Socialism & Capitalism

[onejayhawk]

So, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, Tony Benn, Olof Palme, Wily Brandt, and les trente glorieuses were, what exactly? The fact you even consider Francisco Franco (still dead) to be a socialist makes me think it must be hell inside your head. Guess you consider Caetano and Salazar to be socialists too.

Since you lead with Atlee, I would consider him to be head of the British labor party. Even when he was PM, the British did not have a socialist government, so it begs the question of why bring you him up. Scandinavia is a better claim on socialism, but not a good one.

Floating these little-known names is pretty desperate. Where are the little-known eastern European socialists? I gave you Franco and that is the best example you have.

J

 

[Uberfrog]

Since you lead with Atlee, I would consider him to be head of the British labor party. Even when he was PM, the British did not have a socialist government, so it begs the question of why bring you him up. Scandinavia is a better claim on socialism, but not a good one.

Floating these little-known names is pretty desperate. Where are the little-known eastern European socialists? I gave you Franco and that is the best example you have.

J

So the socialist Prime Minister of a social democratic government mustn't be considered A True Socialist, but we are meant to accept that Franco is? People can argue until the cows come home over definitions of socialism and how far democratic socialism and social democracy fit under that definition. But it's pretty clear that you are shifting the definition of "socialism" to encompass oppressive dictatorships of any kind, so that you can circularly support your claim that all socialists are dictators.

It is a shame that these are "little-known names" to you, given that they are responsible for many of the most important and valuable social reforms in modern European history. But I suppose they have less name-recognition than infamous murderous dictators, I'll give you that.

 

[AmazonQueen]

In one word, no. The state is, in theory, the embodiment of the people. In practice, the state becomes the substitute for the monarch. See, Animal Farm.


Terminology is central to the pretense. They also deny that socialists tend to be dictators. They go so far as to deny that fascists and Marxists are also socialists. This thread is proof of that.

J

Thats the Marxist theory. To equate Marxism with socialism in general is like taking 1 particular Christian sect as representing all Christian sects. In this case it would be a sect that the rest of Christianity doesn't consider Christian and that persecutes all Christians that don't belong to it.

To equate Marxism with Fascism it is neccessary to take 1 aspect of Marxism, ignore everything else about it and that they are bitter enemies, and pretend that makes them the same.

 

[El_Machinae]

Comparing to a Christian sect really brought the argument home, there.

 

[Wastl]

I see onejayhawk is on his bi-monthly "I ignore reality and pretend that my stupid idea of fascism/nazism being a form of socialism hasn't been debunked a thousand times already" tour again...
No wonder discussions rarely move anywhere, when the same lies get brought up again and again and again every few months.

There is a very limited connection between fascists and socialists/communists. Mussolini and Goebbels both used to support socialism or even communism, but they went on to find something that they considered a far superior way to "help the people". Two things having some common ground doesn't make them equal or part of the same group, it just means that they align on a certain idea, and that is something that can happen even between vastly different ideologies. Sometimes people also have the same goal for completely different reasons, e.g. someone protection the environment for the sake of protecting the environment and someone protecting the environment because it leads to a more efficient way to handle the economy. Or someone who supports better working conditions for the sake of helping people while another one supports better working conditions because healthy workers cause him to earn more money.

When judging fascism and nazism, the only proper way to do so is to look at their actual policies. Not some stuff they said way in the past and never really cared about, not things they only said to appeal to certain groups of people. The only thing that counts is what they actually did, and what they did was very far away from socialism or communism, thus making any claims that Nazism is a part of socialism - or even left-wing - because the word socialism is part of the name, a hilariously uninformed and wrong argument.

And seriously, Francisco Franco a socialist?
Even the most casual glance at the most superficial material about Spain's past would teach you how utterly nonsensical that comment is. Franco was ultra-conservative to the core. He often get lumped in with other fascist leaders, but that term doesn't quite fit for him. He was more of a "regular" authoritarian dictator then a true fascist. The falangists were the fascists, and they ended up having very little influence in Franco's government very quickly.

