News Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg: A Comparative Analysis

[thomasxc]

i am reading a book called liberal fascism by jonah goldberg. it draws parallels between hitler and mussolini's fascism and modern day liberals. its very interesting. i reccomend it.

 

[WheelsRCool]

OrbitalPower will be along shortly to formerly declare war with you on this :D He and I argue over whether fascism is Left or Right all the time. Check out some of the books by Stanley G. Payne on fascism; he concludes that fascism resembles communism a great deal. OrbitalPower mentioned to me a book (I forget which) in which the author claims the opposite, that fascism is right-wing, a variant of capitalism. IMO, check out them all, good to be well-rounded in the views.

I would also recommend F.A. Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" and the books by Milton Friedman, both Nobel Prize winners in economics, for more on this subject.

 

[WarPhalange]

i am reading a book called liberal fascism by jonah goldberg. it draws parallels between hitler and mussolini's fascism and modern day liberals. its very interesting. i reccomend it.

The part where they both wanted restricted freedoms, such as gun control and (ultra-left whiners) restricted freedom of speech?

Or the part where they want equal opportunities for all, equal rights for all, the ability not be shafted by your employer, and use the government to enforce those laws?

I mean, I don't like right-wingers, but I wouldn't compare any but the most vile of them to Hitler.

 

[Crosson]

George Orwell remarked in 1946 that the term 'fascist' no longer had any meaning other then 'something undesirable.'

 

[arildno]

George Orwell remarked in 1946 that the term 'fascist' no longer had any meaning other then 'something undesirable.'

Well, aren't lictors in fashion anymore??

 

[Crosson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_(epithet )

 

[mheslep]

Note the title is a quote from 1930s socialist HG Wells, not a comparison dreamed up by Goldberg:

...Readers will learn that the very term "liberal fascism" came from the pen of H.G. Wells, the famed socialist author who delivered a speech at Oxford University in 1932 that included hosannas to both Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany. "I am asking," Wells told the students, "for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis." Democracy, he argued, had to be replaced with new forms of government that would save mankind, producing a "'Phoenix Rebirth' of liberalism" that would be called "Liberal Fascism."...

http://www.nysun.com/arts/americas-fascist-moment/68954/

 

[lisab]

A book on "liberal fascism"? Wow, can't wait for the sequel...it's about "conservative socialism"!

 

[edward]

A book on "liberal fascism"? Wow, can't wait for the sequel...it's about "conservative socialism"!

 

[edward]

Using something Socialist H.G, wells said in a speech in 1932 to make a comparison with modern day liberals is ludicrous. It is nothing more than an inflammatory eye catcher.

Goldberg, who has no credentials beyond the right-wing nepotism that has enabled his career as a pundit, has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It’s a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history.

The title alone is enough to indicate its thoroughgoing incoherence: Of all the things we know about fascism and the traits that comprise it, one of the few things that historians will readily agree upon is its overwhelming anti-liberalism. One might as well write about anti-Semitic neoconservatism, or Ptolemaic quantum theory, or strength in ignorance. Goldberg isn't content to simply create an oxymoron; this entire enterprise, in fact, is classic Newspeak.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=jonah_goldbergs_bizarro_history

 

[mheslep]

Using something Socialist H.G, wells said in a speech in 1932 to make a comparison with modern day liberals is ludicrous.

1. Who says he's comparing to modern day liberals? Much of the book is history. 2. Are you claiming Wells' 1930's socialism has nothing in common with its modern forms? Why?

 

[BWV]

Goldberg probably poisoned the well on the issue with his polemic, but it is a fact that FDR's closest economic advisors took Mussolini and Stalin as their models.

Facism was a "worst of both worlds" mix of socialism and nationalism. It combined state control of industry with traditional conservative social values. Instead of appropriating assets from the private sector by force, like communism, it created cozy and lucrative arrangements with big business, protecting them from competition in exchange for political submission. The economic playbook of the New Deal was very much in line with this model and was one of the reasons the Depression lasted as long as it did.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Goldberg, who has no credentials beyond the right-wing nepotism that has enabled his career as a pundit, has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It’s a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history.

The title alone is enough to indicate its thoroughgoing incoherence: Of all the things we know about fascism and the traits that comprise it, one of the few things that historians will readily agree upon is its overwhelming anti-liberalism. One might as well write about anti-Semitic neoconservatism, or Ptolemaic quantum theory, or strength in ignorance. Goldberg isn't content to simply create an oxymoron; this entire enterprise, in fact, is classic Newspeak.

Goldberg in the book does compare modern-day liberals, along with big government Republicans, to the fascists and that is in my opinion a lousy rebuttal to the book. It is also wrong, as there are multiple other books and scholars that talk about fascism as a Leftist doctrine.

For one, it mis-construes the term "liberalism." What the word "liberal" applies to in the United States is not the same as what it applies to in other nations. In Europe, the term "liberal" refers to someone fond of free-market capitalism, small government, low taxes, etc...the "liberals" and the "conservatives" in America are only liberal and conservative in certain respects. "Liberals" tend to be very liberal with regards to government spending. They also are very socially liberal. Environmentally, they are very conservative, disdaining material excess of any kind.

"Conservatives" are usually socially conservative. They are supposed to also be fiscally conservative as well, but we have plenty of socially conservative big government spending Republicans as well, so it depends. Conservatives however are very liberal with regards material excess. They have no moral qualms with regards to driving a big SUV or owning a giant home, things considered borderline sinful by the hard Left.

OTOH, the conservatives consider homosexuality and skimpy clothing and such to be "sinful," things the Left has no problem with.

A true liberal is one of the classical liberals, folks who believe in free market capitalism, limited government, fiscal conservatism, and social freedom, which neither the hard Left or hard Right represent.

Another thing about fascism is that it is extraordinarily difficult to define. The only thing that can be said really is that fascism, socialism, communism, etc...all share is a disdain for free-market capitalism and limited government.

Fascism cannot occur with truly right-wing government, even one that is very socially conservative, because they will keep the central government very limited in its power, making it impossible to dictate to the people how they can live their lives. If the central government decides to try and outlaw homosexuality or porn, they can't do so, because their power is too limited. They can only do so if the people voting them in agree to it, because if they don't, they'll vote them out. If they stack the Supreme Court so that it does something like that, what likely would happen is none of the states against it would enforce the ruling (for example, I doubt San Francisco or California would enforce such a ruling).

When Leftists say that fascism "is when corporations and government combine," they are talking about the symptoms of the disease, not the disease itself.

One must also remember that the eugenics movement was solidly supported by the Left, the Progressives. Celebrities, universities, and so forth all supported it, and the leaders in eugenics research, which essentially said that we had to eliminate the feeble-minded of society so they wouldn't destroy the human race, were the United States and the Germans, who eventually took the lead in such research (and we know what that led to).

The right-wing, those folks conservative religiously, who are against "messing with God's work," the types who today who are against stem-cell research, abortion, etc...were staunchly opposed to the entire eugenics movement.

One can also find much of the fascist philosophy, the desire to organize and plan society out, in the development of modern architecture too, but that's a different story.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Goldberg probably poisoned the well on the issue with his polemic, but it is a fact that FDR's closest economic advisors took Mussolini and Stalin as their models.

Facism was a "worst of both worlds" mix of socialism and nationalism. It combined state control of industry with traditional conservative social values. Instead of appropriating assets from the private sector by force, like communism, it created cozy and lucrative arrangements with big business, protecting them from competition in exchange for political submission. The economic playbook of the New Deal was very much in line with this model and was one of the reasons the Depression lasted as long as it did.

Exactly; although I would say that this was more the Nazi party in particular.

Not all fascism is nationalistic though, some of it is much more friendly-seeming. One can have the elements of fascism without the ultra-nationalism and racism.

Also, the Nazi Party did promote Leftist ideals such as nationalized healthcare, love for the environment, a minimum wage, gun control, etc...

