The Nazi's socialist?

[DirtbagLeft]

need to go to bed because I have to get up in a while. I will finish my replies after. The replies that I have already provided answer most of the objections I am seeing however.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

First, and sorry I forgot to do this earlier, welcome to the Sietch! Glad to have a lefty on the board.

You can get to anarchy/minarchy from the right as well. And honestly, I don't have a huge amount of respect for socialist thinkers or writers based on the plentiful economic evidence against socialism, which means I have little interest in moral arguments for something that doesn't make any economic sense, just as palentologists don't buy religious arguments for creationism. I'll listen to economic arguments from them, but I have found almost none that were convincing.

In addition, the distinction between private property and personal property isn't a good one. First, what does that have to do with Nazi Germany? Second, it is a crap distinction that no one cares about or recognizes. It's like monarchists and divine rights of kings. Sure, they can say it exists, but no one else buys into it or the theory behind it, and it only makes sense to people deep in the ideology.

I couldn't resist responding to this though. There is a free book out there I can provide both the PDF and or audiobook called Market's not Capitalism. It's a series of essays which argue for Market socialism. It's a good introduction. I would be extremely interested in the books you have read on socialist economics. A good primer that you might want to consider reading beyond that is "Market Socialism the debate among socialists"

FYI
I come from an Austrian Economics background

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

If you read the Hitler's incoherent word salat aka Mein Kampf, you will notice that he claimed that true social revolution was only possible once the Germany achieved autarky, which in turn was only possible once Germany controled the Lebensraum, since as long as they had to be a part of international trade network, they had to play by capitalist rules. Thus the Nazi state as we know it wasn't the end state of national socialist revolution, but intermediate period, before true socialism (presumably state socialism) was to be implemented, so yes they were socialists, on a murderous path to their socialist paradise.

More or less crudely cribbed from his best buddy il Douche, who argued that the only way to make a "real" socialist utopia was to first tear down the capitalist system entirely and reconstruct it as an autocracy.

ANTIFAIL: Benito Reborn
The Socialism of National Socialism - A Rant

 

[almostinsane]

I disagree with this. FIrst, any practical definition of socialism ought to include China under Mao, the USSR, Cuba, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, and North Korea. If your definition does not consider these to be socialist, then the definition fails. Some of these countries were statist as well, notably North Korea and the Khmer Rouge.

I second this. If socialism is to be absolved of these states' failures, then socialism has never existed, nor will it ever exist.

 

[PsihoKekec]

I have read both Mein Kampf and Hitlers table talks as well as his debate with Strasser in which he said "Your socialism is Marxism pure and simple. You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings. " he went on to say "Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that."
When asked about what he would do with the major powerful and oppressive steel firm at the time Hitler answered "Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy? The state will only intervene if people do not act in the interest of the nation. There is no need for dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The state will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior motives, without regards to particular interests. "

Hitlers true political leanings were fascist in nature "Fascism offers us a model that we can absolutely replicate! As it is in the case of Fascism, the entrepreneurs and the workers of our National Socialist state sit side by side, equal in rights, the state strongly intervenes in the case of conflict to impose its decision and end economic disputes that put the life of the nation in danger." He cared nothing for the worker and everything for the nation.

But lets look at Hitlers definition of socialism so we can see how that word is to be understood within Nazi "Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of the nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, “Deutschland ueber Alles,” to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land — that man is a Socialist."
"Deutschland ueber Alles" does not translate well into English as while we can literally translate the words as "Germany over all" this does a disservice to the meaning and intent of the phrase. If you are familiar at all with the problems of translating one language into another then you are aware that various words and phrases (particularly phrases) can be stronger or weaker than the translated version in their original language. The phrase is better understood as "Germany the master of the world".

So according to Hitler he believed that anyone who believed that Germany should dominate the world was a socialist.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
An important point about this definition of socialism is that socialism is not equivalent to, and is arguably in conflict with, statism. (i*) involves expansion of social power—power based on the capacity to mobilize voluntary cooperation and collective action—as distinct from state power—power based on the control of rule-making and rule enforcing over a territory—as well of economic power—power based on the control of material resources (Wright 2010). If a state controls the economy but is not in turn democratically controlled by the individuals engaged in economic life, what we have is some form of statism, not socialism.

To cherry pick a definition of socialism that is rejected by every socialist thinker is fallacious in the extreme. To define socialism by the definition of an individual who's definition reflects in no way even slightly any prior understanding of that term verges on the dishonest.