 

[Lexicus]

The single-party state is something that some socialists have in common with fascists. The problem is trying to lump the supporters of liberal, democratic, and pluralist forms of socialism (ie Labour Party, Ocasio-Cortez, etc) in with the supporters of a single-party state. Party dictatorships are still Party dictatorships even if you call it the Workers' Party and the People's Dictatorship.

 

[onejayhawk]

Comparing to a Christian sect really brought the argument home, there.

You can go further. Marxism is socialism's Roman Catholics. Fascists are the Protestants. They hate each other and fight vehemently, not because they are different, but because they are alike.

J

 

[Archon_Wing]

It's more like Marx was Catholic, and Lenin was a cult. Stalin and Mao pretty much made a religion around themselves. But then again, I suppose it's funny we talked about Christianity, since that, much like many other religions has been used as a frequent excuse to kill people even if you worship the same God but you disagree on how the chapters should be arranged or which word means what.

Does that make religion bad? Well, maybe. Turns out anything can be bad if you're dogmatic enough about it. "Work hard, and earn what you deserve" can be stretched to "He didn't work hard, so he doesn't deserve anything and should die" to "He's a lazy bum so it's good that he dies".

Fascists would be an entirely new religion because it is centered around extreme Nationalism. The type of economy is incidental to state worship.

The only common belief they all followed was Totalitarianism, the religion of, "Because I say so or you die" though some may view this statement rather cynically.

In the end, what people actually do, is much more important than what they say or what banner they wield. I mean, a lot of racists wield the American flag; does that mean everywhere that wields the flag is a racist? Well, hope not.

 

[Traitorfish]

You can go further. Marxism is socialism's Roman Catholics. Fascists are the Protestants. They hate each other and fight vehemently, not because they are different, but because they are alike.

I don't think you really understand either side of this analogy.

The single-party state is something that some socialists have in common with fascists.

Even then, the importance of the party apparatus varies from regime to regime. Sometimes, as in the Soviet Union, you have an official and effective one party state. Sometimes, as in China, you have an official multi-party state but an effective one party state. Sometimes, as in Cuba, you have an official one-party state but power in effect lies with the military. And very occasionally, as in Libya, there are no parties in either theory or practice. The parties themselves vary from genuine mass organisations, as in Yugoslavia, to a glorified fraternal organisation for apparatchiks, as in most of the Eastern Bloc, to the political wing of an essentially military group, as in Cambodia.

Fascist and fascist-leaning regimes differ mostly in that they're less interested in pretending to have multi-party systems, and that they occasionally decide to do away with parties altogether. Otherwise, the importance of a party organisation is similarly varied.

There's no secret hidden logic that runs through both right-wing and left-wing regimes. That's just ahistorical.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Surely workers' self-management means less subordination to the collective, rather than greater? After all, in capitalism, a collective, the corporation, wields ultimate authority over its employees in the workplace, while in socialism, individuals, the workers, wield ultimate authority. The individuals must accept compromise, must strive towards consensus or accept majority-decisions, but that's an inevitable fact of inhabiting a planet with two or more sentient beings. Individualism is a question of how far the individual is sustained despite those necessary compromises.

Well, those seem like good points, they certainly aren't wrong. But I fear we are now getting entangled in word games. For instance, when I said "collective", I did not even think of a capitalistic cooperation, though I can not fault you for doing so. Rather, by "collective", I already had a group of people in mind who actually due pursue collective interests - that is goals more or less in the best interest of everyone - rather than primarily those of the authorities in charge and those of other members only as far as necessary, as far as circumstances force the authority to allow or push for it. Though capitalistic companies are in their entirety supposed to work towards the common goal of profit, so they do have a collective agenda, certainly, in a sense.

Er... this is getting stupidly complicated. I'll try to get to the point.

Maybe the problem is that you argue in terms of freedom, whereas I rather argue in more technical terms of organization?

