What is Socialism?

[bojan]

2 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

...Don't know much about period conditions in the Balkans...

Basically most farming was just for survival (plots of lands were too small, as Turks previously have not allowed peasants to own land plots larger than what was barely enough to survive) and joining in those co-ops enabled farmers to actually raise above that point and produce reliable surplus that could be traded.

Edited February 4, 2023 by bojan

[rmgill]

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Because self evidently you cant use it as an article AGAINST socialism, when its well heeled, self obsessed twats running the council are not Socialist. 
 

The people who end up running socialism are usually never good socialists. The power it affords them selects against that. 

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I wasnt DEFENDING Socialism. Im saying that if the free market doesnt take note of the poorest members of society, at least throw them a bone, you inevitably GET Socialism.

And the inevitable socialism leads to inevitable, greater corruption. 

[lucklucky]

1 hour ago, BansheeOne said:

No, I'm trying to establish what socialism means in National Socialism, and arguing that in the ideology of the NSDAP in power, not much is left to explain it; and further, that there is no difference between the "National" and "socialism" parts. Again, let's pull out the party's chief ideologist Alfred Rosenberg: The Party Platform. Nature, Principles and Goals of the NSDAP (25th edition, 1943). Improved Google translation.

Out of the whole screed, we get very little about what socialism means; it is rather literally stated to mean community spirit, and also the state supervising all the means its members need, but "no handouts". We get a lot of other things it's not, too: Not Marxism, which is only a Jewish distraction maneuver to have the exploited masses fight each other; not class struggle, as the intellectual worker is worth just as much as the manual laborer; not necessarily anti-capitalism either, unless it's the "mobile" trans-national (read: Jewish) capital that doesn't create, only destroy, and accumulates without productive effort of its owners (in Nazi parlance, the distinction between schaffendes und raffendes Kapital).

The book goes on to explain the 25 points of the NSDAPs "unchangeable" 1920 platform, which indeed include some which could be called socialist demands:

In the event, this turned out to be not so unchangeable; in 1928, Hitler had a footnote added to 17. declaring that contrary to claims of political enemies, the NSDAP was firmly standing on the principle of private property, and free expropriation of land referred only to such acquired illegitimately in he first place, particularly by Jewish speculators ... you get the overall drift. Hitler unilaterally reneged on Point 3 demanding new German colonies, substituting "living space in the East" in "Mein Kampf", too. Rosenberg is also busy explaining the "real" meaning of 14. and 15., "but fundamentally they say: ..."

Not adhering to the program for the sake of endearing the party to industrialists and their donations was the major reason for the Strasserists leaving the party after the Strasser brothers lost the power struggle with Hitler, and he managed to pull people like Goebbels over to him; Gregor Strasser was of course killed in the 1934 Night of the Long Knives. Afterwards, Hitler is the sole source of Nazi policy under the Führer principle, and socialism is whatever he says. The thing is, he doesn't say much about it, if anything.

There are a reason it is called NaZi National Socialism Party is not  ZoNa Socialism Nationalist Party but you make it as if Socialism was eviscerated with Strasser out and it was not. Programs like Volkwagen are socialist in nature. The workers compensation, support, control.  The economy dirigisme and price controls. it was all for the State.

Edited February 4, 2023 by lucklucky

[BansheeOne]

You can argue that, but I think you're saying "this is socialism because it's what socialists do". From a Marxist point of view, a state/party organization establishing a car manufacturing company would probably come under "socialization of the means of production". But National Socialism rejects Marxism, and what I'm saying is that its own concept of socialism is vague and not really filled with content other than "eliminate the Jews, and divisions in society go away". 

The best we get from Rosenberg is "the state supervising all that all its members need"; in this case presumably cars and workplaces. The 25 points say that every citizen has the duty to work productively, so the state providing the means for it is logical. But the Nazis don't go around and nationalize other carmakers, or any other businesses. So applying a left-wing view and saying "it's what I would do as a socialist" doesn't help us to explain the S in NSDAP.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I for one would love to know why so many German businessmen were completely conned and invested in a Socialist Regime. Kind of like Turkeys voting for Christmas I would have thought.

