DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Questions & Debates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 30552--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: July 3, 2025, 9:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]This is, in fact, not an outrageous assumption. After
all, for the dreaded Schutzstaffel (SS), the ideological
guardian of the movement and staff of the death camps, the
persecution of the Jews was not directed exclusively, or even
primarily, at the Jews as a race. Indeed, in 1937 the
organization's mouthpiece, Das Schwarze Korps (The Black
Corps),' confirmed "that
it wasn't an issue of the Jews 'per se,' but rather an issue of
the spirit or anti-spirit that they spread, precisely that what
one calls influence.** The genuine threat was not merely
physical as the petty materialists had claimed, but rather -
from a loftier, idealistic perspective - meta-physical, and the
article indicated that the victory of racial antisemitism is to
be judged as only a partial victory. [...] We must also
exterminate the Jewish spirit. [...] Because not the racial Jew
per se was dangerous to us, but rather the spirit that he
spread" (emphasis in original).*
Consequently, the scope of persecution by the Nazi state was
expanded further to include even "people of Aryan blood who show
susceptibility to Jewish spirit and who are in bondage to it."
These infected persons were, of course, the "white Jews" - a
term that had been in circulation since the nineteenth century.
The article went on to explain the appropriateness of the term
to the reader:
The mouth of the people has coined the label "white Jews" for
such germ carriers that is exceedingly suitable, because it
expands the concept of Jew beyond the racial dimension. One
could in the same sense speak also of Jews of spirit. Jews of
attitude, or Jews of character.®
By enlarging the definition of a Jew in this way, the door of
persecution was opened ever further to include greater segments
of the general population.
A year later the journal returned to the topic in order to
highlight characteristics of these subversive Aryan carriers of
the Jewish spirit, namely "the greed for profit [...]
unrestricted selfishness and the inability to submit oneself to
a community."' Although these "white Jews" were, admittedly, not
as perilous as the "black Jews," the article revealed - in
ironic euphemism - that the Nazis "have the friendly intention
to render also the white Jews harmless.** But until that point,
it was merely the Jewish capitalist who, by virtue of his
external and physical differences such as religion/blood and by
extention deficient moral compass, violated an alleged duty to
the collective. However, all traces of this selfish mentality
would have to be eliminated from evervone in order to establish
a utopian national-völkisch community.[/quote]
Source :
Antisemitic Elements in the Critique of Capitalism in German
Culture, 1850-1933 by Matthew Lange Page 299 - 300
HTML https://books.google.co.id/books?redir_esc=y&hl=id&id=jMQpHAMEF1EC&q=unrestricted+selfishness#v=snippet&q=unrestricted%20selfishness&f=false
[quote]Goebbels saw the similarities between the Nazis and the
Communists as clearly as the differences, which he said could be
boiled down to nationalism rather than internationalism, a
'Jewish conspiracy'. 'In the end,' he wrote in his diary later
that year, 'it would be better for us to fall with Bolshevism
than to live in eternal slavery under capitalism.'? He took the
'Socialism' in National Socialism very seriously and felt great
sympathy for the Russian people and their struggle, stating that
Lenin understood them better than any previous tsar. In an open
letter to 'My Friends the Left', he listed many areas of
agreement with the Communists in their 'common struggle for
freedom' against the hated bourgeoisie. 'You and I,' he
concluded, 'we fight each other but we are not really enemies.
In doing so we divide our forces, and we shall never achieve our
goal. Perhaps the last extreme will bring us together.
Perhaps.[/quote]
Source :
Goebbels' diary in The Devil's Disciples: Hitler's Inner Circle
by Anthony Read, (2004) p. 142. - Diary excerpts
HTML https://archive.org/details/devilsdisciplesh00read/page/142/mode/2up?q=eternal+slavery
[quote]Fritz Thyssen, one of the major industrialists who had
given Hitler his initial support after the seizure of power, on
the assumption that the Nazis would create a paternalistic
corporate state, eventually broke with Nazism and fled Germany.
His substantial holdings in the Stahlverein were forcibly taken
over by the state.
