DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Questions & Debates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 30567--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: July 5, 2025, 5:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"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."
This is ludicrously optimistic. Exploitative people exist. Under
free-market conditions, they will congregate in the private
sector, because that is where it will be easiest for them to do
their exploiting. Under your proposed conditions, they will
congregate in the public sector, because that is where it will
be easiest for them to do their exploiting.
"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?"
We don't. We let workers themselves react by switching to public
sector jobs if they want to.
"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."
But can you trust those doing the checking? What if they being
incentivized to conceal the corruption? This is why checking is
unreliable (and to assume otherwise is naive). I would rather
let workers react by switching back to private sector jobs if
they want to.
#Post#: 30572--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: July 5, 2025, 7:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
We must monitor the private sector, see the incident regarding
Starbucks' economic policies highlighted by the American
Renaissance author below. The laws of capitalist market
mechanisms cause this problem:
[quote]The conflict came when two black men were arrested at a
Philadelphia Starbucks after refusing to leave the store. The
company’s leadership is panicking; Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson
has already met with the two to apologize. On May 29, 8,000
Starbucks stores will close so 175,000 employees can undergo
“racial-bias training,” which will cost the company millions.
Mr. Johnson vows that the training “is just one step in a
journey that requires dedication from every level of our company
and partnerships in our local communities.”
Those “local communities” are usually white, just like the one
in Philadelphia. According to Vox Media’s Eater in 2015, “U.S.
Census data on race and income shows 83 percent of Starbucks
stores in the U.S. serve predominantly white areas, mostly
wealthy or middle class ones.”
In a piece about the incident in Philadelphia, Brentin Mock at
Citylab writes, “When opening in a black community, a concern is
whether the cafe actually will adopt the character of that black
neighborhood, or if it will traffic in the kinds of values that
personify it as a ‘white space,’ as Jamelle Bouie calls it in
Slate.” Starbucks mostly avoids the problem of a culture clash
by not operating in black neighborhoods. Asia Reneé at
WearYourVoiceMag admits she patronizes Starbucks, but writes,
“In non-white, low-income neighborhoods, the cup is a symbol
that gentrification has arrived, and that people of color are in
danger.”[/quote]
Source :
Starbucks: Hypocrisy as a Business Strategy by Gregory Hood,
American Renaissance, April 19, 2018
HTML https://www.amren.com/news/2018/04/starbucks-hypocrisy-as-a-business-strategy/
#Post#: 30573--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: July 5, 2025, 7:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Explain precisely what you consider the problem to be in the
above example, and how you would solve it if you were in
government.
#Post#: 30575--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: July 7, 2025, 4:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=90sRetroFan link=topic=3223.msg30573#msg30573
date=1751762776]
Explain precisely what you consider the problem to be in the
above example, and how you would solve it if you were in
government.
[/quote]
The private production sector [Starbucks for example] if left to
have the will to determine the production plan, will practice
gentrification and complexity in order to get consumers, and
charge high prices for products. This causes a gap in enjoying
public facilities and products/services, especially for people
who are less able to earn enough money to buy expensive
products/services.