Allow me to make your argument absolutely clear.
Your argument is that the Democratic Republic of Congo is a democratic republic because their leaders define it into being a democratic republic.

That is neither how definitions work nor is it how political science works.

And how do those Hitler's words in any way deny what I wrote? He was unwilling to commit to full revolution before autarky was achieved and industrialist had a place in his new order.

An important point about this definition of socialism is that socialism is not equivalent to, and is arguably in conflict with, statism. (i*) involves expansion of social power—power based on the capacity to mobilize voluntary cooperation and collective action—as distinct from state power—power based on the control of rule-making and rule enforcing over a territory—as well of economic power—power based on the control of material resources (Wright 2010). If a state controls the economy but is not in turn democratically controlled by the individuals engaged in economic life, what we have is some form of statism, not socialism.

That's a nice piece of ivory tower theorycrafting, but it doesn't have a slightest interaction with the real world. Every time socialism was tried on large scale it turned into authoritarian state socialism, because that is it's natural outcome.

 

[Abhorsen]

I couldn't resist responding to this though. There is a free book out there I can provide both the PDF and or audiobook called Market's not Capitalism. It's a series of essays which argue for Market socialism. It's a good introduction. I would be extremely interested in the books you have read on socialist economics. A good primer that you might want to consider reading beyond that is "Market Socialism the debate among socialists"

FYI
I come from an Austrian Economics background

I haven't read a lot of socialist economics, but I have listened to people argue for it, and I've generally disagreed with their arguments. One of the chief ways in which I differ is that I value efficency much more than equity, because I generally don't see a huge problem with income inequality. IMO, the problem is people being absolutely poor, not relatively poor. But this seems like a conversation for another thread. Any chance you plan on sticking around past this debate/thread?

Meanwhile, that book is interesting. I'm having fun reading it. I disagree with some of it (the labor theory of value is hilarious), but one question: if they get their freed markets, why do they think that will result in socialism? (Haven't finished yet, but it doesn't seem likely to me).

Further the reason socialists say that most examples of governments which people claim as examples of "socialism gone amuck" are not socialists. Is exactly because the workers do not own the means of production. You are correct however that I should have added one other thing to my definition. Socialism is also democratic. The form of democracy (just like in modern democracy) varies but every socialist system requires democracy (see workers co-ops).

Socialism includes state socialism. If you deny that, this conversation just cannot continue. The argument for it, using socialist terms, is that the people own the state, and the state owns the means of production. Since socialism is an economic system, it doesn't need democracy either, any more than capitalism does.

 

[ShieldWife]

I think that making a big about whether or not Nazis are technically socialists is silly and ultimately comes from Godwin style thinking.

Though there is no point in having the discussion if you refuse to call any nation socialist. If the USSR isn’t true socialism, if North Korea, the People’s Republic of China, and Cuba aren’t examples of real socialism in action, then you’re not going to think that National Socialist Germany is socialism either.

If we are to discuss whether or not Hitler’s Germany was socialist, we need to use a definition of socialism that includes Stalin’s USSR otherwise it’s just a semantics game.

EDIT - oops, I should have read the thread more thoroughly before posting. Abhorsen said almost exactly the same thing yesterday 😳

 

[Abhorsen]

I think that making a big about whether or not Nazis are technically socialists is silly and ultimately comes from Godwin style thinking.

Though there is no point in having the discussion if you refuse to call any nation socialist. If the USSR isn’t true socialism, if North Korea, the People’s Republic of China, and Cuba aren’t examples of real socialism in action, then you’re not going to think that National Socialist Germany is socialism either.

If we are to discuss whether or not Hitler’s Germany was socialist, we need to use a definition of socialism that includes Stalin’s USSR otherwise it’s just a semantics game.

EDIT - oops, I should have read the thread more thoroughly before posting. Abhorsen said almost exactly the same thing yesterday 😳

I think this is the second time we have done this! Great minds think alike.

 

[Doomsought]

Part of the problem is reconcilign what NAZIs and other socialists say they are and will do, with what they actually do. These things are in many places different.

One line that comes to mind is "Fascism is just honest socialism", they at least admit they are hypocrites with no principles, even if they still glorify it under the guise of pragmatism.

 

[LordsFire]

@DirtbagLeft

Socialism's validity or invalidity is dependent on a number of underlying philosophical presuppositions. I'm not terribly interested in trying to argue about the consequences of those assumed principles fruitlessly, it's far more productive to argue about them directly.