"Soon Germany will be no different from Bolshevik Russia... The
heads of companies who do not meet the requirements set out in
the Plan will be accused of treason against the German people
and shot."[/quote]
Source :
1. Overy, "War and Economy in the Third Reich," p. 109.
2. “Hitler privatized the industries” is ridiculously misleading
- TIKHistory, 20th February 2024 [Minute 11:20]
HTML https://youtu.be/0q16cq25SCY
[quote]The Fuhrer did not come from their ranks and remained
committed to the fight against stock exchange capital‘ and
reactionary industrial barons.“ It said that areas of the
economy which were formerly sacrosanct were now feeling the
NSDAP’s revolutionary force.[/quote]
Source :
The Voice of the SS: A History of the SS Journal "Das Schwarze
Korps by William L. Combs Page 316 - 317
There can be no real socialist revolution if the social classes
of businessmen and the bourgeoisie are still preserved.
#Post#: 30553--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: July 3, 2025, 10:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You have not explained why your own previously chosen quotes (as
I excerpted) contradict your original claim.
[quote]business-owners (which actually includes non-evil
people[/quote]
I agree with Zea_mays.
"There is no noble nature of a businessman/bourgeoisie. Because
they gain profit from taking the value of labor wages, which
value of labor wages comes from every product/service that has
been made by them in their work activities."
A business owner is someone who has to risk making a loss if the
product/service does not sell. An employee is someone who gets
paid the exact same wages even if the product/service does not
sell. Why should someone who takes greater risk, more precisely
someone who takes on risk so that others (the employees) can
avoid risk, not have a chance for greater reward?
Under communism, it would be compulsory for everyone to share
the risk equally. I am not against a group of people providing a
given product/service sharing risk equally if that is what they
unanimously agree to do. But what if some people do not want to
take such a risk? They should also be allowed to not take such a
risk provided there is someone else voluntarily willing to take
it for them. That is why I am also not against business owners.
An economy can be comprised of both employer-employee businesses
and shared-risk enterprises. In fact it would be interesting to
see which provides better quality in different types of
products/services.
#Post#: 30556--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: July 4, 2025, 9:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]You have not explained why your own previously chosen
quotes (as I excerpted) contradict your original claim.
....
A business owner is someone who has to risk making a loss if the
product/service does not sell. An employee is someone who gets
paid the exact same wages even if the product/service does not
sell. Why should someone who takes greater risk, more precisely
someone who takes on risk so that others (the employees) can
avoid risk, not have a chance for greater reward?
Under communism, it would be compulsory for everyone to share
the risk equally. I am not against a group of people providing a
given product/service sharing risk equally if that is what they
unanimously agree to do. But what if some people do not want to
take such a risk? They should also be allowed to not take such a
risk provided there is someone else voluntarily willing to take
it for them. That is why I am also not against business owners.
An economy can be comprised of both employer-employee businesses
and shared-risk enterprises. In fact it would be interesting to
see which provides better quality in different types of
products/services.[/quote]
First, we know the meaning of business. Business is the activity
of providing goods and services to the community in exchange for
money. In a socialist system, providers of goods and services
are not allowed to take the amount of profit they want. It is
feared that they will manipulate prices that make it difficult
for the community to buy the products/services they need. So the
state will be involved in forcing providers of goods and
services to provide a selling value to the community at a
predetermined price level, if there are still those who make a
higher selling value without the permission of the state will be
severely punished. So that buying and selling activities are not
determined by the voluntary will of individual/group producers
and the voluntary will of individual/group consumers, but are
determined by the planning of the people who lead them, who
understand the needs of the population and who know how to bring
the population in a community to an order that is commensurate
and produces relief. Hitler's regime, like other socialist
regimes (Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sung, etc.) carried out economic
activities that ended the attitude of voluntary economic
interaction between producers and consumers, because it caused
economic competition. Economic competition causes producers to
compete to beat each other, which also makes them prioritize
efficiency over welfare for their workers and the attitude of
providing a decent life for their workers. Because if it is not
efficient, then the producer will fail to meet consumer demand,
which consumer demand tends to prioritize products from
efficient producers rather than those that are easy to produce,
even though the easy-to-produce products are still suitable for
use and do not intentionally harm physical and psychological
health. If they [failed producers] fail to meet consumer demand,
then they do not gain profit and are defeated by other producers
who try to compete with them, and succeed in meeting consumer
demand. This causes it to be difficult for groups in society to
unite, because some groups in society who fail do not feel they
are being helped and do not feel like they are part of the
community.