In an effort to break it down: On the micro level, or the level of the actual human being, socialism may mean more individual freedom, due to a greater influence of the individual on the group it is part of (for instance, the corporation it takes part in), as you explained.
However, in its - shall we say functional design - socialism is fundamentally about realizing collective interests. That is, the interests of everyone who is a part of a group of people. Whereas in capitalism, its functional design is about securing individual interests, and any realization of collective interests - that means how much different individual interests will actually be aligned - is contingent.
And well - aligning numerous individual interests to one collective interest is ... messy. And ultimately Utopian. I.e. it can never entirely work. Which does not mean it can not work at all, of course. But I think it is fair to say that this goal carries a host of inherent and in its absolute entirety insurmountable problems. You basically hand-waved that host of problems off by saying

The individuals must accept compromise, must strive towards consensus or accept majority-decisions, but that's an inevitable fact of inhabiting a planet with two or more sentient beings.

Yeah, and capitalism already has loads of those kind of interactions going on. Still, it is capitalism, not socialism. So such things being necessary isn't the point of contention, I am making, of course. The point of contention is, that socialism stands for alleviating such processes of consensus-seeking to new highs, which capitalism could, in principle, even produce itself (and I think movements like Anarcho-syndicalism tried just that - and well, ultimately failed miserably, though not without still having great achievements), but does not, because people do not behave randomly (due to human nature - I know you hate that phrase, but since humans do not act randomly, some sort of natural inclination must be at play, surely).
Now, all ideologies are, as the name implies, about ideals, so hence things which never happen but can be expressed.
But, as I said before, the capitalistic ideal - a free exchange of private property - is still very clear and tangible and its realization. Because it is quit impersonal. There is not much said about how that exchange takes place other than that there is no threat of physical force and that things have an owner. There is no direct promise of any kind of actual, practical freedom or something like that. And that makes capitalism an actual thing, an impersonal system which just can be applied.

On the other hand, the socialist ideal is not so much, as capitalism is, about the means - which remain largely theoretical, highly contentions, and untested, but about the goal. A goal which can never be reached. And as a consequence, I think socialism also should not be viewed as something to be established, but as a distant fixed star providing orientation to an effort to identify problems and look for solutions.

Now, admittedly, I shifted the goal posts a bit in the course of this response. My previous statements where not only more bombastic in tone, but also materially different at least in so far, as that I kinda claimed socialism was impossible by definition, which - if it all - is only true in a meaningless sense: in the sense that all ideals are impossible. I now shifted the posts to saying, that socialism isn't even about what is possible or impossible, but merely, what would be preferable. But that this does not make socialism meaningless or shallow, at all.
And to add: that a hard or - God forbid - Marxist-Leninist understanding is the mere illusion of a hard aim to rival the hard aim capitalism provides. So perhaps - that is one inherent problem of socialist thought - to try to beat capitalism in a playing field socialism does not belong in - and to turn semi-religious out of a lack of actual hard substance. Well, fitting, since I still find capitalism to also have semi-religious tendencies. But I don't think it is the role of socialism to be another mode of reproduction like capitalism is. Rather, I think its proper role is to be an advocate of change, not of an diametrically opposed alternative.

But well I know you are an Anarchist and as a consequence presumably have an unshakable faith in the principle human willingness and ability to self-organize. I lack that faith, though I am open towards the idea of introducing measure to increase self-organization.
I also recently watched a fantastic documentary on Anarchism btw, I'll spoiler my thoughts about that: no or rather - I'll post about that in your Anarchism thread.

 

[cardgame]

Seems like a false dichotomy snuck its way into that interesting post.

the capitalistic ideal - a free exchange of private property - is still very clear and tangible and its realization.

Capitalism = tangible ownership = realizable

socialism = ideal = unrealizable

the truth is you can equate socialism to the worker's co-ownership just as easily and directly as you can equate capitalism to direct ownership. And we can have market socialism that offers a free exchange of the goods produced by no-longer-private property, to extend this comparison closer to being very clear and tangible and its realization.

edit: Now, that said, I think you do make a good point about socialism being an ideal, if only in perception - we need to make it realizable instead of a dream. We need ideas that connect with people to change the system towards this goal, instead of daydreaming about the "inevitable" violent revolution and overthrowing of the guard...

 

[Lexicus]

There's no secret hidden logic that runs through both right-wing and left-wing regimes.

That wasn't really my claim, though. To be fair, my claim was phrased imprecisely, but I think there is a common logic to both left-wing and right-wing attempts to, as one of my history professors put it, "abolish the distinction between civil society and the state using the Party as a vehicle."

