In Nazi Germany, private individuals still owned the means of production in the vast majority of cases, although some state-owned corporations emerged much later. The only real difference between them and current corporate America was that the state was ostensibly controlling the corporations instead of the other way around. But what is the real difference if it is the same individuals who are controlling them in both cases?
If the state is controlling the corporations is that actually free market, especially if (to the exasperation of Speer) that state is acting directly opposite of market forces?
If the true power of decision rests with at the top and acts independently of market forces that is no more free market than Stalinism was communism. In both cases it is really just "a small body of men trying to control a nation to suit their own political agenda by using whatever rhetoric they tbought would work" as you said. Thats really nothing more than good ole despotism.
Furthermore, wartime economies are quite different from peacetime ones. During WWII, American industry was also effectively controlled by the state.
I agree, which is why I said just that. There really is no way you can observe Nazi fascism in a "normal" state because from the beginning of its rise to power it was rearming for and then actually fighting a war. Thats why I asked Virote what he imagined a post war victorious Germany would look like.
I personally don't see fascist leadership as demonstrated in real life (not on paper) relinquishing such power when its available, let alone when it had already been assumed.
Italy is a good example, at no point in their fascist history could a free market be used to describe their economy.
And the military-industrial complex really still is, because their livelihoods are almost solely based on federal purchases.
I realize this is a favorite axe for you, so I will leave it. However, our defense contractors use market forces to dictate to the government all the time and when our government dictates to them its under the auspices of a customer with contract in hand.
I don't think anyone is going to maintain that domestic industry in any fascist country could rely on contracts to dictate terms to the government. The government got what it wanted regardless.
How much actual control did the Nazi Party exert over corporations which had little or nothing to do with the military-industrial complex, especially prior to building for war?
There was no "prior to building for war" for the Nazis, rearmament began as soon as they came to power. The answer to your question is, just as it was for the Soviets, as much as they wanted. That is NOT have a free market cherishing government approaches things, they are limited in their power regardless of the control they may want. Its a principle of property rights, an essential component of capitalism.
Hitler was originally quite uninterested in economic issues. Like with many Europeans at the time, he felt that they were beneath him.
Most are, as it is boring compared to street brawling. Its hard to whip up hysteria over interest rates and bond yields. However, as soon as they were in power their history is nothing but amassing economic control centrally. I can think of no innitiative of the Nazi's whose goal was to invigorate a private sector in any major industry.
Again, that could very well be to blame on war, so perhaps the Nazi's are not the best place to look for the "norm." Italy, however, was the same story as far as continually collecting economic control to government dictate whims.
It wasn't until the 30s in the midst of the Great Depression that the Nazis really started taking much interest in economic conditions, due mostly to the rampant unemployment which threatened their power. As with the US and most other countries at the time, they used national programs to employ the unemployed. This also played well into their plans to rebuild their military strength in order to engage in war.
The 30s would be when they took power and had to actually govern instead of talk, so that makes sense. Again, all that just meas Nazi Germany may not be the place to look for a normal functioning fascist regime, any more than we should look at New Deal America as an example of a normal functioning liberal democracy.
Spain, post WWII, is probably the best place to look. I am not all that knowledgeable on Spanish fascism, but I am pretty sure it was never considered a bastion of free market mechanics.
But most of all, Hitler was clearly no "socialist" despite confusing and highly contradictory rhetoric to the contrary:
I never called him a socialist, merely left economically in the sense of pursuing centrally controlled economic control. Despotism, however, is not necessarily left or right, so such linear descriptions may not be appropriate.
Like many others, Hitler appeared to have highly enjoyed redefining words to suit his own personal views. Capitalism was evil because that was what the Jews practiced. Marxist Socialism was evil because it was "anti-property". His own form of "socialism" was good because it was it was based on "protecting private property", encouraged "private initiative", and was stridently anti-worker and anti-union. In other words, it was anything but "socialism". It was just another form of a small body of men trying to control a nation to suit their own political agenda by using whatever rhetoric they tbought would work.
Given that, why are we labeling him a free market. If we don't accept that he is socialist just because he said he was, why are we supposed to accept that he is free market just because he said he was? Neither are supported by events.
Erm, he's called Hitler, Durr. Why do you think it was called "Corporatism?" "Corporatism" just means "ruled by big business". Everybody knows that.