Therefore, the understanding of socialism provides a solution
that the production activities of producers are planned by the
state, starting from how many products must be produced, how
long the working hours of workers are, and how many consumers
must be served and given products each day. So that there is
certainty of working hours that can provide workers with a
decent life and are not alienated/exploited, and certainty in
planning production activities, which minimizes the risk of not
getting enough buyers. Also, national production planning can
prevent sellers from carrying out work plans that squeeze their
workers under the guise of work efficiency, and under the guise
of winning the competition to attract consumers' willingness not
to buy from other producers. If there is a businessman who wants
high-risk things just to get a higher reward than others, even
though it complicates working conditions that should not be
necessary to happen, then they are a parasite. They lack empathy
and are not suitable to be called a socialist. Those who want
better things in the quality of products or services, even
though the products or services that have been made in previous
times are still usable and can solve problems, are people who
actually want new problems too. Because if you want a
product/service that they think is "better quality", then there
will be a need to learn how to operate it, which creates
uncertainty again for the chances of success in making the
product/service. Because workers have to learn new operational
methods from time to time, even though the previous operational
methods can still solve problems. And also, entrepreneurs and
business owners who are willing for their large profits/rewaards
to be absorbed by the state in order to create equality and
equity, and are also willing for the state to control the means
of production that they own, are good entrepreneurs. In other
words, good entrepreneurs/business owners are entrepreneurs who
are willing to have their status as entrepreneurs killed
Remember how from year to year Hitler controlled the country's
economy.
[quote]At business congresses they say the future of our nation
lies on business and in it, and that is ridiculous for many
reasons. The most important are: first, business itself is
always only a secondary phenomenon and not a primary one.
Business does not build states, the political forces build
states. Business can never replace the political force, and if a
nation does not possess political force its economy will
collapse. Business is more burdening than uplifting. Today you
see many Germans, especially in bourgeois circles, who always
say business will forge our nation together. No, business is a
factor which is more likely to sunder a nation. A nation has
political ideals. But if a nation only lives for business,
business must thereby sunder a nation, because in business
employers and employees always oppose each other. Even in a
so-called Communist economy ... When people only look at
business alone, its tendency to sunder becomes apparent.50 -
Adolf Hitler, 30 November 1928 [Page 304]
.....
In an analysis which appeared in the periodical of the
employers’ association on the eve of the Reichstag elections of
1930, the NSDAP was criticized for its ‘aggressive hostility
towards business’ and the warning was given that National
Socialism belonged to the conspiratorial, demagogic and
terrorist elements of contemporary socialism.175 [Page 344]
.....
... if necessary with the same degree of ruthlessness ... The
interests of individual gentlemen will not be permitted to play
a role in future. There is only one interest and that is the
interest of the nation, and only one opinion, and that is that
Germany has to be brought into a condition of self-preservation
politically and economically.61 - Adolf Hitler, Augustus 1936
...free play of forces has been brought to an end ... Therefore
the National Socialist idea and the movement that supports and
advances it, which emerged as the victor from the free play of
forces, will take over the leadership of the nation, not only
politically but also economically and culturally. It will set
the tasks and it will determine the tendency of their
fulfilment. Nobody disposes of a greater right than it does, nor
of a greater inner qualification. 63 - Adolf Hitler, 1936 [Page
308]
.....
There is no economic concept or economic view which can claim to
be gospel. What is decisive is the will to always assign
business the role of servant of the people and capital the role
of servant of business. National Socialism is, as we know, the
sharpest opponent of the liberalistic point of view that
business existed for capital and the people for business. We
were therefore also determined from the very first day to break
with the mistaken concept that business could lead an unbound,
uncontrollable and unsupervised life within the state. A free
economy, in other words one completely left to itself, can no
longer exist today. Not only would this be politically
intolerable, no, economically too, impossible conditions would
result. Just as millions of individual people cannot structure
or perform their work according to their own ideas or needs, so
also business as a whole cannot act according to its own
opinions or in the service of egoistic interests. Because today
it too is no longer able to bear the consequences of a mistake
all by itself. Modern economic development concentrates enormous
masses of workers in certain types of jobs and in certain
regions. New inventions or the loss of markets can destroy whole
industries in one blow. The industrialist may be able to close
the gates of his factory, he may even attempt to find a new
field of activity for his drive to be active. In most cases he
will not go under so readily, and, apart from that, here we are
only dealing with a few individuals. But facing these there are
hundreds of thousands of workers with their women and their
children! Who will take them and who will care for them? The
national community! Jawohl! It has to. But then it cannot be
accepted that the national community is only burdened with the
responsibility for the catastrophe of business, without having
any influence on, and responsibility for the direction and the
control of business by which the catastrophe could be avoided!