Fascist and fascist-leaning regimes differ mostly in that they're less interested in pretending to have multi-party systems, and that they occasionally decide to do away with parties altogether. Otherwise, the importance of a party organisation is similarly varied.

Well, sure. But the difference between ideal and reality is a thing that happens in any regime. Parties and genuinely mass-based fascist parties behave fairly similarly in power, in that all organizations are brought under the aegis of the party (e.g. in both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union there were Party-administered "trade unions", hobby clubs, student groups, professional associations, etc, and organizations which cannot be brought into the fold, so to speak, like the churches, are automatically viewed with suspicion and hostility. The degree to which real-life regimes adhere to this ideal varies and of course the exact way things work will depend on local conditions. As I learned things the Communists won the Chinese Civil War because they set it up throughout the rural territory they held - they were able to organize the peasants and generally tap into the already-existing village organization in a way that the Kuomintang were not.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Seems like a false dichotomy snuck its way into that interesting post.

Thanks a lot, much appreciated. I rarely don't actually have some sort of point, but my delivery can often be... confused. So it delights me to have someone find some value in it
Err anyway, back to topic

Capitalism = tangible ownership = realizable

socialism = ideal = unrealizable

the truth is you can equate socialism to the worker's co-ownership just as easily and directly as you can equate capitalism to direct ownership. And we can have market socialism that offers a free exchange of the goods produced by no-longer-private property, to extend this comparison closer to being very clear and tangible and its realization.

edit: Now, that said, I think you do make a good point about socialism being an ideal, if only in perception - we need to make it realizable instead of a dream. We need ideas that connect with people to change the system towards this goal, instead of daydreaming about the "inevitable" violent revolution and overthrowing of the guard...

Hm I have fantasized in the past, yes even proposed on this very forum, that it should simply be a mandate that employees have a stake in a company. But such a measure does open a ton of questions. For instance, @Hygro replied to that proposal, that if he was to found a business, he wouldn't like to have to share ownership by default with people he took under contract. And while I made the lapidary reply at the time, that of course he would not like it, but that was not the point, really it is a point of some merit. The fact is that the majority of buisnesses fail after being founded and leave their founders worse off. So some kind of risk-reward for the achievement of finding a successful business seems not only quite in order, but also necessary, and simply owning what you created is a very intuitive as well profitable reward. You will need to balance that with worker ownership. So you can not just say "Socialism means worker ownership", since the implementation and realization would still be very contentious. And again you are only left with ideals to strive towards while trying to work-out how to get as close as possible to them without loosing too much on the way.

And even if you work out such principle issues, since a world revolution seems very much a like a pipe dream, you will need to find a way to have such a system harmonize with a still very capitalistic world economy, otherwise, you just become another socialist failure people will point to to warn against the evils of socialism. But if you manage that, then and I am afraid only then, can you hope that such a thing catches on.

Now I don't contest that worker ownership can very well harmonize with productivity. Heck, it is often said that modern management fails on long-term-thinking because as share-holders mangers are only motivated to think in short terms, whereas I would trust a share-holding worker to be more interested in the long-term prospects.

But there are inherent clashes as well. Namely: Out-Sourcing. Then there are the often propagandized horror stories of how General Motors supposedly was ruined by too strong unions. Don't know about that, but really, what I think is the actual crucial issue is the global financial market. Mandated worker-share-holding is pretty much the exact opposite of what international capital looks for in a company. So as far as I know, companies owned by workers often work without such investment. Which can work. But for a whole economy? Seems like a severe disadvantage. I guarantee you - do this to any major company, and their stock will absolutely tank.

At the bottom of it: If workers are A LOT harder to exploit and well abuse (which I presume is the goal), this constitutes a competitive disadvantage of quite some magnitude, on the whole. The trend in developed rich Western nations is also, by no accident, quite the opposite. And already national governments may not dare to fight against those trends, because they, and that is the thing: may rightfully so, fear the economic consequences. One example: The German Social-Democratic Party toyed with ideas to end the abuse of interim staffing, as well as subcontracted labor, since they are quite transparently used not for their original, official, purpose (introduced at the beginning of the century when the German economy wasn't so hot) of making the work force more "flexible", but for simply dumping wages.
Mercedes-Benz candidly told them, that if those ideas were to be realized, i.e. if the German government were to put a stop to their efforts to dumb wages, they would simply move factories abroad. So that already tells you that modern worker exploitation in developed economies means a very real and stark difference in costs.