I admire your efforts to try and discuss the subject honestly Banshee, but let's face it, on tanknet its always doomed to end with 'NAZIS ARE COMMUNISTS!!!!'

 

[BansheeOne]

Jeez, I'm glad someone even reads enough of this thread to disagree with the actual points I'm making rather than just seeing the thread title and jumping in with a canned reply and zero intellectual effort.

[Stuart Galbraith]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_(book)

There is no private property on Utopia, with goods being stored in warehouses and people requesting what they need. There are also no locks on the doors of the houses, and the houses are rotated between the citizens every ten years. Agriculture provides the most important occupation on the island. Every person is taught it and must live in the countryside, farming for two years at a time, with women doing the same work as men. Parallelly, every citizen must learn at least one of the other essential trades: weaving (mainly done by the women), carpentry, metalsmithing and masonry. There is deliberate simplicity about the trades; for instance, all people wear the same types of simple clothes, and there are no dressmakers making fine apparel. All able-bodied citizens must work; thus, unemployment is eradicated, and the length of the working day can be minimized: the people have to work only six hours a day although many willingly work for longer. More does allow scholars in his society to become the ruling officials or priests, people picked during their primary education for their ability to learn. All other citizens, however, are encouraged to apply themselves to learning in their leisure time.

That's a description of Sir Thomas Mores Utopia. Socialism before there was a name?

[Sardaukar]

Sometimes it's amusing that people call certain system "capitalism", since even socialism needs capital to run.

My history teacher corrected me quite sternly when I made that mistake, pointing out that correct term was "market economy". 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well I'm the local Commie thug, so you will just have to forgive me.

 

[Sardaukar]

13 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well I'm the local Commie thug, so you will just have to forgive me.

 

I was called worse by people from BOTH ends of political spectrum...

[lucklucky]

40 minutes ago, BansheeOne said:

You can argue that, but I think you're saying "this is socialism because it's what socialists do". From a Marxist point of view, a state/party organization establishing a car manufacturing company would probably come under "socialization of the means of production". But National Socialism rejects Marxism, and what I'm saying is that its own concept of socialism is vague and not really filled with content other than "eliminate the Jews, and divisions in society go away". 

The best we get from Rosenberg is "the state supervising all that all its members need"; in this case presumably cars and workplaces. The 25 points say that every citizen has the duty to work productively, so the state providing the means for it is logical. But the Nazis don't go around and nationalize other carmakers, or any other businesses. So applying a left-wing view and saying "it's what I would do as a socialist" doesn't help us to explain the S in NSDAP.

 

It is strange you are  picky taking a literal view of Nazis rejecting Marxism = so they are no Socialists.  Like if Socialism can only exist with all Marxist "bells and whistles". Ironically you seem to adopt a Marxist position that everyone that is not  like them is part of the bourgeoise.

"The 25 points say that every citizen has the duty to work productively, so the state providing the means for it is logical."

Why you wave away the socialist programs of Nazis under the tag "logical"?  Many on the right also think that every capable citizen should be productive and idleness is strongly criticized by Church.

Italian Fascist also rejected Marxism as solution but not as a valid descriptor of several world issues and to moderate Class Struggle came up with Corporatism. When the got rid of Monarchy(or Monarchy got rid of them) trying the Socialization of Economy where the workers had to be part of company owners they worked for. To just talk about one of the aspects. 

Finally It is not only Marxism that defines Socialism. Proudhon and many others also made their theoretical inputs.

 

 

[Rick]

1 hour ago, BansheeOne said:

Jeez, I'm glad someone even reads enough of this thread to disagree with the actual points I'm making rather than just seeing the thread title and jumping in with a canned reply and zero intellectual effort.

