DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Questions & Debates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 31880--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: January 4, 2026, 1:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> [quote]"A form of stratification based on the degree to which
individuals understand empathy and the allocation of the means
and results of production—ranging from those who understand it
most to those who are least willing to do so—is the appropriate
form of social stratification."
--- End Quote ---
This form of social stratification is why you are only allowed
to post in Questions & Debates whereas individuals such as
Zea_mays who understand empathy:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30553/?topicseen#msg30553
--- Quote ---
> business-owners (which actually includes non-evil people
--- End Quote ---
are allowed to post in all forums.[/quote]
A good business owner is one who unequivocally recognizes that
the accumulation of capital and the hoarding of surplus value
extracted from the labor of workers constitute a fundamental
injustice. A good business owner is one who consciously rejects
the legitimacy of private ownership over the means of production
and willingly accepts their expropriation by the state, in the
interest of constructing a planned society liberated from
exploitation. Only through such expropriation can society be
freed from the physical and psychological oppression imposed
upon labor by the arbitrary and coercive power of business
owners.
--- Quote ---
> “... Thus, it was the conclusions of Gottfried Feder that
caused me to delve into the fundamentals of this field with
which I had previously not been very familiar. I began to study
again, and now for the first time really achieved an
understanding of the content of ... Karl Marx’s life effort.
Only now did his Kapital become really intelligible to me ...”
—Adolf Hitler, 1925
--- End Quote ---
Source :
1. MEIN KAMPF BY ADOLF HITLER Translated by Ralph Manheim Page
130
HTML https://archive.org/details/meinkampf0000adol_h1g9/page/130/mode/2up
2. Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler - (Ralph Manheim Translation) Page
215
HTML https://archive.org/details/mein-kampf-by-adolf-hitler-ralph-manheim-translation/page/214/mode/2up
3. MEIN KAMPF — ADOLF HITLER VOLUME ONE A NEW ENGLISH
TRANSLATION BY THOMAS DALTON Page 229
HTML https://archive.org/stream/mein-kampf-dalton-translation/Mein%20Kampf%2C%20Dalton%20Translation%20Vol%201_djvu.txt
--- 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
--- End 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 small businessmen, who had previously been one of the
mainstays of the party and who had expected great things from
Chancellor Hitler, soon found themselves, many of them,
exterminated and forced back into the ranks of wage earners. A
law passed in October 1937 dissolved all companies with capital
under $40,000 and prohibited the establishment of new companies
with capital under $200,000. This quickly eliminated one-fifth
of all small business enterprises. On the other hand, the large
cartels, which had even been favored by the Republic, were
further strengthened by the Nazis. In fact, by a law of July 15,
1933, they were made compulsory. The Ministry of Economics was
empowered to organize new compulsory cartels or to order
companies to join existing ones.
>
> The system of various business and trade associations
organized during the Republic was maintained by the Nazis,
although by the basic law of February 27, 1934, they were
reorganized on the principle of efficient leadership and placed
under state control.
--- End Quote ---
Source :
Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany by
William L. Shirer Page 262
HTML https://archive.org/details/B-001-014-606/page/262/mode/2up?q=dissolved+all+corporations
--- Quote ---
> After the seizure of power this definition of the role of the
entrepreneur was legally fixed in the 'Law for the Structuring
of National Labour' (20 January 1934). 169 According to this
law, the 'company leader' was the 'trustee of the state' and
therefore obligated to the common good of the national
community. This interpretation of the role of the owner or
manager in the NS state was more important than Hitler's formal
guarantee of private ownership. Because, as the reality of the
Third Reich - particularly in the war years - showed, this
definition of the role of the owner or manager had far-reaching
consequences. The Volksgerichtshof [People's Court, the highest
penal court in the Third Reich-H.B.], for example, handed down
extremely harsh sentences against owners or managers who ignored
the directives of the state plan
>
> ...
>
> We also see the socialist character of the Reichsbahn in
something else. It is a warning about the exclusive claims of
the doctrine of private capitalism. It is the living proof that
it is very possible to run a nationalized enterprise without
private capital tendencies and without private capital
management - Adolf Hitler
--- End Quote ---
Source :
Hitler : the Policies of Seduction by Rainer Zitelmann Page 246
and 251
HTML https://archive.org/details/hitlerpoliciesof0000zite/page/250/mode/2up?q=run+a+nationalized+enterprise+without+private+capital
--- Quote ---
> In another table talk on 2 November 1941, during which he
talked about the ‘time of struggle’ and his ‘contempt’ for the
bourgeoisie which he had developed at this time, he said, ‘The
Communists and us, those were the only ones who also had women
who did not flinch when the shooting started. Those are decent
people with whom alone you can maintain a state.’