I already often stated this on this board, and also did so in this thread in my first post, actually: The biggest obstacle to fundamental economic reform towards a greater realization of collective interests is the international market. Because as long as that market is ruled by unrestrained capitalism, it will tend to punish any drastic moves, making the nations daring them likely worse off then before.

Now compare this to capitalism. It seemlessly blended into the pre-existing economic structures. And that exactly because it operates with such a bare-bone-structure which will readily adapt to any circumstances - because it is not about goals, but mere principle means which may serve all kind of goals.

So my dichotomy may not be entirely clean or flawless. I will certainly give you that. But I think it still gets the gist kinda right.

 

[Ajidica]

Floating these little-known names is pretty desperate. Where are the little-known eastern European socialists? I gave you Franco and that is the best example you have.

Two long-serving British Prime Ministers, a well known figure on the Labour left for several decades, the Prime Minister of Sweden -who served for roughly a decade, and a German Chancellor who is widely credited with normalizing relations with the DDR are "little-known names"? Christ, who would be considered well-known, or is your entire knowledge of post-war European politics dominated by de Gaulle and Thatcher?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Parties and genuinely mass-based fascist parties behave fairly similarly in power, in that all organizations are brought under the aegis of the party (e.g. in both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union there were Party-administered "trade unions", hobby clubs, student groups, professional associations, etc, and organizations which cannot be brought into the fold, so to speak, like the churches, are automatically viewed with suspicion and hostility. The degree to which real-life regimes adhere to this ideal varies and of course the exact way things work will depend on local conditions. As I learned things the Communists won the Chinese Civil War because they set it up throughout the rural territory they held - they were able to organize the peasants and generally tap into the already-existing village organization in a way that the Kuomintang were not.

A particular irony which always amused me was how East Germany hated on West Germany for being "Fascist" while East Germany was the one continuing Nazi traditions like a (more or less) compulsory youth organization, torchlight processions, snitch-culture and just in general a cooptation of all social spheres.
Clearly, if anyone was holding up Nazi/Fascist introductions to the German heritage, it was Communist East Germany.

Disclaimer: East Germany was a ton better than Nazi Germany and they were very different beasts. Still, the similarities and how they clash with East German propaganda are amusing.

 

[Traitorfish]

That wasn't really my claim, though. To be fair, my claim was phrased imprecisely, but I think there is a common logic to both left-wing and right-wing attempts to, as one of my history professors put it, "abolish the distinction between civil society and the state using the Party as a vehicle."

To clarify, the comment wasn't directed at you, but at other posters attempting to present "one-party state" as an actual political typology, rather than the woolly, sorta-structural, sorta-legal description that it actually is. There's a tendency to assume that all Marxist-Leninist states, or even simply Soviet- or Chinese-aligned states were planted in the ground as exact clones of the Soviet Union, like banana trees, so any description of the USSR which kinda-sorta scans must by extension apply to Cuba, Vietnam and Algeria, the specific historical experiences of those disparate nations be damned.

 

[Lexicus]

To clarify, the comment wasn't directed at you, but at other posters attempting to present "one-party state" as an actual political typology, rather than the woolly, sorta-structural, sorta-legal description that it actually is. There's a tendency to assume that all Marxist-Leninist states, or even simply Soviet- or Chinese-aligned states were planted in the ground as exact clones of the Soviet Union, like banana trees, so any description of the USSR which kinda-sorta scans must by extension apply to Cuba, Vietnam and Algeria, the specific historical experiences of those disparate nations be damned.

Would you say that Marxist-Leninist regimes had any structural similarities of any kind?

 

[innonimatu]

Hm I have fantasized in the past, yes even proposed on this very forum, that it should simply be a mandate that employees have a stake in a company. But such a measure does open a ton of questions.