I choose to forcefully require society and producers to make
products and services that are easy to produce, can be
inexpensive to produce, and can be consumed by all levels of
society
[quote]The economic order under the Nazis, indeed, was
Socialistic, also from an economic point of view, because in a
totalitarian state the factory owner or banker no longer
automatically holds genuine property. He is merely a steward,
the tolerated representative of an almighty government which can
expropriate him at the drop of a hat.[/quote]
Source :
Leftism from de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse by Erik von
Kuehnelt-Leddihn Page 177
HTML https://archive.org/details/LeftismFromDeSadeAndMarxToHitlerAndMarcuse/page/n173/mode/2up?q=The+economic+order+under+the+Nazis%2C+indeed%2C+was+Socialistic%2C
[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.[/quote]
Source :
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.’”[/quote]
Source :
People under Hitler by Deuel, Wallace Rankin, 1905-1974 Page 124
[quote]The German pattern differs from the Russian one in that
it (seemingly and nominally) maintains private owneiship of the
means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices,
wages, and markets. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs
but only shop managers (Betnebsfuhrer) These shop managers do
the buying and selling, pay the workers, contiact debts, and pay
interest and amortization. There is no labor market, wages and
salaries are fixed by the government The government tells the
shop managers what and how to produce, at what prices and from
whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell The government
decrees to whom and under what terms the capitalists must
entrust their funds and where and at what wages laborers must
work Market exchange is only a sham. All the prices, wages, and
mteiest rates are fixed by the central authority They are
prices, wages, and interest rates in appearance only, in reality
they are meiely determinations of quantity relations in the
government’s orders. The government, not the consumers, directs
production. This is socialism in the outward guise of capitalism
Some labels of capitalistic market economy are retained but they
mean something entirely different from what they mean in a
genuine market economy.[/quote]
Source :
Omnipotent Government by Ludwig Von Mises Page 56
HTML https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.6798/page/n65/mode/2up?q=The+government+tells+the+shop+managers+what+and+how+to+produce%2C+at+what+prices+and+from+whom+to+buy%2C+at+what+prices+and+to+whom+to+sell
[quote]The New York Times, March 14, 1934
BERLIN, March 13. A complete reconstruction of the German
business world involving both sweeping organizational changes
and the cre- ation of a new business code was anncunced today by
Dr. Kurt Schmitt, the Minister of Economics.
He made this announcement by virtue of new powers delegated to
him by the Cabinet under a decree passed Feb. 27, but made
public only today, which makes him in effect the business
dictator of Germany.
According to an official announcement, the purpose of the new
decree is to do away with the enormous overorganization of
business and the rivalry and unrest caused thereby and replace
it with an all-embracing, rigid and unitary organization of the
various business associations.
For this purpose Dr. Schmitt is empowered to designate certain
organizations as the sole representatives of their branch of
business, create new organizations and dissolve or merge others,
dictate or change their by-laws, appoint or remove their leaders
and force individual outsiders to join them and submit to their
regulations. Severe punishment is threatened for violations of
the Minister's orders.[/quote]
Source :
The New York Times: Wednesday March 14, 1934. (2024). Retrieved
November 8, 2024, from Nytimes.com website:
HTML https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1934/03/14/95036893.html?pageNumber=1
#Post#: 30576--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: July 7, 2025, 3:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"The private production sector [Starbucks for example] if left
to have the will to determine the production plan, will practice
gentrification and complexity in order to get consumers"
I would say the answer to gentrification is to prevent the buyer
from acquiring property in certain neighbourhoods.
I am not sure what you mean by complexity.
Also, if such methods are indeed effective, does it not imply
that such consumers are the real problem?
"and charge high prices for products. This causes a gap in
enjoying public facilities and products/services, especially for
people who are less able to earn enough money to buy expensive
products/services."
I do not consider this to be a problem in itself. When a
consumable (and hence non-resaleable) product is priced above
its actual value, it is still a good thing when it is bought, as
it makes the buyer poorer, which is what the buyer deserves. The
only problem is that the seller profits excessively, which can
be remedied by taxing the seller sufficiently to offset this.
"I choose to forcefully require society and producers to make
products and services that are easy to produce, can be
inexpensive to produce, and can be consumed by all levels of
society"
Besides the high likelihood* that you would be initiating
violence in so doing, you would be getting rid of the beneficial
dynamic I described in the above paragraph.
(* If the state banned only production methods that initiate
violence, then the state would be doing retaliatory violence,
which is fine. This is what I would do. But what you advocate
would also involve banning many production methods that do not
initiate violence, which means you would be the one initiating
violence.)
#Post#: 30589--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: July 11, 2025, 11:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]I would say the answer to gentrification is to prevent
the buyer from acquiring property in certain neighbourhoods.
I am not sure what you mean by complexity.[/quote]
Gentrification tends to be accompanied by the construction of
elaborate and complex public facilities. This makes them
difficult to operate and accessible to those with lower levels
of intelligence. Gentrification makes it easy for people with a
Westernized and Jewish mentality to dominate society and exploit
those with lower intelligence but who are innocent.