--- End Quote ---
Source :
Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941–1944 by Heinrich Heim Page
37, 38, and 99
HTML https://archive.org/details/monologe-im-fuehrerhauptquartier
--- Quote ---
> The economy was comprehensively organized by industries und by
territory. Geographical districts, Gaue, were defined, as were
the chief economic sectors such as industry, handicrafts,
commerce, banking, insurance, and power. These great sectors, or
Reich Groups, were subdivided into numerous smaller groups, each
under the command of a leader named or approved by the
government. As a rule the leader was an executive in the
respective industry who within his jurisdiction had considerable
powers and responsibilities. All in all, this apparatus was very
cumbersome; everyone in economic life without exception was a
member and was subjected by it to all the regulations,
instructions, and orders which the government was pleased to
decree. From this system there was no escape.
>
> Even before the war, managers were often told what to produce
and by what methods, how much coal and raw materials would be
available to them, what materials to use and not to use, what
prices to pay and to charge, from whom to accept orders for
delivery, to and through whom to sell, and in which order to
fill requests. Thus, at some times government orders had
priority, at other times export orders, and among government
orders some- times those of the army, at other times those of
government plants were first in line.
--- End Quote ---
Sumber :
The German Economy: 1870 to the Present by Gustav Stolper Page
140
HTML https://archive.org/details/germaneconomy1870000stol/page/140/mode/2up
--- Quote ---
> “’What is the difference between communism, socialism and
national socialism?’ the riddle asks. ‘If you have six cows,’
the answer says, ‘the communists take all six, the socialists
take three and leave you three, but the Nazis make you keep all
six--and they take the milk.’”
--- End Quote ---
Source :
People under Hitler by Deuel, Wallace Rankin, 1905-1974 Page 124
HTML https://archive.org/details/peopleunderhitle0000deue/page/124/mode/2up?q=the+socialists+take+three+and+leave+you+three%2C+but+the+Nazis+make+you+keep+all+six
--- Quote ---
> He [Hitler] voiced his radical regrets: that he had not
exterminated the German nobility, that he had come to power 'too
easily', not unleashing a classical revolution 'to destroy
elites and classes',' that he had supported Franco in Spain
instead of the Communists, that he had failed to put himself at
the head of a movement for the liberation of the colonial
peoples, 'especially the Arabs', that he had not freed the
working class from 'the bourgeoisie of fossils'. Above all he
regretted his leniency, his lack of the admirable ruthlessness
Stalin had so consistendy showed and which invited one's
'unreserved respect' for him. One of his last recorded remarks,
on 27 April 1945, three days before he killed himself (whether
by bullet or poison is disputed)
--- End Quote ---
Source :
Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties by
Paul Johnson Page 413
HTML https://archive.org/details/moderntimesworld00john_1/mode/2up?q=to+destroy+elites+and+classes
#Post#: 31881--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: January 4, 2026, 4:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"hoarding of surplus value extracted from the labor of workers
constitute a fundamental injustice"
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30553/#msg30553
--- Quote ---
> 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?
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 31885--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: January 4, 2026, 11:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> "hoarding of surplus value extracted from the labor of workers
constitute a fundamental injustice"
>
>
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30553/#msg30553
>
> [quote]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?
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
Business owners have appropriated surplus value from the labor
performed by workers—labor in which they themselves are not
directly involved. They merely act as supervisors, nothing more.
They therefore have no legitimate claim to profit from every
product or service sold. Moreover, the risks of loss and profit
arising from sales are borne by everyone, not solely by business
owners. When an enterprise fails to sell its goods because it
loses out in competition with other businesses for the same pool
of consumers in a given area, workers also bear the risk of
loss, as they are forced to accept wage reductions in order to
preserve the efficiency of the business’s capital.
The proceeds generated from the sale of goods and services
rightfully belong to the collective, not to the business owner
alone. A business owner whose role often amounts merely to
monitoring and supervising operations deserves, at most, a
wage—because such activity constitutes nothing more than labor
comparable to that performed by other workers within the
functioning enterprise. Indeed, such an owner does not even
merit a wage, given that they frequently engage in leisure and
recreational activities while their workers labor under
conditions of intensified exploitation, compelled to maintain
efficiency in order to preserve market share and the consumer
base that has chosen products created through the workers’ own
labor.