My fellow members! When in 1932 to 1933 the German economy
appeared to be finally heading for complete destruction, the
following became even more clear to me than in earlier years:
the salvation of our nation is not a problem of finance, but
exclusively a problem of the use and employment of our existing
working forces on the one hand and the utilization of existing
land and natural resources on the other. It is therefore first
and foremost a problem of organization. We are therefore also
not dealing with phrases such as ‘freedom of the economy’; the
issue is rather to give the workforce the possibility of a
production and a productive activity by all available means. As
long as business, in other words the sum total of our
enterprises, is able to do this, all the better. But if it is no
longer capable, then the national community, in other words in
this case the state, is obliged to take care of the employment
of the existing workforce for the purpose of a useful
production, or to take the appropriate measures for this. 107 -
Adolf Hitler, 30 January 1937 [Page 323 - 324]
.....
... this was also due in the end to the fact that the direction
of the economy had gradually become more controlled by the
state. Only thus had it been possible to enforce the overall
national objective against the interests of individual groups.
Even after the war we would not be able to renounce state
control of the economy, because then every interest group would
think exclusively of the fulfilment of its wishes. 120 - Adolf
Hitler, 5th July 1942 (Table Talk) [Page 328]
‘The avowal of a free economy in times of peace, which I had
asked of Hitler and been promised, came out far less clearly
than I had expected.’ Nonetheless, said Speer, some of the
statements in the speech had been noteworthy, so he asked Hitler
for permission to file it in the archives – which never came
about because Bormann prevented it and Hitler remained
evasive.134 - Albert Speer, Ministry of War and Industry [Page
332][/quote]
Source :
Hitler's National Socialism by Rainer Zitelmann Page 304, 344,
308, 323, 324, 328, and 332
[quote]I want everyone to keep what he has earned subject to the
principle that the good of the community takes priority over
that of the individual. But the State should retain control;
every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State. . .
. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control
property owners
[W]e will do what we like with the bourgeoisie. . . We give the
orders; they do what they are told. Any resistance will be
broken ruthlessly. . . You just tell the German bourgeoisie that
I shall be finished with them far quicker than I shall with
Marxism - Adolf Hitler[/quote]
Source :
Secret Conversations with Hitler: The Two Newly-discovered 1931
Interviews Page 32 - 33 and 36
HTML https://books.google.co.id/books?redir_esc=y&hl=id&id=EyxoAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=retain+control
[quote]The Nazis also used terror as an instrument of state
policy ... Terror as also used to control groups and
organizations central to German society and economy. Hitler is
supposed to have told Schacht,'The primary cause of the
stabilization of our currency is the concentration camp.'40 The
standardized allocation form described above included penalties
for non-compliance. It declared that, 'Acquiring materials
except for Four Year Plan purposes will be regarded as economic
sabotage.' Under Nazi rules, this language threatened death or a
concentration camp for any manager who pursued his own
ends.41[/quote]
Source :
1. The Nazi War Against Capitalism by Nevin Gussack Page 79
2. Statistics and the German State, 1900-1945 by Adam Tooze Page
260-261
[quote]"Any organization that represents the interests of
employers," Graf von der Goltz, the deputy commissar, told an
audience of businessmen in 1934, "will be regarded as illegal
and disbanded, and the guilty parties will be
prosecuted."^^[/quote]
Source :
Hitler's Social Revolution: Class and Status in Nazi Germany,
1933-1939 by David Schoenbaum Page 118
[quote]On July 5, 1942, Hitler stated in a discussion that if
the German economy had so far been able to overcome many
problems,
.. this was ultimately also due to the fact that the direction
of the economy was gradually becoming more state-controlled.
Only then could the overall national goal be upheld against the
interests of individual groups. Even after the war, we will not
be able to shake off state control over the economy, because
each interest group will think exclusively of fulfilling its own
desires. 120
...