[quote][quote]"and charge high prices for products. This causes
a gap in enjoying public facilities and products/services,
especially for people who are less able to earn enough money to
buy expensive products/services."[/quote]
I do not consider this to be a problem in itself. When a
consumable (and hence non-resaleable) product is priced above
its actual value, it is still a good thing when it is bought, as
it makes the buyer poorer, which is what the buyer deserves. The
only problem is that the seller profits excessively, which can
be remedied by taxing the seller sufficiently to offset
this.[/quote]
A socialist society is one where essential consumer goods are
readily accessible. It's absurd to claim to be a socialist and
yet still justify the existence of high-value products that
remain unaffordable to the general public. The producers of
high-value products, but unable to sell them affordably, have
created social inequality. This occurs because these high-value
products are difficult for those with low incomes to afford, but
readily accessible to those earning substantial incomes.
Therefore, the makers of these high-value products have
initiated violence.
[quote][quote]"I choose to forcefully require society and
producers to make products and services that are easy to
produce, can be inexpensive to produce, and can be consumed by
all levels of society"[/quote]
Besides the high likelihood* that you would be initiating
violence in so doing, you would be getting rid of the beneficial
dynamic I described in the above paragraph.[/quote]
Capitalists will say the same thing, I don't take them
seriously. The best product advantage is that the product is
easy to buy, and can still be used properly and can solve
problems that exist in various activities.
[quote](* If the state banned only production methods that
initiate violence, then the state would be doing retaliatory
violence, which is fine. This is what I would do. But what you
advocate would also involve banning many production methods that
do not initiate violence, which means you would be the one
initiating violence.)[/quote]
High-value products that cause gentrification and social
inequality will make the perpetrators of the products initiate
violence in the first place. Only a bourgeoisie would ignore the
consequences of selling high-value products at high prices to
the surrounding society. And the bourgeoisie are decadent and
degenerate.
[quote]Dorothy Thompson, who interviewed Adolf Hitler in 1931
and again in 1934, was the first American journalist to be
expelled from Nazi Germany. She reported in 1939 that, “After
robbing the Jews, the Nazis will begin to rob the Church, and
then will almost certainly take over what remains of the
property of the bourgeoisie.”[/quote]
Sources:
1. March 6, 1939, page 7 – Harrisburg Telegraph at
Newspapers.com. (2025). Retrieved April 10, 2025, from
Newspapers.com:
HTML https://www.newspapers.com/image/43551234
2. Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum and
the Battle between the ‘Free Left’ and the ‘Statist Left’ by Mr.
L.K. Samuels, page 417
3. (2004, October 24). American journalist and radio broadcaster
(1893–1961). Retrieved April 10, 2025, from Wikiquote.org:
HTML https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dorothy_Thompson
[quote]The enemies of National Socialism, to whom she addressed
the 1935 Party Congress, included not only “Jewish Marxists” and
Catholics, but also “certain incorrigible, ignorant, and
reactionary elements of the bourgeoisie.” ^[/quote]
Source:
Hitler’s Social Revolution by David Schoenbaum, page 65
HTML https://archive.org/details/hitlerssocialrev00scho/page/n11/mode/2up?q=1935+Party+congress
[quote]Hitler was also known to publicly and privately threaten
industrialists who failed to properly fulfill the tasks set by
the state and the Party leadership. He threatened the German
business community with massive confiscation of their property
for disobeying Nazi orders. Hitler later threatened that if
"German industry" failed to fulfill the tasks set by the state,
"it would not be Germany that would go bankrupt, but at most,
only a few industrialists."[/quote]
Sources:
1. Hitler: The Policies of Seduction by Zitelmann, Rainer, pages
252 to 253
HTML https://archive.org/details/hitlerpoliciesof0000zite/page/252/mode/2up?q=our+bourgeoisie+was+unfortunately+saved+too+soon
2. The Nazi War against Capitalism by Nevin Gussack, page 56
HTML https://archive.org/details/hitlerpoliciesof0000zite/page/252/mode/2up?q=our+bourgeoisie+was+unfortunately+saved+too+soon
There are no businesses in a socialist world, only workers. And
capital owners have become mere managers of the means of
production, obedient to the state's economic plans. They are no
longer businesspeople, but workers.