#Post#: 31886--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: January 5, 2026, 12:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"When an enterprise fails to sell its goods because it loses out
in competition with other businesses for the same pool of
consumers in a given area, workers also bear the risk of loss,
as they are forced to accept wage reductions"
You are hallucinating. A standard employee contract guarantees a
fixed minimum pay per month. This is not open to negotiation
until the contract expires and the employee demands renewal of
contract. (Even if they are fired, they are contractually
guaranteed severance.) This means that, for the duration of each
contract, the employee is working risk-free. And even if during
renewal the employee agrees to takes a pay cut (and they can
disagree and refuse to renew if they prefer), they are merely
earning less; they never have to risk losing money outright.
This is in fact the main appeal of being an employee, which is
why so many people prefer employment to partnership etc..
#Post#: 31895--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: January 5, 2026, 10:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> [quote]"When an enterprise fails to sell its goods because it
loses out in competition with other businesses for the same pool
of consumers in a given area, workers also bear the risk of
loss, as they are forced to accept wage reductions"
--- End Quote ---
You are hallucinating. A standard employee contract guarantees a
fixed minimum pay per month. This is not open to negotiation
until the contract expires and the employee demands renewal of
contract. (Even if they are fired, they are contractually
guaranteed severance.) This means that, for the duration of each
contract, the employee is working risk-free. And even if during
renewal the employee agrees to takes a pay cut (and they can
disagree and refuse to renew if they prefer), they are merely
earning less; they never have to risk losing money outright.
This is in fact the main appeal of being an employee, which is
why so many people prefer employment to partnership
etc..[/quote]
The condition in which employees are compelled to accept wage
cuts—formalized through agreements imposed by business
owners—arises from the failure of the business’s output to
secure sufficient consumer approval in the market. As a result,
the business owner experiences a shortfall in monetary revenue
and responds by reducing workers’ wages in order to preserve
capital reserves. The failure of production to obtain consumer
approval is an inevitable outcome when economic activity and
exchange are allowed to unfold spontaneously, as described by
the theory of market mechanism laws. Enterprises that lose in
competition for the approval of a given body of consumers will
invariably impose wage-reduction agreements upon their workers.
Workers find it difficult to refuse such agreements, even when
these arrangements force them into hardship and prevent them
from meeting basic living needs—needs whose prices are not
necessarily aligned with their wages. This is because relocating
to another enterprise offering higher wages provides no
guarantee of acceptance. Under conditions of competition
governed by market laws, business owners tend to retain
long-standing workers in order to secure internal stability,
rather than hiring workers from competing firms whose loyalty to
the enterprise is uncertain.
The phenomena and scenarios you describe can be comprehensively
overcome only if transactional activity is subject to planning,
business owners are instructed to produce goods in accordance
with socially determined requirements, and consumers are obliged
to consume the goods and services that have been planned by the
state. In this way, there is no wage-based or labor-based
exploitation driven by uncertainty over whether an enterprise
will secure customers, nor by uncertainty over whether its
products will remain viable in the market or be displaced by
competing goods.
--- Quote ---
> “The worker in a capitalist state—and that is his deepest
misfortune—is no longer a living human being, a creator, a
maker. He has become a machine. A number, a cog in the machine
without sense or understanding. He is alienated from what he
produces.”
--- End Quote ---
—Joseph Goebbels, 1932 pamphlet
Source :
Appendix 2: Quotations on Nazi socialism and fascism - Stephen
Hicks Page 115
HTML https://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/nn-appendix2.pdf
--- Quote ---
> This is one of the most lucid analyses of the economic
structure of National Socialism, and it corresponds with what
Ludwig von Mises wrote in a letter to the editor of the New York
Times that appeared on 21 June 1942:
>
> The German pattern of socialism (Zwangswirtschaft) is
characterized by the fact that it maintains, although only
nominally, some institutions of capitalism. Labor is, of course,
no longer a ‘commodity’; the labor market has been solemnly
abolished; the government fixes wage rates and assigns every
worker the place where he must work. Private ownership has been
nominally untouched. In fact, however, the former entrepreneurs
have been reduced to the status of shop managers
(Betriebsführer). The government tells them what and how to
produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and
to whom to sell. Business may remonstrate against inexpedient
injunctions, but the final decision rests with the authorities.
… Market exchange and entrepreneurship are thus only a sham. The
government, not the consumers' demands, directs production; the
government, not the market, fixes every individual's income and
expenditure. This is socialism with the outward appearance of
capitalism – all-round planning and total control of all
economic activities by the government. Some of the labels of
capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify
something entirely different from what they mean in a genuine
market economy.1
>
> The subject of the present article, however, is not an
analysis of the National Socialist economic system, but an
analysis of Adolf Hitler's economic policy ideas – based on a
broad range of sources.
--- End Quote ---
Source :
Zitelmann, R. (2022). The role of anti-capitalism in Hitler's
world view. Economic Affairs, 42(3), 515–527.
