|
Post by mcans567 on Feb 11, 2019 12:53:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 11, 2019 16:20:22 GMT -5
One video deserves another.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 11, 2019 16:35:45 GMT -5
Do you have any evidence that in this transfer of "ownership" meant transfer of control? Of course not, because there is none. The Nazi government told businesses how many workers to hire and what their wages should be.The Nazi government also told German businesses what to manufacture and what price to charge. Take a look.
In other words, this Nazi "privatization" was in name only.
German business was "privatized" in the same sense that the Soviet Union was a "worker's democracy."
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2019 18:30:41 GMT -5
Do you have any evidence that in this transfer of "ownership" meant transfer of control? Of course not, because there is none. If ownership of property does not imply legal control over that property, then what else is the meaning of a phrase like "control of the means of production"? The common feature of all socialists is that they believe in collective ownership of labor and production. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SocialismThe fault lines between socialists can be found mostly in how they believe this collective ownership is to be organized - Leninists believe in state ownership, Syndicalists in ownership by unions, Libertarian socialists in cooperative ownership by self-organized communes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Role_of_the_stateBut none of them disagree on the fact that the means of production must be owned by the producers as a class. Even so-called "market socialists" who approve of free markets, believe that production must be owned by the working class. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialismFascism, and Nazis in particular, on the other hand believe in the Führerprinzip - the idea of a leader who is inherently superior to his subordinates, and therefore is solely qualified to organize everything. Socialism is not exclusive with this in and of itself, and there used to be a socialist wing of the NSDAP, but it was already marginalized in the early 1920s when the party was still small, and was formally expelled in the 1930. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_FrontRegardless, at that point all socialist tendencies had already been subsumed under the true ideology that united all Nazis, the Führerprinzip. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrerprinzip#IdeologyIn line with their belief that the means of production must be owned by the workers, every single radical socialist government has attempted to seize property from large businesses at some point. The Nazis never did, even when they had the theoretical means to do so (being in control of the army and with mass support). Rather, they preferred to work within the network of German big business, and many influential capitalists like the Krupp family were allies of the Nazis or even actual card carrying members. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krupp#Gustav's_era This is perfectly in line with the true Nazi ideology, the Führerprinzip, as the little "Führers" of the German industries readily subordinated themselves under the German Führer Adolf Hitler. During WW2, every single government told their companies what to manufacture. Not just the German government, but every single warfaring nation. That is what "total war" entails: Every aspect of the national economy is subordinated under the war effort. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_warEvery major warfaring nation in WW2 was fighting a total war. The US and UK not only controlled manufacturing that way, in fact, they controlled international commerce and maritime trade as well. Allied merchant ships were grouping together into protected convoys on orders of their governments, with their schedules and routes under the control of military men. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy#Atlanticen.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allied_convoys_during_World_War_II_by_regionBy the way, the text you bring up does not cite a single source, and provides no proof for its claims.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 21, 2019 2:16:02 GMT -5
So you are claiming that the Nazi government had no control over businesses whatsoever (until the war)?
That that the Nazi government didn't control the worker's "unions?"
That the Nazi government never set production goals for businesses?
That the Nazi government never set wages or told businesses what to produce or how much?
That those "unions" acted on their own and negotiated wages and working hours with businesses?
That there was a working Free Market in Nazi Germany?
You are right about the text I posted. It was an excerpt from an out of print publication of a government agency. Most likely it did have footnotes and sources, but they were not listed here.
So here is a source with better evidence:
That is a brief excerpt from a long article with plenty of evidence cited.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2019 17:30:11 GMT -5
So you are claiming that the Nazi government had no control over businesses whatsoever (until the war)? This question is irrelevant to whether Nazi Germany was socialist. I've already outlined my definition of socialism, a very broad definition that encompasses nearly all major ideological strands of socialism from Lenin-Stalinist statism to left anarchism. As I further outlined, the issue of who owns the means of production is completely orthogonal to Nazi ideology. To Nazist ideology, economics are simply one of many areas to be subsumed under the will of the Führer. To Marxist ideology, economics are the fundamental principles of human society, and to most Marxists, everything else in society depends on who owns the means of production. To Marxists, the state is a superstructure, whereas to Nazis, the state is the extension of the Führer's will. This article talks about interventionist economic policies. "Interventionist" in the realm of economics is a term to describe any government that actively involves itself into its national economy. Most goverments in the real world are interventionist to some degree or another. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_interventionism
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 21, 2019 19:03:47 GMT -5
So you are claiming that the Nazi government had no control over businesses whatsoever (until the war)? This question is irrelevant to whether Nazi Germany was socialist. I've already outlined my definition of socialism, a very broad definition that encompasses nearly all major ideological strands of socialism from Lenin-Stalinist statism to left anarchism. As I further outlined, the issue of who owns the means of production is completely orthogonal to Nazi ideology. To Nazist ideology, economics are simply one of many areas to be subsumed under the will of the Führer. To Marxist ideology, economics are the fundamental principles of human society, and to most Marxists, everything else in society depends on who owns the means of production. To Marxists, the state is a superstructure, whereas to Nazis, the state is the extension of the Führer's will. This article talks about interventionist economic policies. "Interventionist" in the realm of economics is a term to describe any government that actively involves itself into its national economy. Most goverments in the real world are interventionist to some degree or another. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_interventionismYour error here is to assume that the degree of intervention makes no difference. Basically you are claiming that Stalin's regime was indistinguishable from any other country because most countries are "interventionist." By similar logic, you can conclude someone who throws some litter in the street is the same as a serial killer because they are both "law-breakers." The article clearly states that Nazi trade policy "developed by 1938 into a full-blown, comprehensive, abd state-mandated rationing and allocation system for every factor of production."Does that sound like a free market to you? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2019 0:07:55 GMT -5
Socialism isn't a particular degree of interventionist policy.
Socialism means collective ownership of the means of production.
Unless you somehow come up with some new piece of evidence, this discussion is only ever going to have us talking in circles around the simple fact that no such collective ownership existed in Germany.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 22, 2019 16:31:17 GMT -5
Socialism isn't a particular degree of interventionist policy. Socialism means collective ownership of the means of production. Unless you somehow come up with some new piece of evidence, this discussion is only ever going to have us talking in circles around the simple fact that no such collective ownership existed in Germany.
If you have total control, it doesn't matter who the "owner" is on paper. Does it?
The Nazis had total control of the means of production. Policy was set by the Nazi bureaucracy. Whoever disobeyed them, died.
If that's not control, what is?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2019 1:35:06 GMT -5
What do you mean by "total control"? How was the control the Nazi state exerted over its markets and businesses fundamentally different in degree and quality from the way the Allies ran their wartime economies?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 24, 2019 1:07:31 GMT -5
What do you mean by "total control"? How was the control the Nazi state exerted over its markets and businesses fundamentally different in degree and quality from the way the Allies ran their wartime economies?
Please check to article I posted. It clearly states that Nazi trade policy "developed by 1938 into a full-blown, comprehensive, abd state-mandated rationing and allocation system for every factor of production." That was before WWII started.
Bob
|
|