#Post#: 30590--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: July 11, 2025, 5:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Gentrification tends to be accompanied by the construction of
elaborate and complex public facilities."
Are you claiming that such construction can occur without the
prospective constructors first acquiring the property? If so,
how? If not, then my previous reply already covered this.
"A socialist society is one where essential consumer goods are
readily accessible."
Yes.
"It's absurd to claim to be a socialist and yet still justify
the existence of high-value products that remain unaffordable to
the general public."
Why? We are talking about consumable and thus non-resaleable
products here, as I explictly noted in the previous post. If A
is richer than B, and A eats at a more expensive restaurant
while B eats at a less expensive restaurant, the wealth gap
between A and B is decreased afterwards. Isn't this what
socialists want?
"The producers of high-value products, but unable to sell them
affordably, have created social inequality. This occurs because
these high-value products are difficult for those with low
incomes to afford, but readily accessible to those earning
substantial incomes."
The exact opposite is true. If the more expensive restaurant
does not exist, and thus A and B eat at the same less expensive
restaurant, the wealth gap between A and B is unchanged
afterwards. Is this what you want?
"Therefore, the makers of these high-value products have
initiated violence."
How?
#Post#: 30598--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: July 13, 2025, 11:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote][quote]"Gentrification tends to be accompanied by the
construction of elaborate and complex public
facilities."[/quote]
Are you claiming that such construction can occur without the
prospective constructors first acquiring the property? If so,
how? If not, then my previous reply already covered
this.[/quote]
[quote][quote]"It's absurd to claim to be a socialist and yet
still justify the existence of high-value products that remain
unaffordable to the general public."[/quote]
Why? We are talking about consumable and thus non-resaleable
products here, as I explictly noted in the previous post. If A
is richer than B, and A eats at a more expensive restaurant
while B eats at a less expensive restaurant, the wealth gap
between A and B is decreased afterwards. Isn't this what
socialists want?
..........
[quote]"Therefore, the makers of these high-value products have
initiated violence."[/quote]
How?[/quote]
My answer :
Expensive food tends to be of better quality than cheaper food.
This is because only people with high-income jobs can afford it,
but those with low-income jobs struggle to afford it. Even if
they can afford it, they can't eat it regularly. This living
situation can lead to social inequality. Therefore, it's not
socialist if a society still experiences social inequality. It's
better for everyone to consume the same products, and the
products are still fit for consumption. Those who enjoy
high-priced products, whether producers or consumers, have
created the violence in the first place. Because they perpetuate
the conditions that make it difficult for low-income people who
want to consume high-priced products to afford them. I told you,
the middle class and the bourgeoisie are degenerate and don't
understand the conditions of their country.
[quote]The exact opposite is true. If the more expensive
restaurant does not exist, and thus A and B eat at the same less
expensive restaurant, the wealth gap between A and B is
unchanged afterwards. Is this what you want?[/quote]
What I want is for the middle class and the bourgeoisie to have
their incomes drained through high taxation and to be denied
personal initiative in managing their wealth. Their money and
property belong to the state. They are forced to consume
products that are cheap but still fit for consumption.
[quote]To calm any fears that capitalists might have in regard
to the term socialism though, Reupke deceivingly stressed that
"socialization, collectivized economy and a centrally directed
planned economy are expressly rejected [in the party pro- gram]"
(29). Instead, he noted, National Socialist ideology demanded
"that private property and private initiative, that economies
all together should not be directed solely toward person
advantage, but rather always with the benefit of the commonweal
in mind" (29). Yet while official Nazi rhetoric conceded the
right to private property, the alleged rejection of physical
nationalization was disingenuous, because, as Reupke explained,
"nationalization, if we can call it such, is not brought about
in a corporeal manner, rather it is shifted into the domain of
the mind" (32). He further explained that this would be brought
about by "suppression of personal pursuit of profit and
cleansing the economy of 'financial ethics' (30).[1][/quote]
Johannes "Hans" Karl Eduard Reupke (* July 23, 1892 in
Saargemünd; † November 20, 1942 in Dijon) was a German lawyer,
businessman, and publicist.[2]
Source :
1. Antisemitic Elements in the Critique of Capitalism in German
Culture, 1850-1933 by Matthew Lange Page 294
HTML https://books.google.co.id/books?redir_esc=y&id=jMQpHAMEF1EC&q=Zentrale+Planung#v=snippet&q=private%20initiative&f=false