During the Japanese Rape of Nanking, one person who worked tirelessly to save the Chinese people was a Nazi and loyal supporter of Hitler, John Rabe. Rabe was later arrested by the Nazis.

My point is, I doubt Rabe ever became a Hitler supporter by agreeing with Hitler on the nationalism and racist aspects of Nazism. He probably just thought the economic model of National Socialism was the way to go. I do not see how a man could possibly support the slaughter of millions of Jews and other peoples, but then work tirelessly to save so many Chinese from slaughter. So the only conclusion I can come to for his support of the Nazis at first was the ideal of National Socialism. And as stated, he was later arrested by the Nazis and eventually "de-Nazified" after they started conducting their horrors.

The modern American Left, and the "compassionate conservatives" of the Right, support a "friendly" form of fascism. Nancy Pelosi, to quote her from an interview I read, even said, "I view my role as a politician as an extension of my role as a mother." Now to someone like me, that is outright dangerous when the government wants to view itself as the mother to the people. A loving embrace from which one cannot escape is still a form of tyranny.

And since George Bush Jr. is a compassionate conservative, I would say he is along the lines of the fascists as well, but he is not a fascist in the sense that the ultra-Left like to portray him.

 

[moe darklight]

I saw an interview with him talking about the book. At first I thought it was a Colbert-style joke. The guy sounds like a complete moron, and the parallels he was drawing in the interview were laughable. Once he brought up Hitler (I think when he was talking about gun laws), I just couldn't help but start laughing. Really?? the systematic erradication and enslavement of millions of people is tantamount to a few old rednecks not being allowed to shoot me in the face when I step on their lawn? ... mm'k.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Notice how the OP provides no evidence or documentation that the regimes of Mussolini and Hitler were "fascist" or "liberal."

That is because these books are not made to be serious studies of Nazi Germany, or of Fascism in general, but are made to get conservatives to throw around words without understanding their meaning or historical usage. Goldberg is not trained as a political scientist or historian, and his views are the equivalent of the "politically incorrect guide to evolution." Conservative economics and political science is about as well grounded as conservative "creationism" and "intelligent design."

The evidence Goldberg used is weak straw man arguments such as the Nazis were powerful because of their harsh gun control (they actually weakened gun legislation, the first act the Nazis passed on guns gave citizens the right to own guns), that they were environmentalists (the Nazis actually banned environmental policies, and if they were such environmentalists, why then were they such war mongerers, which destroys the earth), and so on.

None of it is a serious analysis of Nazi Germany. The truth is, in Mussolini's own anatomy of fascism, he writes that Fascism is the opposite of liberal concept of the individual, and is opposed to their calls for civil rights, civil liberties, equality, and so on.

The "Doctrine of Fascism," written by Giovanni Gentile, also says that "Fascism.. asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficent inequality of men."

This clearly distinguishes Fascism from ideologies such as socialism, democracy, and so on, as socialism and liberalism works on the premise of equality and egalitarianism.

Gentile also said that fascism "ought to be called corporatism" as it is the "merge of corporation and state."

This is the ideology more likely supported by Ron Paul supporters, McCain supporters, and so on, than "liberals." The fact is Mussolini himself was at one time a pascifist and more economically liberal; however, when he came to power, he became the opposite of both fascism, and socialism, and became a war supporter and an economic capitalist.

Thankfully, these quacks have as minor of influence in PoliSci, in academia, as intelligent design supporters have in biology.

For a real analysis of Fascism, try these sources:

Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer.

In it, Shirer notes the conservative tendencies of Hitler, and also, that the Nazi "charter of labor" gave corporations complete control over their corporations.

He was a real journalist who lived in the Third Reich, not a quack like Goldberg.

Anatomy of Fascism, by Paxton.

This book, written by a scholar, shows the complex nature of the fascists. Really, you can see how fascism is an extention of capitalism in such a work, although the author does differentiate the kind of capitalism that exists in a fascist state from the kind that can exist under a social democracy.

Near the end, he notes some parallels between current, corporatist systems and fascism.

Really, the threaten of fascism only exists in countries that are, at present, capitalist "democracies" and many capitalist democracies easily can slip into fascism, such as in Chile.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Note the title is a quote from 1930s socialist HG Wells, not a comparison dreamed up by Goldberg:

http://www.nysun.com/arts/americas-fascist-moment/68954/

That is not an excuse for Goldberg's blatant ignorance.

Hitler himself said that Nazism was designed to protect "free-enterprise" and that this was the basis of his economic policy. He also believed in the Libertarian concept of the individual, noting that if a corporate CEO rises to the top, he has the "right to lead" and Hitler even wrote in the Nazi charter of labor that corporations have the right to run businesses how they want.

Hitler also said that his version of "socialism," a term used in the way Bush uses "democracy," is a protection of private property:

We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order."
- Adolf Hitler

"Capitalists have worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead."

Adolf Hitler, the Road to Resurgence (see the Jewish Virtual Library's entry on Nazism for the story of how this came about, which was to ensure the industrialists that he would not be implementing any real socialists policies).

"The suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists… We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
"Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.” –Hitler

And so on. A simple reading of history and an encyclopedia is enough to debunk Goldberg. Certainly, most history sources and political science journals will disagree with him, such as "The Nazi Roots of Privatization" available on JSTOR I believe.

H.G. Wells was an author. When he said that, he may not have been serious, or may have been joking, who knows. But he had no role in forming the ideologies of either socialism, or fascism.

Hitler did, however, and we can see that they were not "liberal" systems that gave rights to all people, protected women (even though conservatives call the liberation of women "Feminazism"), banned leftist groups, and even imprisoned leftists.

A book on "liberal fascism"? Wow, can't wait for the sequel...it's about "conservative socialism"!

Well, Hitler did say that "true socialism" was about "private property" and that he was never a leftist socialist, whom he kicked out of the Nazi Party.

Conservative socialism would be "corporate socialism," the conservatism of Ronald Reagan, Coolidge, et al., which indeed seems quite close to fascism, especially the propaganda they used, the conservative social policies they favored, and so on.

Goldberg probably poisoned the well on the issue with his polemic, but it is a fact that FDR's closest economic advisors took Mussolini and Stalin as their models.

Wrong. FDR's curbing of corporate power had absolutely NOTHING to do with Stalin or Mussolini, nor were any Stalinist policies implemented in the US.

What the hell are you talking about? Which plan of FDR's was "stalinist."

Facism was a "worst of both worlds" mix of socialism and nationalism.

Fascism (not "facism") was an extention of "capitalism," there were never any socialist policies enacted in Nazi Germany, or Mussolini's Italy.

Private property was protected, and labor unions that called for more workers' rights were banned.

The economic playbook of the New Deal was very much in line with this model and was one of the reasons the Depression lasted as long as it did.

The New Deal reversed the great depression, and lowered unemployment levels, for every year except the recession of '37.

It was caused by the insane policies of coolidge, and it had to be ended by reversing them, which was done under FDR, and which did reverse the Great Depression.

It was the fastest turn around in US history, and the growth rate overall was even high than the overall GDP growth rate under Reaganism.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Notice how the OP provides no evidence or documentation that the regimes of Mussolini and Hitler were "fascist" or "liberal."

That is because these books are not made to be serious studies of Nazi Germany, or of Fascism in general, but are made to get conservatives to throw around words without understanding their meaning or historical usage. Goldberg is not trained as a political scientist or historian, and his views are the equivalent of the "politically incorrect guide to evolution." Conservative economics and political science is about as well grounded as conservative "creationism" and "intelligent design."

Creationism and intelligent design I agreeon, "conservative economics" works, hands-down. We know that simply from the application of it.

The evidence Goldberg used is weak straw man arguments such as the Nazis were powerful because of their harsh gun control (they actually weakened gun legislation, the first act the Nazis passed on guns gave citizens the right to own guns), that they were environmentalists (the Nazis actually banned environmental policies, and if they were such environmentalists, why then were they such war mongerers, which destroys the earth), and so on.