As Hans Mommsen has shown, the German opposition to Hitler,
which recruited almost exclusively from the upper classes and
here especially from the nobility, regarded National Socialism
and Bolshevism as identical. Trott said, for example: 'What
seems to us as a dirty brown muck at home confronts us with the
Asiatic violence and brutality of Moscow'?' Hassell feared that
'socialism in the form of Hitler' must have the aim of
destroying the upper classes through Bolshevization. And in a
memorandum prepared by Lieutenant Commander Liedig at the end of
1939, which explains the views of the group around Oster in
Intelligence and is also characteristic of the political concept
of Beck and Halder, it is said: 'The revolutionary dynamic of
destroying all historical connections and all cultural ties that
have ever shaped the dignity and fame of Europe is the sole, and
total, secret of his [Hitler's] statesmanship."[/quote]
Source:
Hitler: The Policies of Seduction by Zitelmann, Rainer pages
232, 404 - 405
HTML https://archive.org/details/hitlerpoliciesof0000zite/page/232/mode/2up?q=not+be+able+to+renounce
[quote]According to this writer, everything planned by the Nazi
Government is done in the interest of ‘ Wehrwirtschaft ’ —
defence economy. This planned economy signifies complete State
control of production, agriculture, and commerce ; of exports,
imports, and foreign markets ; of prices, foreign exchange,
credit, rates of interest, profits, capital investments, and
merchandizing of all kinds. All the financial, indeed, all the
vital resources of the nation, are reserved for the needs of the
Government, the Reichsbank being the supreme control agency in
all matters of finance. In fact, National Socialism has created
a war-economy, subjecting the entire social and economic fabric
to Government regulation.[/quote]
Source :
1. I Knew Hitler The Story Of A Nazi Who Escaped The Blood Purge
by Ludecke Kurt G.w. Page 692
HTML https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.499056/page/n707/mode/2up
[quote]Buried under mountains of red tape, directed by the State
as to what they could produce, how much and at what price,
burdened by increasing taxation and milked by steep and never
ending “special contributions” to the party, the businessmen,
who had welcomed Hitler’s regime so enthusiastically because
they expected it to destroy organized labor and allow an
entrepreneur to practice untrammeled free enterprise, became
greatly disillusioned. One of them was Fritz Thyssen, one of the
earliest and biggest contributors to the party. Fleeing Germany
at the outbreak of the war, he recognized that the “Nazi regime
has ruined German industry.” And to all he met abroad he
proclaimed, “What a fool [Dummkopf ] I was!”15[/quote]
Source :
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany
by William L. Shirer Page 261
HTML https://archive.org/details/B-001-014-606/page/260/mode/2up
#Post#: 30557--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: July 4, 2025, 9:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Continuing :
[quote]...the war capability of the modern state. Future wars,
Hitler believed, had to mobilize 'the whole strength of the
people'? Economic policy, in this sense, had to be judged by the
criterion of strategic necessity as well as social utility. This
made Hitler an enemy of free-market economics, and inclined him
to the currently fashionable ideas of closed economic blocs and
autarky, and ultimately to the idea of seizing 'living-space'
and resources by force.[/quote]
Source :
War and Economy in the Third Reich by R. J. Overy Page 1 and 2
HTML https://archive.org/details/wareconomyinthir00over/page/n17/mode/2up
[quote]achieve a truly socialist division of personal assets,
Hitler implemented a variety of interventionist economic
policies, including price and rent controls, exorbitant
corporate taxes, frequent “polemics against landlords,”
subsidies to German farmers as protection “against the vagaries
of weather and the world market,” and harsh taxes on capital
gains, which Hitler himself had denounced as “effortless
income[/quote]
Source :
Moynihan, Michael. (2007). Hitler's Handouts Inside the Nazis'
welfare state. Accessed on 9th April 2025, from
HTML https://reason.com/2007/08/15/hitlers-handouts/
[quote]According to economist Dietrich Orlow, such persecution
against the business community was prevalent as the Nazi party
repeatedly poured “propagandistic venom on the capitalists and
decadent bourgeoisie.[/quote]
Source :
1. The History of the Nazi Party by Dietrich Orlow Page 87
HTML https://archive.org/details/historyofnazipar0000orlo/page/86/mode/2up?q=propagandistic+venom
2. Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum and
the Battle between the 'Free Left' and the 'Statist Left' by
L.K. Samuels Page 417
[quote]Based on the logic of a free market and the natural laws
of competition, Hitler said, one could in many cases not expect
any actions directed toward the common good. One could not, for
example,
... expect a man who happens to produce nitrogen to say: 'I
think it would now be wiser to sell it for 20 percent less.' No,
we cannot ask that. This can only be recognized as being
necessary from a higher vantage point, and then you say, 'It
must be done.' But we cannot ask it of the man... Or if, for
example, I demand of someone else that he should agree that we
in Germany are going to produce our fuel ourselves, but he makes
his living in the fuel trade. Well, you cannot expect the man to
say, 'I think that is a fabulous idea that you are going to
produce your fuel yourself.' Or an international rubber buyer or
rubber trader who is now supposed to decide whether we in
Germany are to build Buna factories. He will naturally say, 'I
think that is crazy, absolutely impossible."