I remember also discussing that idea (involving the relevant stakeholders in the company, rather than shareholders), though I believe not with you, were you not somewhat more conservative/"free market" back then?

At the bottom of it: If workers are A LOT harder to exploit and well abuse (which I presume is the goal), this constitutes a competitive disadvantage of quite some magnitude, on the whole. The trend in developed rich Western nations is also, by no accident, quite the opposite. And already national governments may not dare to fight against those trends, because they, and that is the thing: may rightfully so, fear the economic consequences. One example: The German Social-Democratic Party toyed with ideas to end the abuse of interim staffing, as well as subcontracted labor, since they are quite transparently used not for their original, official, purpose (introduced at the beginning of the century when the German economy wasn't so hot) of making the work force more "flexible", but for simply dumping wages.
Mercedes-Benz candidly told them, that if those ideas were to be realized, i.e. if the German government were to put a stop to their efforts to dumb wages, they would simply move factories abroad. So that already tells you that modern worker exploitation in developed economies means a very real and stark difference in costs.

I already often stated this on this board, and also did so in this thread in my first post, actually: The biggest obstacle to fundamental economic reform towards a greater realization of collective interests is the international market. Because as long as that market is ruled by unrestrained capitalism, it will tend to punish any drastic moves, making the nations daring them likely worse off then before.

I agree and this is the reason why I believe that free trade, international treaties enshrining the primacy of access to makers, must be undone for progress to be made on the issue if distributing economic and political power more widely. Which is, ultimately, the point of socialism: not merely some "welfare state" but participation on a truly level ground (as much as possible) by all people on the management of society. International markers undermine all efforts to make gradual improvementes towards that goal, and instead enable the concentration of power through the logic of competition in exploitation of resources, to which people are reduced.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I remember also discussing that idea (involving the relevant stakeholders in the company, rather than shareholders), though I believe not with you, were you not somewhat more conservative/"free market" back then?

I had a phase were I was free market. I voted for the FDP in 2009 and considered joining it in 2011. I was very naive and I think the-free-market ride was just kinda my first effort to have some sort of coherent political compass. I was really enchanted by Guido Westerwelle, imagine that. He seemed really genuine, as well as informed. But I grew quickly out of it. Really can't say when, since all I remember is how I think now.
Oh and Guido was at the time just an excellent showman. He mastered acting. But all he said was construed, just propaganda. And when the time to act came - it was a disaster.

 

[Modder_Mode]

Fascism is the farthest right of the political spectrum.

Horseshoe theory perhaps?

I'm not even bothering to respond to most of your post since you don't go beyond tropes. Most of your factual assertions are wrong but you've already posted enough material to demonstrate that being told you're wrong doesn't stop you from making false claims.

If we both provided tropes, then we could both be wrong?

Anyway....this is a particularly incorrect statement. Take some business school courses and you will see what I mean. The economy can be thought of as being comprised of things called "value chains," which is a way of conceptualizing the journey a good takes as it turns from raw resource into a finished good and eventually ends up with the consumer. Each step in the value chain is supposed to add value, and each actor is compensated for the value she adds, but any business school worth the paper it's printed on will teach you that free market competition is to be avoided at all costs, at every link in the value chain, because it results in value being lost by the company, and transferred on to the consumer.

This is why capitalists seek to systematically destroy free markets, because free markets result in the lowest possible return for the capitalist, not the highest possible return. They seek to destroy the ability of consumers to rationally choose the best outcomes for themselves through advertising. They seek special privileges from the state e.g. creating barriers to entry for markets. They use intimidation, propaganda, cajoling and threats to keep their workers docile and unorganized.

At the level of an entire economy, just think about this. The whole justification for capitalism is that capitalist discipline is necessary to ensure that society puts aside some resources for the future. That it invests in future productivity. What this means, taking it at face value, is that the amount of capital in a society will continually increase.

Under free market conditions, what does an increase in the supply of capital mean? You guessed it: it means lower returns for the owners of capital, also known as "capitalists."

So for all these reasons free markets mean the opposite of what you claim. And capitalists inevitably, relentlessly, attempt to destroy free markets.

