What kind of person opens up a discussion topic with the words “Nazi” and “Socialist” in the title, and then says they didn’t want to discuss “politics and economics”?
19 Likes
It was split from another topic and started over the claims that there were left wing fascists.
16 Likes
Ah, thank you.
It seems they thought that people not being allowed to chemically dye their pets was proof of Mussolini’s reincarnation.
That was one of his platform policies, wasn’t it?
11 Likes
9 Likes
In my expirince their policies tend to benefit elitis.
3 Likes
Just about everything other than libertarian socialism will benefit elites, it’s just who are the right elites and the wrong elites. There is a huge spectrum of difference in there.
9 Likes
The Mises institute isn’t a great source. Try reading some historians of nazi germany instead. There are quite a few, some who specialize in economics.
23 Likes
Not quite a serious treatment of the Mises institute, but I don’t think they rate being treated seriously.
8 Likes
Which is what I said… he was ideologically driven and the institute carries that on.
I’d recommend someone like Adam Tooze, who has written extensively on the nazi economy:
13 Likes
Libertarian anything turns me off immediately. I prefer responsibility and duty of care to others and The environment over freedoms.
1 Like
Libertarian in the leftist sense doesn’t mean -bleep you- I got mine. It’s more -bleep the capitalists and all other hierarchies- kind of thing.
8 Likes
15 Likes
Reminds me of Zizek:
“If you ask me for really dangerous ideological films, for ideology at its purest, I’d say Kung Fu Panda . I saw it five times because my son likes it. The movie is extremely cynical in that you know they make fun of all this ideology, of Buddhism and these things, but the message is even though we know it is not true and we make fun, you have to believe in it. It’s this split of you know it’s not true but just make like you believe in it.”
4 Likes
The Nazis offered an alternative to free market capitalism and authoritarian communism which were the two competing economic systems at the time. Economically, it could be argued they were socialist, especially with all the social programs that were implemented like freeway construction and universal healthcare.
But that’s different than saying they were principally socialist. Many democratic, capitalist countries let their government build roads and offer universal healthcare while still being free and open societies not bent on eugenics and military expansionism. Fascism is self-destructive for the latter reasons, not because of efforts to balance the distribution of wealth.
1 Like
Ok. That word is tainted by the neo-feudalists who usually use it.
1 Like
I prefer to call them neo-feudalist myself.
2 Likes
Actually they were the most extreme version of capitalism possible. A corporatized state where even people were commodities to be bought and sold by businesses. Where the apparatus of mass murder was turned into revenue generating ventures.
The social programs enacted had nothing to do with the general welfare of its people, but priming them for use by the state. All done at the expense of nations and people conquered by them. An Imperialist program in its most extreme form. Feeding the Germans by starving the Poles.
15 Likes
Even before conquest, their social programs were like a company town.
14 Likes
But… they are bad guys and everyone knows socialists are always the bad guys! /s
But seriously, I’ll point up thread @anon73430903’s very thoughtful comments with some interesting links to some good analysis on the nazis.
Oh, and let’s not forget that some of the first people they went after were labor unions and actual communists/socialists. Any “socialism” was run through the party, and to be a member of the party meant proving one’s racial purity (at least among the rabble).
17 Likes
