Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40045
    06 Apr '19 14:59
    @whodey said
    Indeed.

    Hitler once said, "Why nationalize industry when you can nationalize the people?"

    The issue was centralized control. The fact that Hitler did not own these corporations in name did not mean he did not have full control, which he did have

    Hitler was at least smart enough to understand that private industry is best run by those who are experts at it rather than bureaucrats, which made the German economy much stronger than the Russian economy.
    "Centralized control" has nothing to do with socialism. There are libertarian socialists who believe in a socialism without any State whatsoever.

    Being "smart enough" to leave private industry totally dominated and run by the capitalists while suppressing workers' economic rights means you are no socialist.
  2. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40045
    06 Apr '19 15:10
    @whodey said
    Indeed.

    Hitler once said, "Why nationalize industry when you can nationalize the people?"

    The issue was centralized control. The fact that Hitler did not own these corporations in name did not mean he did not have full control, which he did have

    Hitler was at least smart enough to understand that private industry is best run by those who are experts at it rather than bureaucrats, which made the German economy much stronger than the Russian economy.
    And actual control over companies was limited. From the Wiki article again:

    The rhetoric of the Nazi regime stated that German private companies would be protected and privileged as long as they supported the economic goals of the government - mainly by participating in government contracts for military production - but that they could face severe penalties if they went against the national interest. However, such threats were rarely carried out in practice, and "companies normally could refuse to engage in an investment project designed by the state without any consequences."[66] Private firms refused government contracts and directions on many occasions. In 1937, de Wendel, a coal mining enterprise, refused to build a hydrogenation plant. In 1939, IG Farben denied a government request to increase its production of rayon and refused to invest in a synthetic rubber factory despite this being an important project for the regime. Froriep GmbH, a company producing machines for the armaments industry, successfully demanded cheap credit from the Nazi government under a threat of cutting back investment if its demand was not met.[67] The regime generally used monetary incentives, such as guaranteed profits, to persuade businesses to support its goals, and freedom of contract was generally respected even in projects important for the war.[68]
  3. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    06 Apr '19 16:241 edit
    @whodey said
    Indeed.

    Hitler once said, "Why nationalize industry when you can nationalize the people?"

    The issue was centralized control. The fact that Hitler did not own these corporations in name did not mean he did not have full control, which he did have

    Hitler was at least smart enough to understand that private industry is best run by those who are experts at it rather than bureaucrats, which made the German economy much stronger than the Russian economy.
    (Whodey replied to Wajoma.)

    Contrary to what Whodey or others may believe, the Nazis did 'nationalize' (take over)
    some companies, particularly those owned by perceived anti-Nazi people.
    And political considerations (was a corporation's owner an ardent Nazi or not?)
    could influence the awarding of government or military contracts.
  4. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    06 Apr '19 16:291 edit
    @no1marauder said
    And actual control over companies was limited. From the Wiki article again:

    The rhetoric of the Nazi regime stated that German private companies would be protected and privileged as long as they supported the economic goals of the government - mainly by participating in government contracts for military production - but that they could face severe penalties if they wen ...[text shortened]... s goals, and freedom of contract was generally respected even in projects important for the war.[68]
    "And actual control over companies was limited."
    --No1Marauder

    Not necessarily.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers#Nazi_takeover

    "The Nazi party came to power in Germany in 1933, and all German aviation
    development was shifted away from long-range civil aircraft types. Hugo Junkers
    himself was forced to transfer all his patents to the Nazis, who doubted that Junkers
    (a socialist pacifist) would comply with their plans. Shortly after, his holdings were
    expropriated and he was placed under house arrest. The company that had pioneered
    commercial aviation development for at least a decade was relegated to relatively
    small one- and two-engined military design competitions issued by the
    Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM) the "Reich Aviation Ministry"."

    In contrast, Willy Messerschmitt enjoyed a close relationship with the Nazis,
    which helped explain his favored status despite his considerable record of
    design failures (Me 210, Me 209, Me 309).

    The Third Reich had a capitalist economy, but there was more state control or coercion
    than No1Marauder apparently believes.
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40045
    06 Apr '19 16:401 edit
    @duchess64 said
    (Whodey replied to Wajoma.)

    Contrary to what Whodey or others may believe, the Nazis did 'nationalize' (take over)
    some companies, particularly those owned by perceived anti-Nazi people.
    And political considerations (was a corporation's owner an ardent Nazi or not?)
    could influence the awarding of government or military contracts.
    "Although modern economic literature usually fails to notice it, the Nazi government in 1930s Germany implemented a large-scale privatization policy. The government sold public ownership in several state-owned firms in different sectors.

