education, free healthcare, free internet, free housing, free cell phones and free sex robots. Let's call the candidate Bernie Sanders and his idea will be called Democratic Socialism. Now just get the people agitated and propagandized enough to vote for comrade Bernie and everyone will be living on a free government welfare plantation as a serf – except for the ruling elite. You won't even have enough money to pay for electricity to power your sex robot. Are you a tyrant that does not have enough money to fulfil all of the free things you've promised. Solution: fiat currency, unlimited debt and tax the rich! Then pass a law that the ruling elite is free from the laws the Useful Idiots need to conform to. This could never happen, right? People are too smart for that. Self-rule is tough. The people need to delay gratification, resist the temptations of politicians that promise a better life and want to do good by using other peoples money while lining their own pockets. Socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money (maybe fiat currency and unlimited debt can solve that?). Republican self-rule with a minimum of central government interference was the "Great Experiment" in the United States. The patriotic duty of an American citizen is to protect his country from the government, not be a co-conspirator in a government take over of personal and States rights. If the people cannot resist the false promises of government free stuff they will eventually enslave themselves again. What that form of slavery is called does not matter when your rights and property have been taken away, resistors are put in gulags and your children are subjected to a government education propaganda program to get them to conform and not to educate them to free ideas. Blood will be shed to get those freedoms back. Wolfhag |
Rudysnelson | 10 Dec 2017 8:36 a.m. PST |
Not really worth the effort some folks seem to want to put into the issue. I stated my position by reminding folks that it is a cult of personality, not pure economics, political or social policies. The political science has been the same since the 1960s or earlier. The spectrum is circular not straight. The far left and right are side by side not poles apart. We learned that way back then and nothing has changed my mind about the spectrum. |
Legion 4 | 10 Dec 2017 9:03 a.m. PST |
"Useful Idiots" One the best, if not the best "words/terms" that came out of the communist ideology. And it seems it can be used in many situations and to a variety of persons/individuals, etc. … |
Griefbringer | 10 Dec 2017 9:44 a.m. PST |
How do you classify Nazis on the political spectrum? As far as I can tell, the Nazis aim was not to be part of a political spectrum, but to do away with it. Once they got into power, they got rid of the other parties during 1933 (and the next year they also ended up doing an internal purge of some parts of their own party). Thus by 1934 in Germany there was no party that was either to the left or right of them – there was just NSDAP. |
Garth in the Park | 10 Dec 2017 9:52 a.m. PST |
Far-Left-wing systems don't necessarily have to be dictatorships. Some are, some aren't. Many involve a "dictatorship by committee," such as the East German system, in which the leader is at the mercy of his own Politburo and can be removed rather easily. Arguably that was also the Soviet system post-1953. Charismatic left-wing dictators like Mao, Tito, Castro, or the Kims accounted for less than half of all Communist states. Most were run by grey men in grey suits, bureaucrats who preferred that people not pay too much attention to them or their comparatively lavish lifestyles. Ceaucescu in Romania was – I think – the last charismatic Communist strongman in Europe. But I can't think of any Far-Right or Fascist systems that didn't have a charismatic "Leader" figure with a cult of personality. Perhaps Slovakia, where it suited Nazi interests to keep them a puppet state. But even in very short-lived puppet Fascist governments like Vichy France and Croatia, they tried to install a patriarchal cult of personality around the Leader. Left-wing ideologies tend to emphasize classlessness and collectivism and thus a single leader figure presents a logical contradiction that can be awkward for ideologues. After the death of that leader, rule-by-committee is the norm. (North Korea being an obvious exception.) Right-wing ideologies more often emphasize nationality, race, or religion, and it's much easier to rally around a single leader who embodies those ideals or at least champions them. Rallying people around ethnic or religious identity isn't generally done by committee. |
Griefbringer | 10 Dec 2017 10:57 a.m. PST |
ideologies more often emphasize nationality, race, or religion, and it's much easier to rally around a single leader who embodies those ideals or at least champions them. It is somewhat ironical that the Nazi movement, with its emphasis on the divine-mythical über-race of tall and blond northern Aryans, had as a leader a man who could hardly be described as being tall and blond… |
Editor in Chief Bill | 11 Dec 2017 7:19 p.m. PST |
Since the Nazis considered themselves the enemies of the Communists, wouldn't Nazis have considered themselves to be on the Right (vs Left)? |
Wolfhag | 12 Dec 2017 12:07 a.m. PST |
Bill, So is Left and Right defined by specific attributes as many posters state or do you get to choose Left or Right, like choosing what sex you want to be like in California? What if I called myself Left and others called me Right? What am I? I see a lot of "tend to", "most often", "most were" and overlapping characteristics. So much the same and so much different? When your rights and property are slowly being taken away is it going to make you feel any better if it is the Left or Right doing it? Wolfhag |
Legion 4 | 12 Dec 2017 7:12 a.m. PST |
Right or Left … is in the eye's of the beholder when it came to Nazis, Commies, and those like them … |
DyeHard | 12 Dec 2017 10:43 a.m. PST |
I am never quite sure if people on this form are just trolling or what. But, if you what to understand the use of these terms (Left Right) there is a long history of what these terms refer to. Well these terms go back to 1789 an the National Assembly of France during the French Revolution. link link These are not entirely "In the eye of the beholder". The terms have evolved over time and it would be best to subdivide subjects to provide a better descriptor: such Right vs. Left economics, Right vs. Left legal issues. But sticking to over all political spectrum and using the original connotation of the terms. NAZI are Rightist as they see people divided in the hierarchical rank structure.{as the right aristocrats did} And Marxists (as communist is too wide a group) are Leftists as they see people as equals. {As the Left Commoners did}. |
Legion 4 | 12 Dec 2017 2:41 p.m. PST |
These are not entirely "In the eye of the beholder". No they are not … but in many cases close enough. IMO there was little difference between the Nazis and the USSR overall in many situations. |
Flashman14 | 13 Dec 2017 3:09 p.m. PST |
"Fascism, Nazism, Communism and Socialism are only superficial variations of the same monstrous theme—collectivism." – Ayn Rand |
Lion in the Stars | 13 Dec 2017 5:09 p.m. PST |
Since the Nazis considered themselves the enemies of the Communists, wouldn't Nazis have considered themselves to be on the Right (vs Left)? No, since the Nazis viewed themselves as replacing the entire political spectrum. Essentially, just like the Communists. The primary practical difference is the name of the organization you needed to belong to in order to have a chance of survival. I will grant that there were operational differences in how the National Socialists achieved their control of the individual's life compared to how the Communists did it, but the end result was the same: The government had total control of the individual's life. |
Legion 4 | 14 Dec 2017 3:24 p.m. PST |
"Fascism, Nazism, Communism and Socialism are only superficial variations of the same monstrous theme—collectivism." – Ayn Rand Seems like I have to agree with that … And it somewhat goes with what I was saying about "in the eye of the beholder" … |
goragrad | 21 Dec 2017 12:22 p.m. PST |
Alternatively they could all be considered 'Statists.' Regardless of the details they all emphasize the state over the individual. |
Pages: 1 2 3
|