Which source shows the nazis gave people the right to own guns? I know that it is wrong to blame the Nazis solely for "banning" guns in Germany because there was gun control before the Nazis...

None of it is a serious analysis of Nazi Germany. The truth is, in Mussolini's own anatomy of fascism, he writes that Fascism is the opposite of liberal concept of the individual, and is opposed to their calls for civil rights, civil liberties, equality, and so on.

Exactly! That's what capitalism focuses on, individual rights and individual liberties. Fascism doesn't like the concept of the individual, as it is a variant of socialism. Fascism favors the power of the State, which then (in theory) brings out the best of the individual.

The "Doctrine of Fascism," written by Giovanni Gentile, also says that "Fascism.. asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficent inequality of men."

This clearly distinguishes Fascism from ideologies such as socialism, democracy, and so on, as socialism and liberalism works on the premise of equality and egalitarianism.[/quote]

Fascism and socialism worked to eliminate class differences. Both despised the plutocracy. the difference is that in practice the exact opposite results. We can see this from all of the socialist countries.

For example, how does one define "equality?" Equality can refer to equality of opportunity or equality of outcome, two different things.

Gentile also said that fascism "ought to be called corporatism" as it is the "merge of corporation and state."

True, but how does this marriage begin? The state must intervene in the affairs of business for them merge. Thus the merging of corporatism and state is more the symptoms of the disease, not the disease itself.

This is the ideology more likely supported by Ron Paul supporters, McCain supporters, and so on, than "liberals." The fact is Mussolini himself was at one time a pascifist and more economically liberal; however, when he came to power, he became the opposite of both fascism, and socialism, and became a war supporter and an economic capitalist.

Mussolini was no capitalist. He was originally a hard socialist.

Thankfully, these quacks have as minor of influence in PoliSci, in academia, as intelligent design supporters have in biology.

Unfortunately for the PoliSci profession, the history of economics proves them wrong. Their continuing to try and push socialism as a system of "equality" is a equivalent to the conservatives who still try to push creationism.

For a real analysis of Fascism, try these sources:

Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer.

In it, Shirer notes the conservative tendencies of Hitler, and also, that the Nazi "charter of labor" gave corporations complete control over their corporations.

He was a real journalist who lived in the Third Reich, not a quack like Goldberg.

Having lived in the society means nothing. So did George Soros, and he still believes in a world government. One must look at the facts, economic and political.

Anatomy of Fascism, by Paxton.

This book, written by a scholar, shows the complex nature of the fascists. Really, you can see how fascism is an extention of capitalism in such a work, although the author does differentiate the kind of capitalism that exists in a fascist state from the kind that can exist under a social democracy.

Fascism can't be an extension of capitalism, because it does not allow the price system to ration resources, a key component of capitalism.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Fascism did not work to "eliminte" class differences. As shown in that quote, Mussolini believed in "inequality" and Hitler said it was "natural." Neither of them supported equality, and their systems were not equal. If they were equal, they would have given rights to Jews, Socialists, and so on.

The quotes above say it all.

Yes, private property and corporations flourished in both systems, and in all other fascist systems, such as in Pinochet's Chile and Videla's Argentina.

Junk scholarship like Hayek (who advocated a corporate dictorship in place of democracy, who himself was fascist) has no relevance to the facts of political science and history.

The real scholarly sources have been cited, junk scholarship is as irrelevant in biology and physics as it is in polisci, and if polisci does let itself be overtaken by junk scholarship (which would be sad as America has some of the best political scientist) it would indeed be the end of the field.

 

[OrbitalPower]

To recap:

Socialism and anarchism / Capitalism or Fascism (whatever you want to call corporatism)

Equality / Inequality

Goods distributed according to the public good / Goods distributed according to highly inegalitarian markets

Internationalist; or world government / Nationalist; or nation-state

pro-individual / anti-individual (institutions such as corporations, the state, and so on, where individuals play no role)

Liberal socially (pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, and so on) / Conservative socially (anti-abortion, pro death penalty, etc.)

pacifist / war-mongering, war profiteering

Environmentalist / anti-environmentalist

Resources have public owners or are controlled by the workers / resources have private owners, or are controlled by a dictator

"From each according to his ability, from each according to his need" / "To whatever is currently marketable, your skills will be applied."

These systems, liberalism and socialism, and then fascism and capitalism, are as different as night and day.

And remember, the "classical-liberals" either became socialists, or modernal liberals. T.H. Green became a modern liberal, and was an idealist, John Stuart Mill became a socialist, and was a universal genius.

Also, socialism and anarchism, and modern democracy, came about at about the same time modern science started making headway -- during the Englightenment. So, it figures that so many great scientists were one of the above. (And, to be fair, there were numerous conservative/nazi scientists, such as Heisenberg and Jordan, but for Jordan, there was a Max Born.)

 

[BWV]

What the hell are you talking about? Which plan of FDR's was "stalinist."

Nothing was "Stalinist" in the sense of what the word means today, but it was Stalinist in the 30s utopian idealist sense of the world. As Amity Shales writes in an interview:

Roosevelt’s advisers didn’t know Stalin was a monster, or at least not so much, and very naively they copied him. In the book I trace how some of the characters go to the Soviet Union in 1927 and are bowled over by Stalin. They get six hours with him and they come back and you see them, especially [former Columbia University professor] Rex Tugwell, implementing things they learned from fascist Italy or from the world of Stalin. The influence of these European entities from Russia to Italy was not parenthetical. These people were not working for Moscow, but they were influenced by Moscow.

The NRA (which was short-lived as it was such a disasterous failure) was more or less pure top-down government control of the economy. Bureaucrats dictated prices, industry practices and standards and vigorously attempted to prosecute any poor slob (like the Schetker brothers) who got in the way.

Fascism (not "facism") was an extention of "capitalism," there were never any socialist policies enacted in Nazi Germany, or Mussolini's Italy.

Private property was protected, and labor unions that called for more workers' rights were banned.

You forget that the ordinary German worker was the Nazi political base, who voted Hitler in office in a democratic election. Of course unions were also banned in the socialist USSR, who again was the economic model in many ways.

Time Magazine wrote in 1938:

"Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism."

http://mises.org/story/47

The difference between the systems (Naziism and communism) , wrote Mises, is that the German pattern "maintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices, wages, and markets." But in fact the government directs production decisions, curbs entrepreneurship and the labor market, and determines wages and interest rates by central authority. "Market exchange," says Mises, "is only a sham."

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/germany.htm#NAZI

The Nazi economic system developed unintentionally. The initial objective in 1932-33 of its economic policy was just to reduce the high unemployment associated with the Great Depression. This involved public works, expansion of credit, easy monetary policy and manipulation of exchange rates. Generally Centrally Administered Economies (CAE's) have little trouble eliminating unemployment because they can create large public works projects and people are put to work regardless of whether or not their productivity exceeds their wage cost. Nazi Germany was successful in solving the unemployment problem, but after a few years the expansion of the money supply was threatening to create inflation.

The Nazi Government reacted to the threat of inflation by declaring a general price freeze in 1936. From that action the Nazi Government was driven to expand the role of the government in directing the economy and reducing the role played by market forces. Although private property was not nationalized, its use was more and more determined by the government rather than the owners.