In all such cases there is obviously a contradiction between the
capitalist private and the state-defined general political
interests. According to Hitler's view, the state always has the
right and the obligation a enforce the general political against
the capitalist private interests.[/quote]
Source :
Hitler: The Policies of Seduction by Rainer Zitelmann Page 215
HTML https://archive.org/details/hitlerpoliciesof0000zite/mode/2up?q=expect+a+man+who+happens+to+produce
So, it is wrong if the Aryanist community assumes that Hitler
implemented a mixed market economic system and assumes that
Hitler fundamentally implemented a capitalist economy.
[quote]A National Socialist economy is not centrally planned,
but centrally directed. Central planning involves taking demand
for granted and then using the state to regulate supply. Central
direction involves determining adequate supply and then using
the state to limit demand. Hence a National Socialist economy
[s]should not be confused with a mixed-market economy, which is
a fundamentally capitalist economy with state intervention in
subservience to implicitly capitalist values.[/s] is
socialistic[/quote]
Source :
Aryanism - Economics - Captured by Waybackmachine Internet
Archive on 27th March 2018
HTML https://web.archive.org/web/20180327031830/http://aryanism.net/politics/economics/
#Post#: 30559--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: July 4, 2025, 11:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Not only did you not answer my earlier questions, but also you
continue to contradict yourself:
"It is feared that they will manipulate prices that make it
difficult for the community to buy the products/services they
need."
"Economic competition causes producers to compete to beat each
other, which also makes them prioritize efficiency over welfare
for their workers"
Which is it? Because if they are competing, they will try to
offer the same product/service at a lower price than their
competitors. Competition is the countermeasure to price
manipulation. So are you worried that they are competing or are
you worried they aren't competing enough?
"it is wrong if the Aryanist community assumes that Hitler
implemented a mixed market economic system and assumes that
Hitler fundamentally implemented a capitalist economy."
You are illiterate. Your own quote from the Economics page
literally reads:
[quote]Hence a National Socialist economy should not be confused
with a mixed-market economy, which is a fundamentally capitalist
economy with state intervention in subservience to implicitly
capitalist values.[/quote]
#Post#: 30561--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: July 5, 2025, 12:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Which is it? Because if they are competing, they will try
to offer the same product/service at a lower price than their
competitors. Competition is the countermeasure to price
manipulation. So are you worried that they are competing or are
you worried they aren't competing enough?[/quote]
Competing to make product prices cheap requires increasing the
quantity of production and also the work activities of its
workers. Because the more products are made and offered by a
business to the number of consumers, the cheaper the price value
set by the business can be, because it can balance the amount of
demand from consumers. This causes greedy actions to obtain as
many resources as possible from one business owner in order to
keep the price of their production cheap. And other business
owners will do the same thing so that they can also provide
cheap prices. This action causes an attitude of fighting over
resources between business owners and damages brotherhood
between members of the state community. Likewise, their attitude
requires the establishment of a work plan that squeezes workers,
because they are required to work long hours every day just to
make as much product quantity as possible.
I am even afraid if society competes, and I am more afraid if
society increases its competitive actions. That is why I support
the socialist way of organizing the economic and social
activities of society, where the number of products to be
produced has been determined by the elite leaders of the
country, society is required to accept products that have been
produced for consumption from producers regulated by the state.