2. Seite „Hans Reupke“. In: Wikipedia – Die freie Enzyklopädie.
Bearbeitungsstand: 27. Januar 2025, 23:18 UTC. URL:
HTML https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans_Reupke&oldid=252753749<br
/>(Abgerufen: 14. Juli 2025, 04:00 UTC)
[quote]Even heavy industry, which in the early 1930s supported a
certain degree of self-sufficiency and state assistance, found
that the level of state control imposed after 1936, as well as
the emergence of a state-owned industrial sector, also
threatened its interests. The tensions resulting from such
relationships have been demonstrated in the automobile,
aircraft, and iron and steel industries; however, more research
is needed to achieve an adequate historical assessment of the
relationship between Nazism and German business. What is clear
is that the Third Reich was not simply a regime of entrepreneurs
supporting authoritarian capitalism, but rather, it sought to
reduce the autonomy of the economic elite and subordinate it to
the interests of the Nazi state…[Page 56]
As the state expanded its role in overseeing or regulating all
major economic variables, they developed a more coherent
economic system. German economists called this system 'die
gelenkte Wirtschaft,' the controlled economy. In such a system,
entrepreneurs were viewed as economic functionaries serving the
interests of the state, rather than as independent and
innovative creators of wealth. The concept of the 'controlled
economy' suited the regime's ideological ambitions but limited
entrepreneurial initiative.[b][Pages 56-57][/quote]
Source:
The Nazi Economic Recovery, 1932-1938 by Overy, R. J. Pages
56-57
HTML https://archive.org/details/nazieconomicrecoveryover/page/56/mode/2up?q=As+the+state+extended
[quote]Both public works and rearmament required massive deficit
financing, in effect the printing of money to pay workers and
stimulate demand. Although fundamentally ‘socialist’ in outlook
and politics when it came to the economy, however, Hitler did
not nationalize industry. In fact there were large-scale
privatizations during the first five years or so of his regime,
not for ideological reasons, but to raise cash quickly by
flogging off distressed enterprises.80 What Hitler did very
effectively was to nationalize German industrialists, by making
them instruments of his political will. Control, not ownership
was the key. The major German economic institutions, especially
industry, business and the banks, were completely sidelined from
decisionmaking. 81 Unlike the Reichswehr, they were not let into
any secrets about Lebensraum, at least at the beginning. They
were simply told what to do, and if they jibbed were threatened
with imprisonment, expropriation or irrelevance.[/quote]
Source :
Hitler : A Global Biography by Brendan Simms Page 254
#Post#: 30601--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: July 14, 2025, 4:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Expensive food tends to be of better quality than cheaper food.
This is because only people with high-income jobs can afford it,
but those with low-income jobs struggle to afford it. Even if
they can afford it, they can't eat it regularly. This living
situation can lead to social inequality."
So why shouldn't everyone be allowed to decide for themselves
how regularly/irregularly they eat expensive food? B might still
appreciate having an option to eat expensive food occasionally,
but you are removing that option from B on the grounds that A
might eat expensive food more frequently than B? How does this
make any sense?
"Therefore, it's not socialist if a society still experiences
social inequality."
Why not? Recall:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10645/?topicseen#msg10645
[quote]Socialism is the belief that state intervention is
essential to realistically combatting social injustice, and that
it is the moral duty of the state to so intervene.[/quote]
The problem is social injustice, not social inequality. A
socially just society will still be socially unequal because
people are unequal. The whole point of True Leftism is to
dissociate leftism from egalitarianism.
"It's better for everyone to consume the same products"
Why is it better? What if different people prefer different
products?
"Those who enjoy high-priced products, whether producers or
consumers, have created the violence in the first place."