Eucken uses the case of the leather industry. An individual leather factory produces at the direction of the Leather Control Office. This Control Office arranged for the factory to get the hides and other supplies it needed to produce leather. The output of leather was disposed of according to the dictates of the Leather Control Office. The Control Offices set their directives through a process involving four stages:

1. The collection of statistical information by a Statistical Section. The Statistical Section tried to assemble all the important data on past production, equipment, storage facilities and raw material requirements.
2. The planning of production taking into account the requirements of leather by other industries in their plans; e.g. the needs of the Shoe Control Office for supplies of leather. The available supply of hides limited the production of leather. There had to be a balancing of supply and demand. The result of the planning of all the control offices was a Balance Sheet. There was some effort at creating some system for solving the planning, such as production being limited by the narrowest bottleneck, but in practice the planning ended up being simply scaling up past production and planning figures.
3. The issuing of production orders to the individual factories.
4. Checking up on compliance with the planning orders.
In practice the authorities of the control offices often intervened and there was continual negotiation and political battles as the users of products tried to use political influence to improve their allocations. The prices of 1936 made little economic sense, particularly after Germany was at war. So there economic calculations using the official prices were meaningless. In particular, the profitability of a product was of no significance in determining whether it should be produced or not. Losses did not result in a factory ceasing production; the control offices made sure that it got the raw materials and that the workers got rations of necessities.

At the beginning of the war the Government established a priorities list for allocating scarse resources. Activities associated with the war got top priority and consumer goods production was near the bottom of the list. If two users wanted gasoline any available stocks went to the user with the highest priority. This seems reasonable but, in fact, it led to major problems. Suppose one use of gasoline is for trucks to haul raw materials to factories. If the Government always gives the available gasoline to the Army then the truckers cannot deliver supplies to the factories and they shut down and eventually other factories dependent upon them also shut down. At first the Government tried to handle the problem by revising the priorities list and moving up uses such as gasoline for trucks. But whatever uses got put at the bottom eventually created bottlenecks. In the middle of the war the Government abolished the priority list. It was an unworkable system.

The problem with making production decisions without reference to relevant prices is that the control offices may dictate the production of goods which are of less value to the economy than the opportunity costs of the resources that go into their production.

Because of the mistakes and failures of Centrally Administered Economies there are often black markets operating. Although the authorities typically persecute people for dealing in these markets the reality is that such markets are essential for preventing a collapse of the Centrally Administered Economy.

Production decisions may be made on political criteria that are economically foolish, such as locating a factory in a region to benefit the supporters of some political figure. Even aside from such corruption of the decision process the centrally administered economy suffers from major weaknesses. The centrally administered economy can mobilize resourts quickly for big investment projects but there is no guarantee that there will be a balance of investments. For example, there may be big programs to build railroads but not enough trains to make use of those railroads.

Although Centrally Administered Economies may appear to be efficient and effective initially their errors and inefficiencies accumulate and eventually result in stagnation if not collapse. Often the apparent successes of such economies are just illusions. Outsiders who do not know how such economies really work are often fooled by these illusions.

The New Deal reversed the great depression, and lowered unemployment levels, for every year except the recession of '37.

It was caused by the insane policies of coolidge, and it had to be ended by reversing them, which was done under FDR, and which did reverse the Great Depression

It was the fastest turn around in US history, and the growth rate overall was even high than the overall GDP growth rate under Reaganism.

The unemployment rate remained above 15% until well into WW2. How does that constitute a recovery?

What was insane about Coolidge's policies? The 1920s were a period of real economic growth. It was the decade that most Americans got electricity in their homes and there was a real wave of innovation. Hoover and the Federal Reserve caused what would have likely been another typical recession to become the Depression.

The depression did not end until after WW2 and nothing in FDRs policies "reversed" the depression. Rather his radical policies stopped the ordinary course of investment that would have otherwise happened.

 

[BWV]

Fascism did not work to "eliminte" class differences. As shown in that quote, Mussolini believed in "inequality" and Hitler said it was "natural." Neither of them supported equality, and their systems were not equal. If they were equal, they would have given rights to Jews, Socialists, and so on.

The quotes above say it all.

Yes, private property and corporations flourished in both systems, and in all other fascist systems, such as in Pinochet's Chile and Videla's Argentina.

Junk scholarship like Hayek (who advocated a corporate dictorship in place of democracy, who himself was fascist) has no relevance to the facts of political science and history.

The real scholarly sources have been cited, junk scholarship is as irrelevant in biology and physics as it is in polisci, and if polisci does let itself be overtaken by junk scholarship (which would be sad as America has some of the best political scientist) it would indeed be the end of the field.

Show me where Hayek was a Fascist and advocated corporate "dictorship"


The socialist dictatorships in the USSR, China, Cuba and others all had ruling classes (the party) with priviledges above the ordinary peoples

 

[WheelsRCool]

That is not an excuse for Goldberg's blatant ignorance.

Hitler himself said that Nazism was designed to protect "free-enterprise" and that this was the basis of his economic policy. He also believed in the Libertarian concept of the individual, noting that if a corporate CEO rises to the top, he has the "right to lead" and Hitler even wrote in the Nazi charter of labor that corporations have the right to run businesses how they want.

Hitler had no love of free-enterprise and did not believe the economy should be left to its own devices:

"...The Third reich was notable for the far-reaching transfer of managerial decisions away from the managers. Wages, prices, working conditions, allocation of materials: none of these was left to managerial decision, let alone the market...investment was controlled, occupational freedom was dead, prices were fixed, every major sector of the economy was, at worst, a victim, at best, an accomplice of the regime. A generation of Marxist and neo-Marxist mythology notwithstanding, probably never in peacetime has an ostensibly capitalist economy been directed as non- and even anti-capitalistically as the Germany economy between 1933 and 1939." --- David Schoenbaum, Hitler's Social Revolution, 1966

""Between 1936 and 1939 the controls to which German business was subject were extended to include imports and foreign exchange, allocation of raw materials, allocation of labor, prices, wages, profits, and investment. Their impact varied between oen sector and another but extended to agriculture as well as industry, the plan being responsible for producing and distributing the tractors and fertilizers. Business still remained in private or corporate hands, but to a large extent the government through the Four year Plan dictated what companies should produce, how much new investment they should be allowed to make, where any new plants should be sited, what raw materials they could obtain, what prices to charge, what wages to pay, how much profit they could make and how they should use it (after paying increased taxes) for compulsory reinvestment in their business or the purchase of government bonds...In the summer of 1937 Foring announced plans approved by Hitler for an industrial complex (to be named HermannGoring Reichswerke) for extracting and smelting iron from the low-grade Salzgitter ore fields in Brunswick. When the iron and stell industrialists produced a paper rejecting Gore's autarkic policy, he threatened them with arrest as saboteurs and compelled the private firms to invest some of their own funds in the state-owned competitor with which he now confronted them." --- Bullock, Hitler and Stalin

""The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany last year originated from the government. Hard-pressed for foodstuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism." - Time Magazine, January 2, 1939.

Hitler also said that his version of "socialism," a term used in the way Bush uses "democracy," is a protection of private property:

We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order."
- Adolf Hitler

[/quote]

Which source does he say that? I've read George Strasser, a National Socialist theologian, said the following:

"We are socialists. We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today's capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money, instead of their responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system whatever happens! ... We must learn that work means more than possessions! Performance is more than dividends! It is the most wretched legacy of this capitalist system that the criterion for everything's value is money, wealth, possessions! The decline of a people is the inevitable consequence of the use of this yardstick, because selection on the basis of property is the arch-enemy of race, blood, life! We have never left any doubts about the fact that our national socialism puts an end to the priviledges of wealth, and that the emancipation of the worker involves participation in profits, property, and management." --- George Strasses, National Socialist theologian, from Strassers Thoughts on the Tasks of the Future, 1933.

I would imagine Hitler lied simply to garner votes, considering multiple sources claim he did the exact opposite.

"Capitalists have worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead."

Adolf Hitler, the Road to Resurgence (see the Jewish Virtual Library's entry on Nazism for the story of how this came about, which was to ensure the industrialists that he would not be implementing any real socialists policies).

"Real socialism" would be outright nationalization. Remember, Hitler had to win votes to get elected. He also promised Chamberlain he wouldn't go to war either.

"The suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists… We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
"Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.” –Hitler

Hitler and the Nazis viewed their National Socialism as a new kind of socialism. one of the great historical ironies is how they and the marxists disdained each other, yet both end up with the same results in the long run.