And their consumption levels are forced so as not to exceed the
limits of the resources available in the country. So that there
is no behavior of carrying out production actions that exceed
the supply of natural resources and land in the country. And
because the community has received a limited consumption quota
according to its basic needs, there is no or very minimal price
game due to the small supply of products from producers and the
large demand from consumers in the community. Prices can be
directly determined by the state on existing producers, and
producers who reject the agreement will have their business
ownership confiscated. And because the way of social interaction
between individuals and groups is required to be empathetic and
not to follow the free will of individuals or groups, the
attitude of a person or group wanting to be higher by demeaning
innocent people can be minimized. And if the production plan is
regulated by the elite who lead the country, they will
prioritize products that can be made simply and are still
suitable for consumption, so that they can minimize errors in
carrying out production activities and the occurrence of
operational constraints from their workers. And finally, working
hours can also be limited so as not to squeeze the workforce
that is active
There is no need for more gifts to the producers, because the
producers have been assigned the same production plan, and the
quality of the products has been determined by the state. The
quality of the products is simple, easy to produce, and still
suitable for consumption. That is why in the economic activities
of the Hitler regime, the activities were carried out based on
the 4-Year Plan
You can try to remember again, that Hitler tried to control the
pricing of the producers in his regime.
[quote]"You get inflation if you want inflation," Hitler
retorted angrily. "Inflation is lack of discipline lack of
discipline in the buyers, and lack of discipline in the sellers.
I will see to it that prices remain stable. That is what my S.A.
is for. Woe to the men who raise prices! We need no legal
instruments for that. It will be done by the party alone. You
shall see if our S.A. once clean up a shop, such things will not
happen a second time." - Adolf Hitler[/quote]
Source :
The Voice Of Destruction by Hermann Rauschning Page 20
HTML https://archive.org/details/voiceofdestructi027169mbp/page/n31/mode/2up
[quote]Speaking on behalf of the industrial giants in the German
business community at a Nurnberg conference, Dr. Schacht ^^ held
that "the time is past when the notion of economic self-seeking
and unrestricted use of profits made can be allowed to dominate.
To be sure, no individual enterprise, no less the national
economy, can exist without making a surplus, but the gains must
once again be applied in the sense of and in service to the
total community." - Dr. Hjalmar Schacht [/quote]
Sumber :
Brady, Robert A. Business As a System of Power Page 263
HTML https://ia802808.us.archive.org/22/items/businessassystem00bradrich/businessassystem00bradrich.pdf
[quote]At a closed meeting of the RDI in December 1933, Schmitt,
the minister of economics, was sharply criticized for not
permitting price increases in spite of rising production costs
According to the minutes of this meeting, Schmitt was accused of
being more radical than Gottfried Feder and other Nazis and of
demanding that enterprises operate on the brink of profitability
in order not to raise prices; in the opinion of these
industrialists, his position could only be explained by
political considerations. Association officials suggests that
enterprise owners avoid, as far as possible involving the
authorities whenever their suppliers raised prices and try to
arrange matters within their own agencies instead of running at
once to consult the attorney."[/quote]
Source :
Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy November 28, 1990
by Avraham Barkai Page 189
#Post#: 30562--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: July 5, 2025, 1:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"This causes greedy actions to obtain as many resources as
possible from one business owner in order to keep the price of
their production cheap. And other business owners will do the
same thing so that they can also provide cheap prices."
So are you admitting that your earlier claim about price
manipulation is nonsense? But if so, then why in the following
paragraph do you write as though your claim still applies?
"because the community has received a limited consumption quota
according to its basic needs, there is no or very minimal price
game"
As if there would be price manipulation otherwise. Again you are
contradicting yourself.
"There is no need for more gifts to the producers, because the
producers have been assigned the same production plan"
I take this as you advocating compulsory risk-sharing. So you
must address my previous question:
[quote]I am not against a group of people providing a given
product/service sharing risk equally if that is what they
unanimously agree to do. But what if some people do not want to
take such a risk?[/quote]
#Post#: 30563--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: July 5, 2025, 1:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]So are you admitting that your earlier claim about price
manipulation is nonsense? But if so, then why in the following
paragraph do you write as though your claim still
applies?[/quote]
A businessperson's efforts to manipulate prices are not only
through increasing the price value, but also lowering the price
value by increasing the quantity of production and extending the
daily working hours of their workers, which is certainly
exploitative and leads to slavery practices by corporations. The
state needs to make production planning that takes into account
decent conditions for workers to end the practice of slavery by
corporations.