So, a few questions:
1: Do you subscribe to the labor theory of value?
2: What do you believe about the basic moral nature of man? Is he naturally good, naturally bad, somewhere in between? Why do you believe this?
3: What do you believe is 'the means of production?'

 

[DirtbagLeft]

I second this. If socialism is to be absolved of these states' failures, then socialism has never existed nor will ever exist.

This is actually so stupid as to make my head hurt. Are you aware of history at all? This is exactly the argument which monarchists made against democracy and republicanism. This take is exactly why I despise reactionaries. Anarcho-Syndicalist Spain was an anarcho-socialist government.
The argument you just made is literally "The french revolution failed therefore enlightenment values failed." and "Because the US failed at implementing enlightenment values democracy failed."
Your statement wasn't even an argument. It was a brain dead assertion. If you are going to engage then actually engage and do not resort to willfully ignorant reactionary talking points.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

Not to mention the idea that they weren't socialists because they purged other socialist movements is ludicrous when you look at the history of other countries that had socialist dictatorships.

Do you or do you not understand the difference between a set of values and failure to execute those values? Yes or no. Direct questions require direct responses.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

I think that making a big about whether or not Nazis are technically socialists is silly and ultimately comes from Godwin style thinking.

Though there is no point in having the discussion if you refuse to call any nation socialist. If the USSR isn’t true socialism, if North Korea, the People’s Republic of China, and Cuba aren’t examples of real socialism in action, then you’re not going to think that National Socialist Germany is socialism either.

If we are to discuss whether or not Hitler’s Germany was socialist, we need to use a definition of socialism that includes Stalin’s USSR otherwise it’s just a semantics game.

EDIT - oops, I should have read the thread more thoroughly before posting. Abhorsen said almost exactly the same thing yesterday 😳

A problem that I am having repeatedly is an in ability for others to engage the argument due to an over fascination and fixation on a term. This is made even more problematic by the general historical ignorance which seems to be evident in nearly every single reply. I have a continually growing frustration with peoples in ability to carry out a simple request. There is one of me and many of you. Identifying which premise you are objecting to is not only polite but also keeps us on topic and helps me (one person) keep track of exactly who is replying to what.

Frustration vented moving on.

I will allow you to figure out which premise your objection falls under. It's my hope that you will name it. After I am caught up I will simply point out that whoever I am talking to has failed to name the premise. (okay so frustration is not entirely gone). To address what you said however. If I could provide quotes from the leadership of the regimes you listed in which they explicitly admit that they are not either socialist or communist would you accept that those states were not socialist states?

 

[Abhorsen]

I will allow you to figure out which premise your objection falls under. It's my hope that you will name it. After I am caught up I will simply point out that whoever I am talking to has failed to name the premise. (okay so frustration is not entirely gone). To address what you said however. If I could provide quotes from the leadership of the regimes you listed in which they explicitly admit that they are not either socialist or communist would you accept that those states were not socialist states?

It doesn't matter what leaders say, it matters what they do. For the same reason that Communist Party of China is not communist anymore, but they still claim to be.

And what those countries do is collectivize production and economics (in this case, thru means of the state). That's the fundamental basis of socialism, which makes these socialist countries. In contrast, Capitalism is about individual efforts being rewarded and entrepreneurship, all based around the consensual exchange of goods.

Ultimately, even that book you rec'd to me admitted that socialism included state-socialism. That book is an enjoyable read, btw, even if I disagree with parts of it. Market socialism (from what I've read so far) seems to be free(d) market capitalism with some occasional bad economics added on top (e.g. labor theory of value). I'm not all the way thru, and it still seems like capitalism to me.

 

[FriedCFour]

This is actually so stupid as to make my head hurt. Are you aware of history at all? This is exactly the argument which monarchists made against democracy and republicanism. This take is exactly why I despise reactionaries. Anarcho-Syndicalist Spain was an anarcho-socialist government.
The argument you just made is literally "The french revolution failed therefore enlightenment values failed." and "Because the US failed at implementing enlightenment values democracy failed."
Your statement wasn't even an argument. It was a brain dead assertion. If you are going to engage then actually engage and do not resort to willfully ignorant reactionary talking points.

The difference with that is that we have functional examples of successful implementation of enlightenment values and democracy. We do not have a single successful implementation of a non-statist socialist government that has survived even a few years. You are left with either socialism is statist or socialism cannot actually exist with human beings. It’s a utopian concept that never can actually succeed to even win a revolution let alone make a functional society.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

I am not going to lie of everyone here I probably have the highest opinion of you at the moment. You are thus far the only reason why I am prone to believe that this forum is not full of nothing but reactionaries. Thank you.