WHAT VIOLENCE FFS?
"Because they perpetuate the conditions that make it difficult
for low-income people who want to consume high-priced products
to afford them."
I already explained how the opposite is true:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30590/#msg30590
[quote]If A is richer than B, and A eats at a more expensive
restaurant while B eats at a less expensive restaurant, the
wealth gap between A and B is decreased afterwards.[/quote]
"What I want is for the middle class and the bourgeoisie to have
their incomes drained through high taxation"
That's precisely what will happen by keeping both restaurants,
with the more expensive restaurant paying more in profit tax
than the less expensive restaurant (where the profit comes more
from A's bills than from B's bills since as yourself say B does
not eat here as frequently as A does). But you want to get rid
of the more expensive restaurant!
"and to be denied personal initiative in managing their wealth.
Their money and property belong to the state. "
You need to be denied personal initiative in managing the state.
"They are forced to consume products that are cheap but still
fit for consumption."
You are the one initiating violence.
#Post#: 30606--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: July 14, 2025, 11:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]So why shouldn't everyone be allowed to decide for
themselves how regularly/irregularly they eat expensive food? B
might still appreciate having an option to eat expensive food
occasionally, but you are removing that option from B on the
grounds that A might eat expensive food more frequently than B?
How does this make any sense?
...
Why is it better? What if different people prefer different
products?
[quote]"Those who enjoy high-priced products, whether producers
or consumers, have created the violence in the first
place."[/quote]
WHAT VIOLENCE FFS?
...
If A is richer than B, and A eats at a more expensive restaurant
while B eats at a less expensive restaurant, the wealth gap
between A and B is decreased afterwards.
...
[quote]"They are forced to consume products that are cheap but
still fit for consumption."[/quote]
You are the one initiating violence.[/quote]
Being socialist means that everyone feels the difficulty of
accessing higher-value products and participates in consuming
affordable, usable products that are affordable for everyone. If
there is still a disparity in affordability, and lower-class
people feel unable to consume higher-value products as
frequently as upper-middle-class people, this causes lower-class
people to feel less worthy of the community. Even though they
are already doing what they should be doing according to the
government's work plan. That's why Hitler's regime forced the
population to consume according to government directives,
without giving them the will to determine their own consumption
plans. If the middle and upper classes refuse to understand the
simple reasoning I've outlined, they deserve to have their
earning power liquidated. Because they preserving humiliation
and psychological violence to the people of the lower class
[quote]The New York Times, Thursday, November 26, 1931
REVEALING THE 'NAZI' PLAN TO TAKE CONTROL
This outlines an emergency decision for the future National
Socialist Government, adopted at a meeting of four newly elected
"Nazi" deputies in the Hesse State Parliament.
These forthcoming decrees stipulated the suspension of private
property rights and monetary claims, the confiscation of all
foodstuffs, which would be distributed only to those who worked,
and the seizure of executive power by the National Socialist
assault troops.
To save the nation, according to the document, war would be
declared immediately and executive power would be handed over
exclusively to the assault troops.
Obedience to orders and membership of the assault troops would
be enforced by the death penalty, and anyone found carrying
weapons would be shot.
In addition to these orders, drafted in the form of a "manifesto
to the people," the document contained drafts of three emergency
decrees. All were carefully written and ready for use.
The first decree stipulated the confiscation of foodstuffs and a
ban on their sale and purchase. Foodstuffs were to be delivered
free of charge by producers and would be rationed by the
government.
The second decree stipulated the suspension of private property
rights. No interest would be paid, and the enforcement of
monetary claims was prohibited. This decree detailed the
structure of the courts that would try charges of violation.
The third decree declared that work was a universal obligation.
Everyone, except Jews, over the age of 16 would be required to
work or be denied the right to demand food.[/quote]
Source:
The New York Times: Thursday, November 26, 1931. (2024).
Retrieved November 7, 2024, from Nytimes.com:
HTML https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1931/11/26/98348031.html?pageNumber=12
[quote]Furthermore, in an effort to socialize the economy,
Germany was transformed into a surveillance-informant state.