"As it has been noted sometimes, at that point "socialism" was a bit of a catch-all term for overcoming monarchism on both the Left and Right; in the 20s, German sociologist Werner Sombart collected no less than 260 definitions of it."

Well good sir, I think this Grate Site has gotten close to the 260 number. As I mumbled earlier, defining the term Socialism depends on who you ask, especially in Europe. In U.S. not so much.  

[Rick]

I am glad you brought the topic up as it expands my knowledge of Europe. 

Thank you.

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

 The 25 points say that every citizen has the duty to work productively, so the state providing the means for it is logical. But the Nazis don't go around and nationalize other carmakers, or any other businesses. So applying a left-wing view and saying "it's what I would do as a socialist" doesn't help us to explain the S in NSDAP.

The NSDAP let businesses stay in the owners hands so long as they behaved and did as they were told. If they did not, then well they were corrected. 
 

 

They at least had a better sense to not kill businesses unnecessarily.  Look at Venezuela currently. They decide a different industry has sunned, nationalize them and then wonder why productivity falls after the factory ceases to function with all the competent people jailed or fled from the country. 
 

Some companies were taken over. One that comes to mind is Fokker. 

Edited February 4, 2023 by rmgill

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well I'm the local Commie thug, so you will just have to forgive me.

 

Naah. 'Bolshie anorak' would be more appropriate. 

[Murph]

Nah Stuart, Left wing Brit works just fine.  You did not attend Cambridge after all....

[seahawk]

13 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

You can argue that, but I think you're saying "this is socialism because it's what socialists do". From a Marxist point of view, a state/party organization establishing a car manufacturing company would probably come under "socialization of the means of production". But National Socialism rejects Marxism, and what I'm saying is that its own concept of socialism is vague and not really filled with content other than "eliminate the Jews, and divisions in society go away". 

The best we get from Rosenberg is "the state supervising all that all its members need"; in this case presumably cars and workplaces. The 25 points say that every citizen has the duty to work productively, so the state providing the means for it is logical. But the Nazis don't go around and nationalize other carmakers, or any other businesses. So applying a left-wing view and saying "it's what I would do as a socialist" doesn't help us to explain the S in NSDAP.

Fascism was an answer to Marxism. It takes basic socialist ideas but replaces the idea of the class struggle with the concept of a struggle between nations. Both were in conflict with the established systems of economy and government in the 19th and early 20th century in most European countries, especially the monarchies. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

9 hours ago, Murph said:

Nah Stuart, Left wing Brit works just fine.  You did not attend Cambridge after all....

No, but I went to Oxford a couple of times. But not long enough to become indoctrinated.

 

[BansheeOne]

13 hours ago, lucklucky said:

It is strange you are  picky taking a literal view of Nazis rejecting Marxism = so they are no Socialists.  Like if Socialism can only exist with all Marxist "bells and whistles". Ironically you seem to adopt a Marxist position that everyone that is not  like them is part of the bourgeoise.

"The 25 points say that every citizen has the duty to work productively, so the state providing the means for it is logical."

Why you wave away the socialist programs of Nazis under the tag "logical"?  Many on the right also think that every capable citizen should be productive and idleness is strongly criticized by Church.

Italian Fascist also rejected Marxism as solution but not as a valid descriptor of several world issues and to moderate Class Struggle came up with Corporatism. When the got rid of Monarchy(or Monarchy got rid of them) trying the Socialization of Economy where the workers had to be part of company owners they worked for. To just talk about one of the aspects. 

Finally It is not only Marxism that defines Socialism. Proudhon and many others also made their theoretical inputs.

That Marxism doesn't define socialism is my entire point, so why do you keep trying to impose a left-wing view on National Socialism? Again, I don't say there is no socialism in it, just that it's ill-defined in its own ideology, and indistinguishable from the nationalism and anti-Semitism it espouses ("race struggle, not class struggle").