I really reject premise 4, but it argues in your favor.

If major businesses are all (or almost all) entirely owned by the state, that's state socialism.

The thing that separates State Capitalism from state socialism is that entrepreneurship and major private businesses are allowed, and sometimes encouraged. Basically, can businessmen get rich?

This is a distinction without a difference as historically speaking the "political class" and the "business class" have always intermarried and intermingled their interests and to provide mutually supporting legitimacy to one another. The defining characteristic of both terms is "The leveraging of wealth and political power together by an oligarchy". To argue that it matters what the titles of the oligarchs are is to loose the forest for the trees.

What makes State Capitalism STATE capitalism, and not regular capitalism, is that the major companies created are ultimately, forcefully, suborned to the state. Modern examples include China using its internet companies to spy/censor on its populace, China using Huawei to spy on foreign countries, partial state ownership, etc. In contrast, in America, most major businesses aren't directly advancing American Governmental goals, outside of being economically profitable. The ones that are mostly treat America as a customer. There have been exceptions (AT&T datacenter linked up to the NSA), but those are exceptions.

My head hurts but you are acting in good faith so allow me to counter. Two words. Banana Republic. The origin of this term is interesting and illustrative. Let us grant that everything you said about corporation in the United States not spying on the citizens of he US for the state as true (It is not but lets grant that).
The US corporations have a long and bloody history of taking over foreign countries both politically and economically. A practice which continues even to today. The United States has a long and bloody history of intervening in the exploited countries when the people in that country revolt against ruthless and bloody dictatorships propped up by US corporations which do nothing to protect the people against brutal and inhumane working conditions. Two more words for you. China iphone. In return these corporations at the behest of the US influence said countries in subtle ways that favor the US (see military bases for one example).
Now to directly counter the claim which I granted previously allow me to point you to the EFF NSA Spying

Oddly, many countries were state capitalists during WW2, as they needed to mobilize for total war. Notably in America, the Wartime Production Board was in charge of this.

So Let's look at Nazi Germany. Yes, they have socialist in the name, but that doesn't matter. They privatized a lot of stuff, but the privatization came with strings that gave Germany more control over the economy.


As for this, it's not a good point. Commies kill commies all the time. Notably the Bolsheviks killed off a number of competing ideologies, including Trots and Mensheviks.

As for this, it's not a good point. Christians kill Christians all the time. Notably the protestants killed off a number of competing theologies, including martianites and zwinglinas... Do I really need to list them all? As this is something that continues even to today. We just tend to ignore it because it doesn't happen in first world countries that much anymore.

As for this, it's not a good point. Republicans kill republicans all the time. Notably the Bolsheviks killed off a number of competing ideologies, including Jacobins and Cordeliers.

As for this, it's not a good point. [insert] kill [insert] all the time. Notably the Bolsheviks killed off a number of competing ideologies, including [insert] and [insert].

All A are B
All B are not all A

To equate communism to all socialism is not only wrong but fallacious. I suspect however that the error goes much deeper than that. Would I be incorrect in assuming that you hold all communism to be Marxist communism? If so Marxism is only one of a number of variant communisms. And even within Marxism there are still further variants. Within that you have schools which were inspired by Marxism but are so different as to be unrecognizable as Marxist. Marxist-Leninist's for example.

If you think this is a problem unique to Socialism it's not. Early republicanism which predates the enlightenment by about 300 years was just as fractious bloody and brutal. What we teach in schools is an oversimplified clean narrative of what actually happened. Some of the groups which identified as republican during this time are not historically classified as republican because while they had the name their execution was contrary to the definition of republican.

All of this is to say that taxonomy is difficult, political and sociological taxonomy is more so. You begin with a general term that encompasses very broad principles and drill down from there adding modifiers as necessary. For example while the US is broadly speaking a republic we are a different kind of republic than the other republics. The US is specifically a Jeffersonian republic.

I haven't read a lot of socialist economics, but I have listened to people argue for it, and I've generally disagreed with their arguments. One of the chief ways in which I differ is that I value efficency much more than equity, because I generally don't see a huge problem with income inequality. IMO, the problem is people being absolutely poor, not relatively poor. But this seems like a conversation for another thread. Any chance you plan on sticking around past this debate/thread?