    Ideological motivations do not explain Nazi privatization. However, political motivations were important. The Nazi government used privatization as a tool to improve its relationship with big industrialists and to increase support among this group for its policies. Privatization was also probably used to foster more widespread political support for the Nazi Party. Finally, financial motivations also played an important role in Nazi privatization, since receipts from selling the public firms contributed (together with other fiscal measures) towards financing huge public expenditure, particularly attributable to the armament programme.

    https://coreyrobin.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/bel-2010-nazi-privatizations1.pdf

    So there was a policy of nationalizing property and firms held by perceived opponents of the Nazi regime (esp. Jews) while at the same time privatizing major sectors which had been nationalized under the Weimar Republic and selling them to wealthy capitalists to solidify their political support. That's not "socialism"; it sounds more like an extreme form of "crony capitalism".
  6. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    06 Apr '19 16:452 edits
    @no1marauder said
    "Although modern economic literature usually fails to notice it, the Nazi government in 1930s Germany implemented a large-scale privatization policy. The government sold public ownership in several state-owned firms in different sectors.

    Ideological motivations do not explain Nazi privatization. However, political motivations were important. The Nazi government ...[text shortened]... olitical support. That's not "socialism"; it sounds more like an extreme form of "crony capitalism".
    As usual, No1Marauder ignores what I wrote and apparently attacks a strawman.

    "So there was a policy of nationalizing property and firms held by perceived
    opponents of the Nazi regime (esp. Jews)."
    --No1Marauder (written or quoted by)

    Exactly what I meant.

    Does No1Marauder claim that nationalizing 'property and firms held by perceived
    opponents of the Nazi regime' represents an ABSENCE of 'state control or coercion' (my words)?

    I wrote that the 'Third Reich had a capitalist economy'.
    Can No1Marauder QUOTE where I allegedly wrote that I agree with Whodey or
    that the Third Reich was 'socialist' (except in a trivial symbolic way on occasion)?
  7. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40045
    06 Apr '19 16:46
    @duchess64 said
    "And actual control over companies was limited."
    --No1Marauder

    Not necessarily.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers#Nazi_takeover

    "The Nazi party came to power in Germany in 1933, and all German aviation
    development was shifted away from long-range civil aircraft types. Hugo Junkers
    himself was forced to transfer all his patents to the Nazis, who doubted th ...[text shortened]... italist economy, but there was more state control or coercion
    than No1Marauder apparently believes.
    The last sentence is inaccurate; I'm fully aware that the Nazi State was controlling and coercive. But the evidence seems to indicate that it rarely used such measures against large capitalist enterprises unless they were ideologically hostile to the Nazis. On the other hand, they abolished all trade unions, outlawed strikes and arrested and imprisoned most of the leaders of the labor movement in short order.

    These policies favored capitalists over the workers/producers and are incompatible with any type of socialism.
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    06 Apr '19 16:492 edits
    @no1marauder said
    The last sentence is inaccurate; I'm fully aware that the Nazi State was controlling and coercive. But the evidence seems to indicate that it rarely used such measures against large capitalist enterprises unless they were ideologically hostile to the Nazis. On the other hand, they abolished all trade unions, outlawed strikes and arrested and imprisoned most of the leaders ...[text shortened]... cies favored capitalists over the workers/producers and are incompatible with any type of socialism.
    "The Third Reich had a capitalist economy, but there was *more* state control or coercion
    than No1Marauder *apparently* believes."
    --Duchess64

    I don't claim to know the precise limits of No1Marauder's historical ignorance.

    I wrote that the 'Third Reich had a capitalist economy'.
    Can No1Marauder QUOTE where I allegedly wrote that I agree with Whodey or
    that the Third Reich was 'socialist' (except in a trivial symbolic way on occasion)?
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40045
    06 Apr '19 16:50
    @duchess64 said
    As usual, No1Marauder ignores what I wrote and apparently attacks a strawman.

    "So there was a policy of nationalizing property and firms held by perceived
    opponents of the Nazi regime (esp. Jews)."
    --No1Marauder (written or quoted by)

    Exactly what I meant.