You suggested earlier that the most socialist thing might be war, and that may actually be a good approach to National Socialism in power, since the entire state dirigism under Hitler was geared towards preparing Germany for war. He even once replied to warnings that attacking the USSR would result in endless war that this was a good thing, because it would keep the German people sharp and alert. Of course arguably, any nation that goes to a war economy employs a degree of socialism, even Western democracies like the UK and US.

I wouldn't say war in the sense of an international conflict defines Marxism either, which after all preaches internationalism and overcoming differences between all peoples; but then I guess class struggle could be defined as a form of warfare which may also take the shape of international conflict if the darn next-door government doesn't see the wisdom in communism. Though we then got a problem with communist anarchism, which doesn't believe in state dirigism, or even the state.

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

The NSDAP let businesses stay in the owners hands so long as they behaved and did as they were told. If they did not, then well they were corrected.

[...]

Some companies were taken over. One that comes to mind is Fokker. 

See above under "state dirigism for a war economy" again. Confiscating industries in occupied countries would certainly come under that, and even then the Nazis were still quite scrupulous on paying license fees etc. The only expropriations in Germany itself were of Jewish properties, so we're back to where socialism is essentially a form of anti-Semitism. I think trying around a definition of "a form of government based upon the assumption of natural conflict between certain opposing groups" is more sensible; though clearly you can exaggerate that into the absurd, too.

[rmgill]

Are there NO examples of the Nazi State confiscating German businesses not owned by Jews? Set aside any pretext or respect for property rights, if you refused business with the German State, what was the end result? Did you get to operate your industry within the confines of your conscience? What if a ship builder refused to construct Warships for the Kriegsmarine? 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Nazi's pretty much forcibly bought Junkers from Hugo Junkers, but that was largely because he was a rather peaceful sort, like building airliners and didnt want to build Bombers. So he had to go. According to the account I read, they paid him a reasonable price even, so its not like Venezuelan or Cuban style nationalisation.

Look at the rest of the Reich, they all pretty much loved building weapons, because it was all money in the kitty. So surprise surprise, the Nazi's didnt just tolerate them, they lauded them. And why wouldnt they, they were the people who bankrolled the Nazi's when they looked like they had a shot at power. As long as they kicked the snot out of Socialists and Communists, they werent worried.

Can I underline that again, so we all grasp it. The Germans Junkers underwrote the Nazi's. Now think, why would they do that for Socialists?

 

 

Edited February 5, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith

[BansheeOne]

To be sure, the Nazis confiscated lots of property value - not just from Jews, but also of left-wing parties and organizations including the trade unions when those were replaced by the German Labor Front, masonic lodges, and from anyone considered an enemy of the state and people. Not least pieces of "degenerate art" from museums and collections, which were apparently not considered too degenerate to be subsequently sold abroad.

I guess it's possible that some cases of people having their business expropriated for falling afoul of official policy are buried under all the attention for the fate of Jewish businesses, but I can't find any. Not that there wasn't ever any controversy; traditional Ruhr industry barons were pissed about the establishment of the majority state-owned Hermann Göring Reichswerke stock company (which later absorbed the industry in occupied countries) for use of domestic ore previously considered uneconomic to extract, and even had a book published arguing against the scheme in 1936.

Notably the intention was to privatize the entire sprawling enterprise after the war was won. However, it might be interesting to look into how the Four Year Plan to prepare for war was enforced in detail.

[Stuart Galbraith]

In this context I would guess nationalise means 'belongs to one of the senior Nazis'. They already partly did that, I recall Goering took over parts of the Oil sector.

[Ivanhoe]

On 2/4/2023 at 2:02 PM, Sardaukar said:

Sometimes it's amusing that people call certain system "capitalism", since even socialism needs capital to run.

My history teacher corrected me quite sternly when I made that mistake, pointing out that correct term was "market economy". 

Judging by book titles, Marx was a closet Kapitalist.

 

[rmgill]

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Can I underline that again, so we all grasp it. The Germans Junkers underwrote the Nazi's. Now think, why would they do that for Socialists?

To avoid being eaten? Why do so many businesses support lefty causes?