HTML https://doi.org/10.1111/ecaf.12551
#Post#: 31897--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: January 6, 2026, 1:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"the business owner experiences a shortfall in monetary revenue
and responds by reducing workers’ wages"
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg31886/#msg31886
--- Quote ---
> A standard employee contract guarantees a fixed minimum pay
per month. This is not open to negotiation until the contract
expires and the employee demands renewal of contract.
--- End Quote ---
Any business owner who tried what you describe would get sued.
#Post#: 31906--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: January 6, 2026, 9:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> "the business owner experiences a shortfall in monetary
revenue and responds by reducing workers’ wages"
>
>
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg31886/#msg31886
>
> [quote]A standard employee contract guarantees a fixed minimum
pay per month. This is not open to negotiation until the
contract expires and the employee demands renewal of contract.
--- End Quote ---
Any business owner who tried what you describe would get
sued.[/quote]
Contract violations in the form of wage-reduction practices
imposed by business owners or producers can be minimized when
production and consumption are coordinated through state or
community-based planning. Under such arrangements, the
structural incentives for wage cuts—arising from uneven or
insufficient consumer demand across competing enterprises—are
substantially reduced. Producers no longer operate as market
actors engaged in competition and marketing; rather, they
function as administrators of labor processes and managers of
productive assets, with demand pre-assigned through
institutional coordination.
In this system, consumption is regulated by state authority
rather than by spontaneous market dynamics. Each producer is
guaranteed a defined consumer base, as surrounding communities
are institutionally obligated to consume goods and services
produced according to state determined plans. By stabilizing
demand and removing market uncertainty, such coordination limits
the transfer of economic risk from capital to labor and weakens
the structural conditions that enable wage compression under
market-driven systems.
Competitive labor relations among producer organizations—driven
by the struggle to secure sufficient consumer demand—result in
the exclusion of workers with limited skills from employment,
rendering them unemployed. Under the so-called natural laws of
the market mechanism, it is inevitably those producers whose
goods and services most fully satisfy consumer preferences who
capture adequate demand, and such outcomes can only be achieved
through workers who are able to endure continuously escalating
demands for high-level performance. Workers who are unable to
meet these demands are consequently excluded from productive
activity.
By contrast, if all acts of production and consumption were
planned and regulated, workers with limited capacities would
still be able to contribute value, so long as their output
remains socially useful and non-harmful. This is because social
consumption would be collectively organized and planned to
accommodate products resulting from diverse conditions of labor,
rather than privileging only those outputs deemed maximally
satisfying at the cost of intensified labor exploitation,
inaccessible performance standards, and widespread unemployment.
Competitive systems of production and consumption governed by
market demand thus generate conditions in which survival
disproportionately favors social groups characterized as
intelligent, manipulative, and aggressive, rather than those who
are sensitive, empathetic, and conscious of the necessity of
maintaining accessible forms of life so that the weak—yet
non-harmful—can continue to meet social contribution
requirements and remain protected from domination. The operation
of market laws within social life therefore tends to produce
discriminatory relations, whereby groups that succeed according
to market criteria dominate and marginalize those who fail to
conform to market demands.
Yet failure to meet market requirements does not in itself
render an individual or group immoral or harmful. Those who fail
within market conditions but continue to act ethically remain
fully deserving of citizenship and dignified treatment.
Conversely, it is those individuals or groups who succeed in
capturing market share while disregarding or demeaning those who
fall into hardship and deprivation who ought to be subject to
regulation and social sanction.
Moreover, power structures operating within societies governed
by market laws tend to be dominated by racial groups perceived
as possessing higher cognitive capacities, while those who
struggle to improve their skills but continue to behave in
non-violent ways are systematically marginalized and exposed to
material hardship. Such conditions incentivize dominant and
economically successful groups to engage in racial
discrimination against groups that are structurally
disadvantaged within market competition. This dynamic underlies
the emergence of racial discrimination and aggressive, colonial,
and predatory forms of social interaction.
Historical evidence of this can be found in apartheid regimes in
the United States, Israel, Europe, and former colonial
territories. Contemporary manifestations are visible in the
racial discrimination and aggressive social relations directed
by segments of European populations toward refugees and
immigrants from the Global South from 2015 to the present.
It was also for this reason that Hitler chose the principle of a
planned economy over a market economy, as a means of shielding
German society from domination by capitalists, financiers, and
landlords, as well as from conditions of social instability and
uncertainty.
#Post#: 31907--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: January 6, 2026, 10:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Contract violations in the form of wage-reduction practices
imposed by business owners"
Come back when you are no longer hallucinating.
*****************************************************
Page 16 of 16
DIR Previous Page