And so on. A simple reading of history and an encyclopedia is enough to debunk Goldberg. Certainly, most history sources and political science journals will disagree with him, such as "The Nazi Roots of Privatization" available on JSTOR I believe.

I disagree. There are plenty of other economic sources and books on fascism that would agree with him as well.

H.G. Wells was an author. When he said that, he may not have been serious, or may have been joking, who knows. But he had no role in forming the ideologies of either socialism, or fascism.

Hitler did, however, and we can see that they were not "liberal" systems that gave rights to all people, protected women (even though conservatives call the liberation of women "Feminazism"), banned leftist groups, and even imprisoned leftists.

Socialism does not give rights to people. And conservatives do not call the liberation of women "Feminazism." Feminazis are an extremist portion of feminists. And yes, fascism did ban certain Leftist groups, but all Leftists do not agree. Ron Paul libertarians and Republicans disagree vehemently on certain issues. Leon Trotsky disagreed with Stalin on quite a few issues, yet both were socialists.

Conservative socialism would be "corporate socialism," the conservatism of Ronald Reagan, Coolidge, et al., which indeed seems quite close to fascism, especially the propaganda they used, the conservative social policies they favored, and so on.

You can't form fascism when you stop the growth of government, cut the government's revenues, and de-regulate the economy, as Reagan did.

Wrong. FDR's curbing of corporate power had absolutely NOTHING to do with Stalin or Mussolini, nor were any Stalinist policies implemented in the US.

What the hell are you talking about? Which plan of FDR's was "stalinist."

FDR had his National Planning Board look to Germany and Italy for policies to copy and the Nazi press, and both Hitler and Mussolini, gave FDR lavish praise for this. Check books such as Designing a New America: The Origins of New Deal Planning, 1890 - 1943, by Patrick D. Reagan, The End of Reform: New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War by Alan Brinkley.

FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act would have given him nearly identical powers over the economy to what Hitler and Mussolini had over Germany and Italy, but it was stopped by the Supreme Court:

"The President may investigated the labor practices, policies, wages, hours of labor, and conditions of employment in such trade or industry or subdivision thereof; and upon the basis of such investigations, and after such hearings as the President finds advisable, he is authorized to prescribe a limited code of fair competition fixing such maximum hours of labor, minimum rates of pay, and other contions of employment in the trade or industry or subdivision thereof investigated as he finds to be necessary to effectuate the policy of this title..."

This also shows some similarities:

"Hitler's achievements in the first four years had been truly been considerable and impressive. Like Roosevelt, he had paved the way to social security and old-age benefits. And, like Roosevelt, he had intuitively divined that the professional economists, whose thinking was hobbled by accepted theory, had little understanding of the depression. Both leaders, consequently, had defied tradition to expand production and curb unemployment." --- John Toland, Adolf Hitler

Fascism (not "facism") was an extention of "capitalism," there were never any socialist policies enacted in Nazi Germany, or Mussolini's Italy.

Private property was protected, and labor unions that called for more workers' rights were banned.

Not true.

The New Deal reversed the great depression, and lowered unemployment levels, for every year except the recession of '37.

Completely untrue. There are multiple books out detailing how the New Deal, with its Keynesian and neo-fascist economics, wrecked the economy even further.

It was caused by the insane policies of coolidge, and it had to be ended by reversing them, which was done under FDR, and which did reverse the Great Depression.

It was the fastest turn around in US history, and the growth rate overall was even high than the overall GDP growth rate under Reaganism.

That is incorrect. The Great Depression had nothing to do with any President, but the Federal Reserve, which failed to keep the banking system solvent, which led to an implosion of the money supply.

The 1929 Stock Market crash was the largest crash for its time, but this did not cause the Depression either. The crash, by modern standard, was rather small, decreasing the markets about 12% (by comparison, the 1987 crash depressed them 24% and the 2000 Dot Com bubble burst depressed them over 50%).

 

[OrbitalPower]

Neither Time Magazine, nor Mises.org, is an academic "source."

Hitler did not implement any 25 plank nationalist program; in fact, he deliberately went out of his way to not implement any socialist parties and kicked all the socialists that may have existed in the Nazi party, such as Rohm.

Hitler's own quotes and academic scholarship outweights time magazine.

In Hayek's own book "The Road to Serfdom" he advocates replacing the nation-state, which he believed hindered peace and socialism led to totalitarianism, with a " supranational authority" or a world federation consisting of the financial elite.

 

[WheelsRCool]

One other quote from Mussolini: "If classical liberalism spells individualism, fascism spells government." --- Benito Mussolini, "The Doctrine of Fascism," 1932.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Neither Time Magazine, nor Mises.org, is an academic "source."

Time Magazine was ONE source, and I quoted how they saw the Nazi regime back in the 1930s; otherwise, I did not at all quote Mises.org. I listed other books for you to check.

Hitler did not implement any 25 plank nationalist program; in fact, he deliberately went out of his way to not implement any socialist parties and kicked all the socialists that may have existed in the Nazi party, such as Rohm.

He kicked out Rohm because Rohm was openly-homosexual, a no-no in the Nazi party. Hitler supported him at first for awhile.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Hitler had no love of free-enterprise and did not believe the economy should be left to its own devices:

Then why did he deregulate industries? According to "The Nazi Roots of Privatization," Hitler opened up all markets in the Third Reich with the exception of maybe the industrial-military complex, whose production was more geared towards the state.

The author sites Nazi documents, and historians who've actually analyzed the Third Reich, not a "hitler biographer." The work can be found by googling it.

Which source does he say that? I've read George Strasser, a National Socialist theologian, said the following:

It was common for some Nazis to use the word "Socialism" for working class support; no "socialist" policies were ever implemented in Nazi Germany however as workers obviously didn't have control of their own resources.

"Real socialism" would be outright nationalization.

Socialism is not about nationalism; but about internationalism. In the communist manifesto Marx makes this explicitly clear.

There are plenty of other economic sources and books on fascism that would agree with him as well.

Who are the historians who agree that liberalism is fascism?

Not true.

It certain is true:

As an example, in 1933 Hitler introduced workers holidays into Germany (similar to a bank holiday). This was very popular. He then almost immediately banned trade unions which protected workers rights. Any protests over this were banned as a result of the Enabling Act - Hitler did not bargain with anyone.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/mussolini_dictatorship.htm

Mussolini was also favored by the land owners and capitalists:

There is some truth to this. Most landowners, industrialists, and middle-class people saw Mussolini as Italy’s savior because he brought social order and enacted pro-business policies. However, the majority of working-class Italians saw their standard of living drop after the Fascist government gave free rein to businesses, and many remained hostile. So did many Catholics when Mussolini banned many of their organizations. The peasant population, very numerous in this still rural country, was divided: Landowners favored Mussolini, while the landless were indifferent, if not hostile to him, especially after his government halted land reform measures in 1923.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553773_2/mussolini.html

In fascism, unions are curtialed, like they are in capitalism and were in Reaganism as well.

 

[russ_watters]

Interesting exchange, but does anyone else find it ironic to the bizarre extreme that one of the pillars of OP's arguments is the assumption that Hitler was honest?

 

[OrbitalPower]

Time Magazine was ONE source, and I quoted how they saw the Nazi regime back in the 1930s; otherwise, I did not at all quote Mises.org. I listed other books for you to check.



He kicked out Rohm because Rohm was openly-homosexual, a no-no in the Nazi party. Hitler supported him at first for awhile.

All the Socialists were removed during night of the long knives. The other quotes you provided are from people who were mere biographers of Hitler, they were not political scientists or historians concerned with the Third Reich like Shirer.

Again, Hitler and Mussolini themselves were capitalists and corporatists.