[quote]...an industrialist also acts against the spirit of the
people's society if he uses inhumane methods of exploitation and
abuses the nation's labor to make millions of dollars unjustly
from the sweat of the workers. He has no right to call himself
'national' and no right to speak of the people's society, for he
is only an immoral egoist who sows the seeds of social
discontent and provokes a spirit of conflict that sooner or
later will harm the interests of the state. - Adolf
Hitler[/quote]
Source :
1. The Nazi War Against Capitalism by Nevin Gussack Page 12
2. Mein Kampf Stalag Edition Officially Authorized By The NSDAP
In 1940 For The Invasion Of Britain Page 364
HTML https://archive.org/details/new-cover-and-index-added-1940-mein-kampf-the-official-stalag-edition-adolf-hitler/page/364/mode/2up
[quote][quote]"because the community has received a limited
consumption quota according to its basic needs, there is no or
very minimal price game"[/quote]
As if there would be price manipulation otherwise. Again you are
contradicting yourself.[/quote]
A planned economy can indeed fight the practice of price
manipulation by producers, but to end the practice as a whole, I
still doubt it, at least the planned economic production and
consumption method can fight it maximally. We already know that
the practice of manipulating production prices will never end in
the economic activities of society that follow the laws of
market mechanisms, whether the laws of the market mechanism are
free or still supervised by intervention from state authorities
[quote][quote]"There is no need for more gifts to the producers,
because the producers have been assigned the same production
plan"[/quote]
I take this as you advocating compulsory risk-sharing. So you
must address my previous question:
[quote]I am not against a group of people providing a given
product/service sharing risk equally if that is what they
unanimously agree to do. But what if some people do not want to
take such a risk?[/quote][/quote]
Why do they not want to take risks? Do they want to determine
the production plan according to their will which they think is
profitable, but ignore the welfare of their workers? Do they
want a different plan, namely making high-quality products but
the way to operate and produce them requires large costs and
complicated skills? If they do not take the state plan whose
risks have been calculated and prioritize their utilitarian
desires, then they do not deserve permission from the state to
carry out production activities.
#Post#: 30564--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: July 5, 2025, 3:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"Why do they not want to take risks? Do they want to determine
the production plan according to their will which they think is
profitable, but ignore the welfare of their workers?"
You are illiterate. I am talking about workers not wanting to
take risks. Please read my previous post again:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30553/#msg30553
You keep talking about workers being exploited by the private
sector, but the sufficient solution is for the state to ensure
that public sector jobs are readily available, so that workers
dissatisfied with their private sector jobs can easily switch to
public sector jobs. You, however, want to eliminate private
sector jobs altogether. Then what if the public sector is
exploitative? I want to maintain the private sector precisely to
guard against this possibility, so that workers dissatisfied
with their public sector jobs can also easily switch back to
private sector jobs. But what is your solution for workers
exploited by the public sector if no private sector exists as an
alternative?
#Post#: 30566--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: July 5, 2025, 4:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]You keep talking about workers being exploited by the
private sector, but the sufficient solution is for the state to
ensure that public sector jobs are readily availabe, so that
workers dissatisfied with their private sector jobs can easily
switch to public sector jobs. You, however, want to eliminate
private sector jobs altogether. Then what if the public sector
is exploitative? I want to maintain the private sector precisely
to guard against this possibility, so that workers dissatisfied
with their public sector jobs can also easily switch back to
private sector jobs. But what is your solution for workers
exploited by the public sector if no private sector exists as an
alternative?[/quote]
If the private sector still plans production and consumption in
society without exploitative means and the results of its
production are also non-exploitative, and do not implement
competition between producer groups, then the private sector can
still be accepted by the state. But is it possible that if some
groups are given the will to plan production and consumption
activities, they will be guaranteed not to be exploitative and
refrain from acting competitively? If the public sector
implements production activities, those who plan production
activities are certainly educated in ideological thinking and
the possibility of planning production and consumption
activities that are exploitative becomes very minimal. The
private sector is not necessarily willing to be educated
ideologically and in terms of worldview to plan social
activities and production activities in a non-exploitative
manner. How can we check the private sector, which numbers
millions in one country, to ensure that they continue to follow
a single idea that rejects exploitative planning? If we check
the party groups that plan production and consumption
activities, we can do it more easily, because they are certainly
better known to the state than the private sector groups that
are further from state supervision.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page