Small business owners were required to provide daily reports to
local Nazi officials about what was being "discussed in Herr
Schultz's bakery and Herr Schmidt's butcher shop." If shop
owners complained too much, they would be deemed "enemies of the
state," and could lose their business licenses or lose their
quotas for often-scarce goods.
...
Regarding food shortages, an American magazine reported in 1937
that Germany was experiencing "the most serious food shortage"
since the First World War. German restaurants were ordered to
limit their menus. A popular German ditty expressing discontent
ran: "Hitler has no wife; the farmer has no sow; the butcher has
no meat; that's the Third Reich."[/quote]
Source:
L.K. Samuels: How Anti-Capitalist Were the German National
Socialists? - Stopping Socialism
HTML https://stoppingsocialism.com/2022/11/lk-samuels-how-anti-capitalist-were-the-german-national-socialists/
[quote]Why not? Recall:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10645/?topicseen#msg10645
[quote]Socialism is the belief that state intervention is
essential to realistically combatting social injustice, and that
it is the moral duty of the state to so
intervene.[/quote][/quote]
This is a precise definition of socialism. This is a correct
definition of socialism. If we use your definition of socialism,
even the Social Democrats could be called socialists, but in
reality they were the ones who betrayed socialism. Hitler also
hated the Social Democrats.
[quote]From minute 25:28 to 27:03
Today, some people have rejected the historical definition of
socialism—though none of them can offer an alternative
definition that isn’t simply a rewording of the historical one.
[b]The historical definition of socialism is: social ownership
of the means of production (hence the term “socialism”). The
idea is that society would be centrally organized, private
ownership would be abolished and transferred to “social”
control, and that “socialized man [would] rationally regulate
their interaction with Nature”—in other words, they would plan
the economy rather than leave it to the free market.[/b]
[Reference: Marx, Das Kapital, Vol. 3, p. 593.]
That is socialism. It’s not when workers do something. It’s not
about puppies and rainbows. It is social ownership of the means
of production.
So, to prove that Hitler was a socialist, all we have to do is
show that he sought to centrally plan the economy, sought to
abolish private ownership, sought to transfer ownership into
“social” control, and sought to regulate economic activity…
which is exactly what we have already shown.[/quote]
References:
1. DiLorenzo, The Problem with Socialism, Kindle edition
2. Luxemburg, The National Question, p. 24
3. Marx, Das Kapital, Vol. 3, p. 593
4. Mises, Socialism, pp. 11–12, 45
5. Oxford Dictionary of English, Oxford University Press, 3rd
Edition, 2010, p. 1693
6. The American Economic Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, Papers and
Discussions of the Twenty-third Annual Meeting (Apr., 1911), pp.
347–354
[quote]Minute 00:10 to 02:29
TIKhistory Comments :
The process of collectivizing the German people began as soon as
the Nazis seized power and developed progressively over time. As
outlined in primary sources such as Günter Reimann’s The Vampire
Economy, Adam Tooze’s Wages of Destruction, and many others,
Nazi Party officials and SA members would literally walk into
factories and businesses and take control from the
inside.[/quote]
References:
1. Mierzejewski, The Most Valuable Asset of the Reich, p. 4
2. Tooze, Wages of Destruction, pp. 111–113
3. Reimann, The Vampire Economy, Chapter 2
4. Temin, Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s, pp.
576–577
[quote]TIKhistory Comments :
This was not “privatization,” as claimed by the British
Keynesian magazine The Economist in 1936, which used the term to
describe German banks selling shares. That had nothing to do
with selling industry to private interests. Even worse, other
political commentators in the 1940s described this government
centralization of the economy as “privatization,” which clearly
isn’t how we use the term today. Regardless, actual Nazi
policies were not privatization — I have no idea where the media
got that term from; they may have simply invented it.
“The Party, furthermore, facilitated the accumulation of private
wealth and industrial empires by its most prominent members and
collaborators through privatization and other measures, thereby
intensifying the centralization of economic and governmental
affairs into an increasingly narrow group that could be called
the national socialist elite.”[/quote]
— The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1943
References:
1. Bel, “The Birth of ‘Privatization’ and the National Socialist
German Party,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 20, pp.