Who did Mussolini and Hitler support once they seized state power? In both countries a strikingly similar agenda was pursued. Labor unions and strikes were outlawed, union property and publications were confiscated, farm cooperatives were handed over to rich private owners, big agribusiness farming was heavily subsidized. In both Germany and Italy the already modest wages of the workers were cut drastically; in Germany, from 25-40%; in Italy, 50%. In both countries the minimum wage laws, overtime pay, and factory safety regulations were abolished or turned into dead letters. Taxes were increased for the general populace, but lowered or eliminated for the rich and big business. Inheritance taxes for the wealthy were greatly reduced or abolished. Both Mussolini and Hitler showed their gratitude to their business patrons by handing over to them publicly owned and perfectly solvent steel mills, power plants, banks, steamship companies ("privatization," it's called here). Both regimes dipped heavily into the public treasury to refloat or subsidize heavy industry (corporate welfarism). Both states guaranteed a return on the capital invested by giant corporations and assumed most of the risks and losses on investment. (Sounds like S&Ls, doesn't it?)

--Parenti (political scientist)

Quite clearly, this is closer to Libertarianism and conservative economics than worker controlled factories.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Interesting exchange, but does anyone else find it ironic to the bizarre extreme that one of the pillars of OP's arguments is the assumption that Hitler was honest?

These are Hitler's private conversations and assurances to big business; that's why they're published in books such as "Hitler's Table Talk" and in letters to the leader's of industry.

Wheels 'R' cool and BMV are taking Hitler's propaganda and anti-jewish nonsense and propaganda at face value, which is pretty bad.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Who are the historians who agree that liberalism is fascism?

Well what the term "liberalism" today applies to is not the same as what the term classical liberalism applied to. But look at the Democrats today; some want nationalization of the oil industry, nationalization of healthcare, etc...or large government regulation. The Republicans, albeit being big-spenders, have in general been against this. Jimmy Carter started up a multitude of government agencies. I would suggest reading the books by Milton Friedman, also check the books by Ludwig Mises for better understanding. Also the ones I listed above.

Mussolini was also favored by the land owners and capitalists:

Yes, many businesspeople and middle-class folks did see Mussolini as a savior. Fascism sounded great. But in practice, it worked horribly. I do not understand where that article makes the claim that Mussolini gave "free-rein" to businesses, when multiple other sources say the exact opposite.

But also, look at nations today that allow the free-market to work as a free-market. They are the most prosperous in the world. It wouldn't have made sense for this not to occur in Italy if he did this also.

In fascism, unions are curtialed, like they are in capitalism and were in Reaganism as well.

Well that link also states the following:

"In 1927 he drew up a labor charter that promised workers new rights as well as new responsibilities to the state. Though the Fascist state outlawed strikes, it recognized the right of its official trade unions to bargain collectively and it barred employer lockouts."

So I think it depended on the fascism. I would imagine Mussolini and Hitler viewed it that the State itself would play the role of the unions, looking out for workers.

I will check all the sources you recommend, as the truth is one or the other, or somewhere in-between.

I find some the things you say about fascism very interesting with regards Hitler and Mussolini, because there are multiple books saying the exact opposite, and I doubt either view's authors all just made the stuff up off the top of their head.

 

[BWV]

Wheels 'R' cool and BMV are taking Hitler's propaganda and anti-jewish nonsense and propaganda at face value, which is pretty bad.

So incapable of addressing any of the points made, or for that matter maintaining any sort of rational discussion, you resort to trying to slur me with "taking Hitler's anti-Jewish nonsense at face value"? Where, other than in your pathetic attempt to paint us as Nazis, did the subject of Hitler's anti-semitism come up? (of course anti-capitalism is the stock & trade of the anti-semite, what with global Jewish banking conspiracies and whatnot). Von Mises himself (who I quoted, not Wheels 'R' cool) was an Austrian Jew himself, so spare me your idiotic Nazi-baiting tactics which are a simple a transparant and feeble attempt to cover your mindless sloganeering here

 

[WheelsRCool]

From everything I've read, I would have to say Parenti is wrong. The minimum wages were not undone, nor was regulation. And there is no such thing as a "worker controlled factory," at least in the socialist sense. That is the utopian ideal of the fascists, communists, etc...a factory is either privately-owned by a few owners, or publicly-owned by shareholders. However, certain companies allow workers to own stock in the company, in which case, those companies are literally "owned by the workers" in a sense.

 

[WheelsRCool]

These are Hitler's private conversations and assurances to big business; that's why they're published in books such as "Hitler's Table Talk" and in letters to the leader's of industry.

Wheels 'R' cool and BMV are taking Hitler's propaganda and anti-jewish nonsense and propaganda at face value, which is pretty bad.

Hitler may well have said those things to Big Business, what I am talking about is the actual outcome. When you for the most part de-regulate a market economy, it prospers. Yes, it occasionally needs a few tweaks here and there, but otherwise, it always prospers, as long as the financial system is sound and the rule of law pervades (many Third World nations lack the rule of law or a sound financial system, so capitalism tends to fail in them).

When you heavily regulate business, monopolies and oligopolies form. We have empirical proof for all of this, from different countries, to different industries in the U.S. itself.

As for my name, "WheelsRCool," well it was formed at a car forum, Mr. "OrbitalPower" :)

 

[OrbitalPower]

First of all, I already did address the points.

I provided sources and quotes from political scientists noting Hitler's privatization practices. Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany is a peer-reviewed study, citing dozens of other peer-reviewed studies and books, on Nazi Privatization that is summed up in that Parenti quote about.

Second, his mainstream propaganda was indeed anti-Jewish, and he viewed Marxism and democracy as "Jewish conpsiracies."

I'm not the one buying into Nazi propaganda here, as Russ claims, nor am I the one quoting Von Mises.org blogs and junk scholarship like Hayek who advocated his own version of fascism.

Believing Hitler actually stood for equality, democracy, and socialism, all about the same thing, is akin to believing Bush is fighting for "democracy" in Iraq. Some people are more suspectible to propaganda than others.

And this insinuation that Hitler's public propaganda is to be believed is what's ridiculous. As the Jewish Virtual Library notes:

In an attempt to obtain financial contributions from industrialists, Hitler wrote a pamphlet in 1927 entitled The Road to Resurgence. Only a small number of these pamphlets were printed and they were only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany. The reason that the pamphlet was kept secret was that it contained information that would have upset Hitler's working-class supporters. In the pamphlet Hitler implied that the anti-capitalist measures included in the original twenty-five points of the NSDAP programme would not be implemented if he gained power.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/nsdap.html

Hitler viewed socialism and liberalism as "Jewish conspiracies" and clearly used "socialism" to get a modest amount of support that was needed for him to gain power.

Hitler used propaganda because he saw that it was impossible to gain power by a radical, right-wing revolution:

"If out-voting them takes longer than out-shooting them, at least the result would be guaranteed by their own constitution...Any lawful process is slow...Sooner or later we shall have a majority — and after that, Germany." (Bullock 130)

The Nazi Party 25 point plank was never implemented (Grunfeld, Frederic V. The Hitler File: A Social History of Germany and the Nazis, 112), so to insinuate they were is more von Mises junk scholarship.

Hitler's meaning of the word "socialism" was about nationalism, not worker control: "Hitler's meaning of socialism, therefore did not refer to a specific economic system, but to an instinct for national self-preservation..." Fischer, Klaus P. Nazi Germany: A New History. New York: Continuum, 1995.

This means their use of the term was entirely opposed to the Marxian concept.

Please check out some real sources instead of (1) Hitler propaganda, and (2) a von Mises blog, the Austrians being so crazy even economists can see it.

 

[OrbitalPower]

From everything I've read, I would have to say Parenti is wrong. The minimum wages were not undone, nor was regulation

Parenti is correct here. MSN Encarta, the peer-reviewed study, and so on, all say the same thing.

The only thing you're able to provide is a time magazine article and a bunch of quotes you've obviously lifted from a von Mises blog.

This is like your incident in the gun thread where you lifted quotes from the founders that obviously contained a few manufactured quotes.