    I wrote that the 'Third Reich had a capitalist economy'.
    Can No1Marauder QUOTE where I allegedly wrote tha ...[text shortened]... with Whodey or
    that the Third Reich was 'socialist' (except in a trivial symbolic way on occasion)?
    Start a flame war with someone else; I wasn't disagreeing with your post just pointing out that the limited nationalizations you referred to were a small part of the Nazi economic program and need to be considered within the whole of it.

    I suggest you look at the title of the thread; all posts in it should deal with the issue of whether Nazi economic policies were truly "socialist" or not; my post said absolutely nothing about your opinion.
  10. Joined
    05 Nov '06
    Moves
    81786
    06 Apr '19 16:53
    @no1marauder said
    Start a flame war with someone else; I wasn't disagreeing with your post just pointing out that the limited nationalizations you referred to were a small part of the Nazi economic program and need to be considered within the whole of it.

    I suggest you look at the title of the thread; all posts in it should deal with the issue of whether Nazi economic policies were truly "socialist" or not; my post said absolutely nothing about your opinion.
    😂😂😂
  11. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    06 Apr '19 16:531 edit
    @no1marauder said
    Start a flame war with someone else; I wasn't disagreeing with your post just pointing out that the limited nationalizations you referred to were a small part of the Nazi economic program and need to be considered within the whole of it.

    I suggest you look at the title of the thread; all posts in it should deal with the issue of whether Nazi economic policies were truly "socialist" or not; my post said absolutely nothing about your opinion.
    "I wasn't disagreeing with your post..."
    --No1Marauder

    But No1Marauder did NOT write that he agreed with it (or even any part of it).
    His post apparently insinuated that I agree with Whodey that the Third Reich was socialist.

    "The Third Reich had a capitalist economy, but there was *more* state control or coercion
    than No1Marauder *apparently* believes."
    --Duchess64

    Where did I allegedly write that the Nazis nationalized most or all of Germany's economy?
  12. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40045
    06 Apr '19 17:07
    @duchess64 said
    "I wasn't disagreeing with your post..."
    --No1Marauder

    But No1Marauder did NOT write that he agreed with it (or even any part of it).
    His post apparently insinuated that I agree with Whodey that the Third Reich was socialist.

    "The Third Reich had a capitalist economy, but there was *more* state control or coercion
    than No1Marauder *apparently* believes."
    --Duchess64

    Where did I allegedly write that the Nazis nationalized most or all of Germany's economy?
    I see; so not writing I agreed with you is sufficient provocation IYO to start a flame war.

    No one claimed that you wrote "that the Nazis nationalized most or all of Germany's economy" nor was such a non-existent claim any part of any argument I presented.
  13. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    06 Apr '19 17:111 edit
    @no1marauder said
    I see; so not writing I agreed with you is sufficient provocation IYO to start a flame war.

    No one claimed that you wrote "that the Nazis nationalized most or all of Germany's economy" nor was such a non-existent claim any part of any argument I presented.
    Again, No1Marauder ignores or distorts what I wrote about my objection.

    "His [No1Marauder's] post apparently insinuated that I agree with Whodey that
    the Third Reich was socialist."
    --Duchess64

    Given No1Marauder's long record of posting replies to my posts almost only when
    he disagrees or wants to attack them or me personally, my response was understandable.
  14. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65608
    06 Apr '19 21:21
    @shavixmir said
    Dumb ass.
    The word 'ownership' needs the same defence as words like 'free' do. If you own (for example) a Co and the goobermint mandates that said company must do 'A', 'B' & 'C' but it must not do 'X', 'Y' & 'Z' then your ownership has been diminished. The goobermint has taken control just as much as if they'd forcefully nationalised the Co.

    Socialists like to try to distance themselves from the National Socialism when they're really the opposite side of the same control freak coin.

    Heads you lose, tails you lose.
  15. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40045
    06 Apr '19 21:30
    @wajoma said
    The word 'ownership' needs the same defence as words like 'free' do. If you own (for example) a Co and the goobermint mandates that said company must do 'A', 'B' & 'C' but it must not do 'X', 'Y' & 'Z' then your ownership has been diminished. The goobermint has taken control just as much as if they'd forcefully nationalised the Co.

    Socialists like to try to distance them ...[text shortened]... they're really the opposite side of the same control freak coin.

    Heads you lose, tails you lose.
    There is no country nor has there ever been any country that gave unlimited property rights. Your dream feelings that they should are irrelevant to this discussion and your claim that some regulation is tantamount to "nationalization" is hysterical hyperbole.
Back to Top