It seems to me what you are really talking about here are the conglomerates, cartels and monopolies of the business world, again I state that I would wholeheartedly agree with you on this premise. With your worldview though it seems to me you think that all capitalists of the world are this evil bunch of robber barons out to rip people off, rig the system and corrupt governments to receive financial freedoms and favours. It's almost like some kind of guilt by association claim you are making? Small business owners, franchisees, entrepreneurs and even the individuals that run a stall at the local market are all capitalists, most of them just want a return on their efforts and risk taking of investment. Now I am going to guess you think that the "free markets" are the biggest threat to the aforementioned businesses because the monopolies control the markets?
Again, I will state, so that I am clear, if you are talking about the conglomerates, cartels and monopolies of the business world the so called multinationals, you wont find much opposition from me on this argument, I think we would still clash on a few parts of how these operate and what freedoms they should have, but on the whole we would probably find common ground. I would like to discuss this further as I find it interesting on how they became the monopolies they are, often I trace it back so something so simple as to providing the best service or product, they literally did nothing more than providing a better service/product than their competitors, consumerism and free choice in the markets drove them to become a monopoly, I love Google as this example, although I have a lot too say about Google but I think it would be best dedicated to a different thread.

What was the actual relationship between the Nazi government and private firms? It's not enough to say "Oh, that mean ol' Hitler, he didn't take 'no' for an answer!" and expect that to do the work of, like, knowing things, or arranging those things into an argument.

I already touched on some of this earlier (you must of missed it?), but sure, so basically the Nazi's destroyed the four basic freedoms of private capitalism; eliminated were the freedoms of trade, contract association, and markets. Second, the Nazi government determined the general economic policies, instituted a system of economic planning and regulated all the markets of the economy. Third, government went into business; it performed many administrative and quasi-managerial functions of the economy. This produced a new economic administration of the government. Compulsory business organizations of private owners operated throughout the regime. Fourthly, the recognition of two economic administrations did not signify two independent holders of power. The Nazi party gradually occupied all strategic positions of the economy. It reserved for itself a series of economic prerogatives and thereby became the major holder of power in the economy. Big business was pushed to the back seat; it became the minor holder of power in the economy.

Other features:
- The central feature of Nazi policy was a program of government spending and public works investment and social welfare programs to benefit the " people" with annual tax increasements on profits, unless of course you were Jewish or any of the other minority groups within Nazi Germany that were persecuted, hence the "people" quotation marks.
- Collectivism was common when smaller firms were shut down and/or incorporated into larger firms.
- The Nazis control of businesses undistributed profits.
- Under Nazi rule private property should not exist for its own sake. Owners should hold their property in trust for the community. Three laws authorised the government to withdraw or restrict the right to management if owners acted unsocially, mismanaged their property or endangered the welfare of the community.
- Leading Nazi's became the central figures in directional boards of public enterprises.
- Government regulation of the exchange of goods between owners, giving managerial directives to private enterprises and adjust private activities to governmental plans through an extensive regulation of property disposals by owners.
- Artisan combines, producer cooperatives, combined plants etc.
- The Nazis use of a command economy.
- The Goring trust among others.
All of these polices happened before and were not part of a war economy, with the exception of a couple which were already in place but merely extended or expanded upon.

"We were only following orders" didn't work out very well for the Wehrmacht, I fail to see why "we might have lost some money" should work out better for German industrialists. German industrialists were an active collaborator in the Nazi economic policy, preferring Nazi dictatorship over a democratic "Grand Coalition" government of social democrats and centrist liberals. There quite simply isn't any way to get around that reality on the ground.

You seem to keep collating the industrialists who were in bed with the Nazi's with all the other capitalists under Nazi rule? Or am I mistaken? It almost seems to me in this thread that a few people seem to think a capitalist has to be the owner or investor of some large corporation or industry to be deemed worthy of being a capitalist? Did some capitalists benefit financially under Nazi rule, absolutely, but using a guilt by association red herring is not a way to pursue your argument.

preferring Nazi dictatorship over a democratic "Grand Coalition" government of social democrats and centrist liberals. There quite simply isn't any way to get around that reality on the ground.