Please provide some sources, with page numbers, as I've done above, backing up your arguments. And by sources I do not mean Mises "Human Action" or Hayek's "Road to Serfdom," or a Time Magazine article floating around.

 

[WheelsRCool]

First of all, I already did address the points.

I provided sources and quotes from political scientists noting Hitler's privatization practices. Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany is a peer-reviewed study, citing dozens of other peer-reviewed studies and books, on Nazi Privatization that is summed up in that Parenti quote about.

Privatization doesn't make it capitalist. Privatization is simply one element required for capitalism.

Second, his mainstream propaganda was indeed anti-Jewish, and he viewed Marxism and democracy as "Jewish conpsiracies."

Yes, capitalism too. The Jews were who owned many of the businesses in Germany at the time. This conspiracy still prevails, with people claiming that the Jews secretly "rule the world."

I'm not the one buying into Nazi propaganda here, as Russ claims, nor am I the one quoting Von Mises.org blogs and junk scholarship like Hayek who advocated his own version of fascism.

Hayek won the Nobel Prize in economics. He is hardly a "junk scholar."

Believing Hitler actually stood for equality, democracy, and socialism, all about the same thing, is akin to believing Bush is fighting for "democracy" in Iraq. Some people are more suspectible to propaganda than others.

Hitler never stood for democracy, or socialism. He did not like inequality in classes though.

And this insinuation that Hitler's public propaganda is to be believed is what's ridiculous. As the Jewish Virtual Library notes:



http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/nsdap.html

Hitler viewed socialism and liberalism as "Jewish conspiracies" and clearly used "socialism" to get a modest amount of support that was needed for him to gain power.

He disdained both capitalism and socialism.

Hitler used propaganda because he saw that it was impossible to gain power by a radical, right-wing revolution:

"If out-voting them takes longer than out-shooting them, at least the result would be guaranteed by their own constitution...Any lawful process is slow...Sooner or later we shall have a majority — and after that, Germany." (Bullock 130)

Yes, Hitler craved power. In order to gain power, one must oftentimes create a scapegoat, which Hitler used the Jews for.

BTW, you just quoted from one of the same authors as me in a previous post.

the Austrians being so crazy even economists can see it.

The economics profession, when Hayek wrote "The Road to Serfdom," thought he was crazy. He later won the Nobel Prize in it, as I said. Austrians aren't considered crazy by any means. One cannot deny that big government regulation causes monopolies and oligopolies in industries, and that limited government and free-market capitalism creates great prosperity.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Privatization does make an economy policy capitalist. Privatization means allowing resources to be controlled by corporations who make a profit off of other people's labor.

Capitalism means to make "capital" off of someone else's labor. They are the same thing.

Yes, capitalism can exist under fascism, as it did in Nazi Germany, or it can exist under social democracies, but the overall concepts behind it: acception of inequality, anti-democracy, pro-nation state, and so on, are closer to fascism than to socialism or democracy.

The only thing the Bullock quote shows is that indeed, Hitler supported privitaization. Bullock was a biographer of Hitler, however; he wasn't really trianed to making a political science analysis, which is why he mostly refrained from making them.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Parenti is correct here. MSN Encarta, the peer-reviewed study, and so on, all say the same thing.

Just because it is peer-reviewed does not make it correct.

The only thing you're able to provide is a time magazine article and a bunch of quotes you've obviously lifted from a von Mises blog.

What I have provided are quotes from a variety of book on the subject, one of the authors you yourself just used.

This is like your incident in the gun thread where you lifted quotes from the founders that obviously contained a few manufactured quotes.

Those gun quotes were not manufactured at all. Much was made of them in the Heller Amicus Curiae briefs. You can also find them through Googling.

Please provide some sources, with page numbers, as I've done above, backing up your arguments. And by sources I do not mean Mises "Human Action" or Hayek's "Road to Serfdom," or a Time Magazine article floating around.

Go back and read my previous posts.

 

[OrbitalPower]

As for Hayek, it does not matter he won a Nobel Prize in economics. Economics does not qualify someone to be making any kind of historical or political science analysis, as these social studies are based on classifications, sorting out primary sources, and so on, whereas economics is mostly concerned with profit analysis etc.

Furthermore, the Austrian school is indeed universally rejected, regardless of whether Friedman or Hayek won Nobel Prizes or not.

"I tremble for the reputation of my subject" after reading the "exaggerated claims that used to be made in economics for the power of deduction and a priori reasoning [the Austrian methods]." --Paul Samuelson, quoted on wiki.

The problem with Austrians is that, like Hitler, and unlike other economists, they expected you to believe their assumptions, guesstimates, and "self-proving axioms" at face value, even though other social sciences like archeology oppose them.

In any case, they are not historical sources on the Third Reich.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Just because it is peer-reviewed does not make it correct.

The Parenti article was a summation that was relevant because it summed up a peer-reviewed article I was talking about nicely, his comments were not likely peer-reviewed. However, at least he actually has trained in political science.

Those gun quotes were not manufactured at all. Much was made of them in the Heller Amicus Curiae briefs. You can also find them through Googling.

One of the "quotes" was from Alexander Hamilton, supposedly in the Federalist, supporting gun ownership. The quote you provided does not exist.

If it does, please show where it exists in the Federalist.

Go back and read my previous posts.

They are dubious because they do not back up your overall arguments at all that liberalism is fascism, and so on.

If anything the Bullock quote supports my position.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Privatization does make an economy policy capitalist. Privatization means allowing resources to be controlled by corporations who make a profit off of other people's labor.

That alone isn't capitalist.

Capitalism means to make "capital" off of someone else's labor. They are the same thing.

There are different definitions of it, just as there are different definitions for a "capitalist." A capitalist can be someone who supports the system of free-market capitalism, or simply someone in control of a large amount of capital.

Yes, capitalism can exist under fascism, as it did in Nazi Germany, or it can exist under social democracies, but the overall concepts behind it: acception of inequality, anti-democracy, pro-nation state, and so on, are closer to fascism than to socialism or democracy.

That's impossible. Capitalism can only exist when the price system is allowed to naturally fluctuate, something that was not permitted in Italy or Germany at the time, making it ultimately a form of socialism.

And capitalism has never been about inequality or anti-democracy or pro-nation state. First of all, how do you define "inequality" or "equaliy?" Are you talking about equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

Because in a capitalist system, everyone, for the most part, starts off equally. yes, someone born into a good neighborhood has more benefits than someone born into a ghetto, but overall, they all have an equal opportunity to rise up.

Equality of outcome seeks for an equal outcome, which often means discrimination against the more successful people to make the less success people equal with them.

So be careful how you define terms like equality. Like "social justice," it can mean entirely different things to different people.

The only thing the Bullock quote shows is that indeed, Hitler supported privitaization. Bullock was a biographer of Hitler, however; he wasn't really trianed to making a political science analysis, which is why he mostly refrained from making them.

Political science, history, economics, etc...they all intertwine. One cannot write about one without making inroads somewhat into the others.

