Message from @Bookworm
Discord ID: 504786378199007262
they didn't control the economy, that's the thing
If someone can walk in and tell you exactly how to run your business, take it from you, determine imports and exports, you don't actually own it
they tried to privatise as much as possible and leave businesses to their own devices unless it helped the military
governments and businesses cooperating is a constant reality under capitalism
>they tried to privatize as much as possible
Not under the 4 year plan
The German governments goal was rearmament at any cost
And the government appropriating your shit and controlling imports and exports directly, controlling the largest industries etc is not private ownership
so much for the tolerant left
do you have an any article or source that goes into detail for the 4-year plan? the wiki page doesn't explain how much influence the government had over the economy, it just vaguely mentions "increasing nationalisation"
my understanding remains that the nazis only steered the economy as much as necessary for their war efforts, preferring to privatise
if it turns out that they completely seized the economy for the plan, then i'd be surprised but concede the point that they weren't capitalist for those 4 years (out of the 11 years they were in power)
you also keep bringing up imports and exports, as if those are *ever* unregulated in capitalist countries
the state worked with businesses to eliminate competition, that's not unusual
the mises article is blatant propaganda, claiming that *any* government interference, even mild spending for job creation, would inevitably lead to socialism. it also called the nazi's economic policy effectively keynesian, despite keynesian economics being the standard in most developed nations, without leading to socialism (and the nazis privatising a hell of a lot more than keynesianism would support)
the historylearningsite article is very interesting, although it makes no mention of nationalisation or socialism
now, the final link is what satisfies me the most. it mentions the specific industries that the state controlled (mining and arms industry, anything directly related to rearmament), and describes how the government cooperated with businesses like IG Farben (my university's namesake)
sup with the bombs?
It claims that interference leads to more interference, and it does. Further, one mode of fascist thought was effectively akin to fattening up a pig before eating it- wherein you bolster the private market before turning around and effectively harvesting it
lol
first time i've heard of that description of fascist economics lol
but that would sound neither capitalist nor socialist imo
and afaic it's not government interference in the economy that makes further interference necessary, but the existence of an economy in the first place
an economy can only exist with state enforcement. there cannot be an economy without government interference, it's simply a matter of whom the interference favours, and how much
As described ideally, Nazis would look at current American oversight in its economy and say "Eh, close enough."
They would ideally want more oversight, but its workable.
Socialism is just a transitionary state between capitalism and communism in which a dictatorship assumes control of the market "on behalf of the people" ultimately
But there's also a school of thought that holds socialism as the end goal
the US likes the private sector, and mostly focuses on military, so maaaybe the nazis would nod with approval
but they also wanted total war, which the US hasn't had in a while afaik @Bookworm
I'm just saying, we have the biggest, best funded military in the world.
Kind of criminal we haven't expanded our borders in half a century.
marxists see socialism (dictatorship of the proletariat) as a transition to communism (stateless, moneyless, classless society), aye
Right, so what makes that different from a fascist end state that controls the economy centrally?
where would you expand? Mexico or Canada? Eastern Russia? some more impoverished islands? @Bookworm
It's done for the glory of the nation, or for the volk
Africa. Almost no international oversight, rich natural resources, resistance would be almost nonexistent.
spicy
@Beemann socialism in the marxist sense has no private ownership of the means of production
in other words, no private business, no private property, only personal and state property
that's completely opposed to the nazi's pursuit of privatisation
USSR had private property and wages
The point is to transition
that's why they called themselves state capitalist
The USSR called themselves socialist
why you stick to terms they used to describe them selfs?
instead of focusing in reality what it was and how things worked?
they wanted to transition to socialism through a short state capitalist period
they called themselves communist, *ideologically*, but that doesn't reflect what their state looked like