You would find to the contrary, a lot of businesses would have preferred a "Grand Coalition" of social democrats and centrists liberals rather than conducting business under Nazi dictatorship, unless of course you were the select few who bedded with the Nazi's.

I'm really not sure what you are getting at here. The phrase "war economy" refers to a government adopting stringent and far-reaching economic plans and forced coordination to maximize efficiency in wartime without regards to the dominant political parties economic preference in peacetime. Unless, of course, you choose to believe that the United States and the United Kingdom came down with a bad case of Stalinism for a couple years.

In your original quote/reply you stated "I'm going to have to pull a Traitorfish and ask if you have never heard of a "war economy". I figured that you were implying that because of a war economy and subsequent government spending and regulatory & monetary policies that you thought this was my argument as to why I thought the Nazis were socialist which I went on to later clarify it wasn't.

That's why I further asked: "Is your main argument that the Nazi's weren't socialist only because the means of production were "privatised" except during a war economy? Do you consider public works programs and social welfare programs as part of a war economy? Would you say that Hitler's control of business was more "totalitarian" than "socialist"? Can they both be intertwined?"

I'm really not sure why you insist on turning a one-page political slogan written by the Nazis when they were little more than one of many violent street gangs brawling in the early Weimar Republic into some sort of Word Of God for the Nazi Party throughout its brief but blood-soaked reign.

Mainly because I don't know how much of it was still being spieled by Hitler during his speeches during the 1930's, I haven't read or watched enough of his campaign material during the 1930's.

Not like they were much better. "I wasn't a Nazi, but I willingly served in an army that plunged the world into war that killed untold millions of humans as part of our leader's vision of an apocalyptic race war to ensure the superior Aryan race was the only one remaining amongst the funeral pyres and shattered cities."

Well we cant really guess the motives of why men and women joined the armed forces of the Wehrmacht under the Nazi regime, when conscription was re-enacted those ones who were called up didn't really get a choice.
The SS and Gestapo recruits are a different measure, they were most certainly signing up because of their ideological beliefs with Hitler.

Now unfortunately, I don't have my books with me on the Protestant Churches responses to Nazism, but given the paucity of figures we have going to prison or being killed by the Nazis for their opposition to Nazis ideology, that opposition clearly never really filtered down to rank and file Protestants.
(Plus, you have the whole "German Christian" movement which, among other things, basically ripped out the entire Old Testament on the grounds it was too Jewish.)

That's all good and all, but I wasn't making the claim that the Christian church approved of the Nazis, I was replying to your assertion that the Nazis liked Christianity or were Christian. For Muslims however, this was a different story in regards to religious affiliations with the Nazi's, not many people want to touch this topic though because it might ruin their romanticized world view of the Muslim world.

My larger point on Christianity and Nazism is this: No matter how much institutionally the various churches may have thought Nazism a scourge upon civilization, their private misgivings did absolutely nothing to help the untold millions murdered on account of nothing more than their ancestry, the civilians whose bodies were flayed by shrapnel, or those civilians starving in the shattered wrecks of burned out cities.

Its kind of funny though, when a Muslim terrorist blows up yet another Western landmark or infrastructure, its the "Imperialist West's" fault that it happened and an acknowledgement or some kind of apology is demanded on behalf of the people of Western nations by the government. Then when people ask that a Muslim community leader or politician speak out or condemn the actions of the terrorist and denounce what the terrorist stands for people are quick to state that its not the job of the Muslim leader to come out and denounce anything they shouldn't have to because its not the real "Islam".
Then all of a sudden, its of the utmost importance and the upmost responsibility that the Christian church must come out and apologise for the crimes of the Nazis because somehow they were complicit in these crimes.
I'm in no way stating that this is your stance on the topic, it was more of a analogy on what usually happens when various religious groups are asked to take "responsibly" on past misgivings.

Plus you know if you didn't mention it some idiot would bring it up to detract from the real point, which is that the church largely collab'ed with the Nazis.

You use the term "largely", so you must have some kind of PowerPoint presentation at your disposal demonstrating this vast collaboration you speak of. Care to create another thread? This ones gone somewhat off-topic, but is back on track looking at the last postings.