 

[BWV]

So here is more on Nazi motivation for controlling the private sector:

Nazi policy was heavily dependent on Hitler decisions. Hitler’s did not make specific
comments on nationalization or denationalization in Mein Kampf. Even if Hitler was an enemy of
free market economies (Overy ,1994, p. 1), he could by no means be considered a sympathizer of
economic socialism or nationalization of private firms (Heiden, 1944, p. 642). The Nazi regime
rejected liberalism, and was strongly against free competition and regulation of the economy by
market mechanisms (Barkai, 1990, p. 10). Still, as a social Darwinist, Hitler was reluctant to totally
dispense with private property and competition (Turner, 1985a, p. 71; Hayes, 1987, p. 71). Hitler’s
solution was to combine autonomy and a large role for private initiative and ownership rights
within firms with the total subjection of property rights outside the firm to state control. As
pointed out in Nathan (1944a, p. 5) “It was a totalitarian system of government control within the
framework of private property and private profit. It maintained private enterprise and provided
profit incentives as spurs to efficient management. But the traditional freedom of the entrepreneur
was narrowly circumscribed.” In other words, there was private initiative in production process,
34 According to Stolper (1940, p. 231), “this program has remained the spiritual foundation of the movement. It is
being taught in every school, referred to in all training courses of all the various units of the party. It constitutes,
together with Mein Kampf by Hitler, the directing force of the intellectual concept and trend of the party”
15
but no private initiative was allowed in the distribution of the product. Owners could freely act
within their firms, but they were extremely restricted in the market.
Given this combination of private ownership within firm and extreme state control outside the
firm, the core question here is whether Hitler was against public property or ideologically
favorable to privatization. On this issue, it is interesting to note two interviews in May and June
1931, in which Hitler explained to Richard Breiting, editor of the Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, his
aims and his plans on condition of confidentiality (Calic, 1971, p. 11). With respect to his position
with regard to private ownership, Hitler explained that “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.” (Calic, 1971,
p. 32-33). Another indication of Hitler’s position on the state ownership of the means of
production is found in Rauschning 35 (1940, pp. 192-3), that reports the following answer by Hitler
when questioned on socialization: “Why bother with such half-measures when I have far more
important matters in hand, such as the people themselves?. . .Why need we trouble to socialize
banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”
It seems clear that neither the Nazi Party nor Hitler had an ideological devotion to private
ownership. 36 In his theoretical work on the relationship between politicians and firms, Shleifer and
Vishny (1994, p. 1,015) have stressed that anti-market governments are compatible with
privatization, as long as they can retain control over the firms through strong regulation. Nazi
privatization in the middle thirties is consistent with Shleifer and Vishny’s proposition 15 (1994, p.
1,021). As suggested in Temin (1991), property ownership was instrumental for Nazis. Hence, it is
not likely that ideological motivations played a relevant role as a rationale for Nazi privatization.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID895247_code373322.pdf?abstractid=895247&mirid=1

 

[OrbitalPower]

Again, you're making "Austrian like" assumptions that the true "price system" can only exist under your form of hierarchical capitalism, even though it exists under all forms of capitalism. And socialism has nothing to do with any price system; no socialist system is built on controlling a price system, but is a different way to control resources.

I suggest you study some of the social science that is antrhopology and realize humans existed far longer without a "price system" than with it.

This ridiculous political line that "my capitalism is the only thing that exists, and everybody else is a socialist" has no merit and is clearly devoid of any intellectual or rational analysis.

 

[BWV]

That alone isn't capitalist.


That's impossible. Capitalism can only exist when the price system is allowed to naturally fluctuate, something that was not permitted in Italy or Germany at the time, making it ultimately a form of socialism.

And, if I may add, the Roosevelt administration attempted to assert government control over the price system with the National Recovery Administration but was thwarted by the supreme court in Schecter Poultry Corp. v. US

 

[OrbitalPower]

LOL. Did you even read the study?

"Even if Hitler was an enemy of
free market economies (Overy ,1994, p. 1), he could by no means be considered a sympathizer ofeconomic socialism or nationalization of private firms (Heiden, 1944, p. 642)."

That study is REJECTING your own von Mises arguments, which is that they were socialist, what that von Mises idiot claimed.

It was a totalitarian system of government control within the
framework of private property and private profit. It maintained private enterprise and provided profit incentives as spurs to efficient management.

If you guys are going to make my arguments for me, I guess I can take a break.


Furthermore, reading the PDF, we have:

It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several Stateowned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party. In the 1930s and 1940s, many academic analyses of Nazi economic policy discussed privatization in Germany (e.g. Poole, 1939; Guillebaud, 1939; Stolper, 1940; Sweezy, 1941; Merlin, 1943; Neumann, 1942, 1944; Nathan, 1944a; Schweitzer, 1946; Lurie,1947).1

Which supports Parenti's argument.

We also have this interesting tidbit:

"The Nazi government may have used privatization as a tool to improve its relationship with big industrialists and to increase their support for Nazi policies. Privatization was also likely used to enhance more general political support to Nazi party. Finally, financial motivations did play a central role in Nazi privatization. The proceeds from privatization in 1934-37 had relevant fiscal significance: Not less than 1.37 per cent of total fiscal revenues were obtained from selling shares in public firms. Moreover, the government avoided including a huge expenditure in the budget by using outside-of-the-budget tools to finance the public services franchised to Nazi organizations."

Which supports the Jewish Virtual Library entry.


Further studies by economists actually show the Nazi regime had less social spending than that of the US.

All of this supports my conclusion that they allowed mostly a free-enterprise system with minor regulations here and there, as has existed under all capitalist systems.

 

[OrbitalPower]

And, if I may add, the Roosevelt administration attempted to assert government control over the price system with the National Recovery Administration but was thwarted by the supreme court in Schecter Poultry Corp. v. US

Which proves absolutely nothing. Hong Kong has implemented price control like schemes and all corporations owe and alligence to the government, and the government regularly intervenes in order to keep prices as high as the cartels want them, and yet, they are regularly regarded as one of the "freest economies" according to the CATO institute.

That does not prove that Roosevelt was basing his policies off of Nazism, especially when Reagan's "corporatism" is a hell of a lot closer to Nazism anyway.

 

[WheelsRCool]

The Hamilton quote is at 184-188.

 

[BWV]

LOL. Did you even read the study?

"Even if Hitler was an enemy of
free market economies (Overy ,1994, p. 1), he could by no means be considered a sympathizer ofeconomic socialism or nationalization of private firms (Heiden, 1944, p. 642)."

That study is REJECTING your own von Mises arguments, which is that they were socialist, what that von Mises idiot claimed.

It was a totalitarian system of government control within the
framework of private property and private profit. It maintained private enterprise and provided profit incentives as spurs to efficient management.



All of this supports my conclusion that they allowed mostly a free-enterprise system with minor regulations here and there, as has existed under all capitalist systems.

No if you read the study it discussed that Privatization was able to raise substantial sums for the government and given the high level of state control over the economy, there was no dimunitition of government power. There is no inconsistency with the Mises article as it made exactly the same statement as to the state control of prices, which I post again here:

The difference between the systems (Naziism and communism) , wrote Mises, is that the German pattern "maintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices, wages, and markets." But in fact the government directs production decisions, curbs entrepreneurship and the labor market, and determines wages and interest rates by central authority. "Market exchange," says Mises, "is only a sham."

However you read it, Mises is saying the same thing as the Germà Bel article on SSRN. Mises states explicity that Nazism "maintains private ownership of the means of production" but controls the economy through the same mechanisms listed in the Bel paper.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Again, you're making "Austrian like" assumptions that the true "price system" can only exist under your form of hierarchical capitalism, even though it exists under all forms of capitalism. And socialism has nothing to do with any price system; no socialist system is built on controlling a price system, but is a different way to control resources.

You are showing a severe lack of understanding of basic economics here. Saying that the price system must regulate resources by itself is not some radical Austrian theory. It is a proven fact. Prices are how information is communicated throughout an economy, socialist or capitalist. But in a capitalist economy, the price system fluctuates itself. In a socialist economy, the price system is centrally controlled, because the central government rations resources.

This is impossible to do. When one price changes, million of other prices must change accordingly. For a central government, that task is impossible. With a capitalist system, the prices fluctuate naturally.

This ridiculous political line that "my capitalism is the only thing that exists, and everybody else is a socialist" has no merit and is clearly devoid of any intellectual or rational analysis.

If the government controls the price system, and thus rations resources, it is a variant of socialism. That is a proven fact. And the government is horrible at rationing resources.

I also do not get how you can consider capitalism "hierichical." Capitalism only has hierachy in individual businesses, but not the economy as a whole. One can work hard and rise up. There is no glass ceiling, like with socialism.