187–194
2. Buchheim & Scherner, “Private Property in the Nazi Economy,”
p. 394
3. Kennedy, "Yes, They Were Socialists: How the Nazis Waged War
on Private Property," 07/05/2022
HTML https://mises.org/wire/yes-they-were-socialists-how-nazis-waged-war-private-property
Source :
Hitler's Socialism: The Evidence is Overwhelming - TIKhistory,
14th February 2023
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLHG4IfYE1w&t=1199s
There is no class solidarity in a socialist regime.
[quote]The totalitarian dictatorship will become more ruthless
in its attitude toward businessmen as well as toward the workers
and middle classes. The so-called radicals among the Party
bureaucrats will claim that their program has been fulfilled
after the expropriation of most private property holders, while
simultaneously the ruin of the middle classes will be completed
and the workers will be exploited on an unprecedented scale.
...
Employers have been badly shocked by their new legal status,
especially the "conservatives" who have held their property for
generations and to whom the sanctity of private property has
been a part of their religion. They might have excused previous
violations of property rights as exceptional emergency measures,
but they hoped that the buttressing of the State power through
fascism would also bring about a strengthening of the sanctity
of private property. They were independent and individualistic
businessmen, not only economically, but politically and
psychologically. For this very reason they are the most
disappointed and unhappy over the new state of affairs and are
likely to get into trouble with a Party secretary or the Gestapo
(the Secret State Police) for having grumbled incautiously or
for not having shown enough devotion to the Fuehrer.
...
This state of affairs must lead to the final collapse of
business morale, and sound the death knell of the self-respect
and self-reliance which marked the independent businessman under
liberal capitalism.[/quote]
Source :
Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism oleh Günter
Reimann Page xii and 20
[quote]In 1943, Das Schwarze Korps commented that “When we
reconstruct our economic life after the war we shall at least
not repeat our former mistakes. The middle classes do not exist.
The term is only a catchword from democratic times.”[/quote]
Source :
1. The Nazi War Against Capitalism oleh Nevin Gussack Page 80
2. Royal Institute for International Affairs. Review of the
Foreign Press 1939-1945 Series A Volume VIII Enemy Countries;
Axis Controlled Europe Nos. 169-192 (Kraus, 1980)
[quote]The New York Times, February 21, 1943
NAZI MILITARY DEFEAT BRINGS 'TOTAL WAR' HOME
German Upper and Middle Classes Fear Hitler Might Try to Destroy
Them
By GEORGE AXELSSON By Telephone to The New York Times.
The Junkers, the bourgeoisie and the small businessmen now think
that Hitler intends to sacrifice them on the altar of a 'total
war effort,' in the Soviet style. They fear that this operation
will open the horizon of a permanent dictatorship of the
proletariat, also on the Stalinist model, in which these classes
will disappear without any visible chance of revival… That
Hitler might also want to save his war by transforming the
National Socialist State into a National Communist State at the
expense of the middle and upper classes seems to be the chief
worry in Berlin today.[/quote]
Source :
The New York Times: Sunday February 21, 1943. (2024). Retrieved
November 7, 2024, from Nytimes.com website:
HTML https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1943/02/21/88519072.html?pageNumber=76
[quote]Herr Goebbels ended it in his May Day radio address this
year, with his flat assertion that the anti-capitalist offensive
"will be resumed on the first day of peace!"
The people in the democracies would do well not to mistake the
Nazis' anti-capitalism for mere hostility to big business. It is
more than a war against free enterprise. It is a war against the
democratic way of life. Capitalism, in the Nazi mind, means the
free way, the individual's way. The Nazis are out to smash it.
And they have gone a long way toward doing just that in Europe.
Their special victim is the middle class. On the continent they
have all but liquidated this class which the backbone of the
democratic world.[/quote]
Source :
1. The Nazi War Against Capitalism by Nevin Gussack, page 79
2. The American Mercury 1944-08: Vol 59 Iss 248. “German Plans
for the Next War” Page 181 (Page 55 in pdf format)
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page