Which book are you reading I gave two. If you are referring to Markets not socialism something to keep in mind is that you are reading hundred year old essay's that is intended as a historical overview not modern thought. I ask that you be fair and consider that there has been much development since then.
The answer is yes I do plan on sticking around. You are correct that is a conversation for another thread. It is one I am willing to have with you but nuance. Something you will need to keep in mind is that what you mean by "income inequality" is not the same as what a socialist means by "income inequality". That was honestly one of the biggest hurdles when I transitioned from AnCap to AnSoc.

Meanwhile, that book is interesting. I'm having fun reading it. I disagree with some of it (the labor theory of value is hilarious), but one question: if they get their freed markets, why do they think that will result in socialism? (Haven't finished yet, but it doesn't seem likely to me).

This goes back to the other conversation we might end up having. In large part because they are assuming egoism and rational self interest.

Socialism includes state socialism. If you deny that, this conversation just cannot continue. The argument for it, using socialist terms, is that the people own the state, and the state owns the means of production. Since socialism is an economic system, it doesn't need democracy either, any more than capitalism does.

A) Give me a base definition for socialism. Not an example of socialism but a base definition.
B) By the definition of state socialism you provided Anarcho-Syndicalism and Soviet Russia would both be forms of State socialism. Anarcho-Syndicalism is a government but not a state. Not even the most rabid tankie would accept the equivocation between the two.

The issue here.
The issue and one I keep seeing is that there seems to be a general lack of understanding between different types of critiques and how and when they should be used. This in addition to a failure to provide a definition makes this conversation difficult to say the least. If you do not like my definition of socialism I can accept that and am willing to discuss and even give way if you present a better definition. Be aware I will reject out of hand definition by example. What I am after are the principles which make something socialist or not socialist.

Granting the most charitable interpenetration of what you said.
"The people own the state" Okay lets grant that. What does that ownership look like? A dictator saying "it will be this way" or a sort of share holders meeting (democracy). If it is a dictator who can never be removed from power except through death how exactly do the people have any ownership?
"and the state owns the means of production" So I can kinda sorta if I twist really hard agree with this statement. The only way I can do so however is to completely re-define the term state. Disregarding that the term "state" does not mean today what it used to mean in the past allow me to rephrase.
"The people own the government, and the government owns the means of production"
Rephrasing from there to make it more clear
"The people own the means of social organization, and the people being the means of social organization the social organization own the means of production."
What I have done here is to replace the term with the definition of the term. This is why I need a definition. I am going to admit upfront that what I am doing is setting a trap for you. I will do an internal critique by doing a reductio of your argument by not using the term but rather by using your definition in place of the term. It is a very very nasty trick and extremely effective in exposing both bias and faulty arguments.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

And how do those Hitler's words in any way deny what I wrote? He was unwilling to commit to full revolution before autarky was achieved and industrialist had a place in his new order.


That's a nice piece of ivory tower theorycrafting, but it doesn't have a slightest interaction with the real world. Every time socialism was tried on large scale it turned into authoritarian state socialism, because that is it's natural outcome.

Alright I am not going to engage with bad faith actors. Provide a definition of socialism. A definition not an example. Until you do so I will no longer reply to you other than to continually ask you for a definition.

 

[Duke Nukem]

i don't know if the Nazis were truly socialist, but they were definitely fascist.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

The difference with that is that we have functional examples of successful implementation of enlightenment values and democracy. We do not have a single successful implementation of a non-statist socialist government that has survived even a few years. You are left with either socialism is statist or socialism cannot actually exist with human beings. It’s a utopian concept that never can actually succeed to even win a revolution let alone make a functional society.

And why do we have functional examples of successful implementation of enlightenment values? And further how long did it take before we had our first successful implementation vs when was the first implementation tried. Seriously does no one on this forum read history? I swear it's like you all believe democracies and republics came fully birthed like Athena from Zeus. No it took a long time with lots of blood and lots of failures and lots of external sabotage. Even then just taking the US as an example the US didn't begin to achieve anything near enlightenment values until the last century.

 

[Zachowon]

@DirtbagLeft I am the one that brought you here, nice to see ya. Please do stay and have more conversations here, we could use someone who is willing to talk reasonably and defend thier side.

Reading through this I have noticed you consider North Korea not to be a true socialist state. Which, as someone who currently has ti know a lot about them, is not true.

They are one if the few fully state socialist countries left. The North Koreans have the workers run the economy, and the workers being that leader, and everything is run fully by the government there. Everything. There is nothing there that isnt fun by the people. Every buisness is run by the government. There is no private businesses, no private anything. Everything is own by the government. Which I can understand does go against socialism as the workers do not own anything. To the government though, they consider themselves the working party, which is the final form of Socalism, when the state owns it all