Kompozer
will ruin this page.
This page and the links in it are provided only for critical study of
national socialism and fascism, and are not intended as any form of endorsement of
the claims or views herein and therein. The students are
warned hereby that national socialism and fascism proved to
be the most brutal, inhumane, violent, and oppessive
pathological froms of socialism.
All material in this file is
optional
and will not be covered by tests.
Links for
Critical Study of National Socialism and Fascism
Quick links
A general perspective
Nazi program
Nazi - Soviet Union alliance
Mussolini on
totalitarian state
Facts
about
Hiltler's economic policies
[A general perspective
National
socialism and fascism fall into category of collectivism.
Unlike Marxism-socialism that aimed at elimination of free-market, competitive capitalism and replacing it with a centrally-planned competition-free economy, national socialism and fascism were poised to leave capitalism in place and to control and parasitize rather than eliminating it.
Just
like
in
any
other
collectivist (in particular, socialist) state, individual
rights and liberties were severely restricted and submitted
to the "higher cause": the society and the state that
institutionalized it.
Ethics was
replaced with ideology.
Large scale social engineering, augmented with intensive
indoctrination, was used to transform (socialize2)
the people onto obedient servants of the state.]
25 point NSDAP program 
[NSDAP is an acronym for National
Socialist German Workers' Party,
(in
German: Nationalsozialistische
Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) often abbreviated as Nazi, that
was the Germany's rulling party shortly before and during
the World War 2.]
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm
"The Seeds of
Evil: Germany 1919 - 1933.
The
25 point Programme of the NSDAP
The Programme of the German
Workers' Party [...]
[...]
7.
We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to
provide
a livelihood for its citizens.
[...]
9.
All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.
10.
It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform
physical or mental work. [...]
We demand therefore:
11. The abolition
of incomes unearned by work.
[...]
13.
We demand the nationalization of all businesses
which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
14. We demand profit-sharing
in large industrial enterprises.
15.
We demand the extensive development of insurance
for old age.
16. We demand the creation and
maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing
of big department stores, [...]
17.
We demand a land reform [...]
20.
[...]
We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents,
whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the
State.
[...]"
[Comment MS: Calling the above a right-wing, conservative
program (or a defense of capitalism) is utterly absurd. The Left, openly sympathetic to fascism and nazism before WWII, simply had to find a way to disassociate itself from Auschwitz and Dachau, and that's the trick that they pulled out. They branded fascism and nazism "far-Right" in order to make it appear as distant form the Left as possible.
True, National Socialists did not deliver on many of their promises, but so did not Marxists-socialists (in Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc.). Some claim that it "proves" that Nazism was not socialism because it did not deliver on its socialistic promises. Such a claim, however, is deceptive as it would excuse virtually any political scam as long as the said scam did not deliver on its promises. For instance, no political scam that is based on false promises could be held accountable for never delivering on its false promises, by simply claiming that it was something else because it did not deliver what it had promised.]
Wikipedia
"In early August
[1939], Germany and the Soviet
Union 
worked out the last details of their economic deal, and
started to discuss a political alliance. They explained to
each other the reasons for their foreign policy hostility in
the 1930s, finding common
ground in the anti-capitalism of both countries."
"After the publication of
the secret protocols and other secret German-Soviet
relations documents, in 1948, Stalin published Falsifiers of History,
which included the claim that, during the Pact's operation,
Stalin rejected Hitler's claim to share in a division of the
world, without mentioning the Soviet offer to join the
Axis."
[Axis was a miltary bloc during the
World War 2 whose main member states were: Germany, Italy,
and Japan.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact
Below is a picture
of Soviet (left) and Nazi (right) generals taken when their
armies met after conquest of Poland in 1939. They were
supposed to be "friends forever".
Mussolini's own summary of the
Fascist philosophy (in Italy):
"Tutto nello Stato, niente al
di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato"
(Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing
against the State)
Facts
(with links) about Hitler and Nazi's economic policies
Excerpts from
Against
the
mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany
by Germà Bel
Economic History Review
(2009) pp. 1 - 22
http://www.ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf
(a link to the original manuscript at Universitat de
Barcelona I Ppre-IREA
http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf)
Hitler was an enemy of free
market economies. The Nazi regime rejected
[classical] liberalism [classical
liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology
belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed
on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the
power of the government], and was strongly
against free competition and regulation of the
economy by market mechanisms. Still, as a social Darwinist,
Hitler was reluctant to totally dispense with private
property and competition. Hitler's
solution was to combine autonomy and a large role for
private initiative and ownership rights within firms with
the total
subjection of property rights outside the firm to State
control. “It was a totalitarian system of
government control within the framework of private property
and private profit. It maintained private enterprise and
provided profit incentives as spurs to efficient management.
But the
traditional freedom of the entrepreneur was narrowly
circumscribed.” In other words, there was private
initiative in the production process, but no private
initiative was allowed in the distribution of the product.
Owners could act freely within their firms, but faced tight
restrictions in the market. [pp. 13, 14] [p. 16 in the manuscript]
With respect to his position with regard to private
ownership, Hitler
explained that “I want everyone to keep what he has earned
subject to the principle that the good of
the community
takes priority over that of the individual. But the State
should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be
an agent of the State....The Third Reich
will always retain the right to control property owners.” [p. 14] [p. 16 in the manuscript]
Hitler on socialization:
“Why bother with such half-measures when I have far more
important matters in hand, such as the people themselves?. .
. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize2
human beings.“ [p.14] [p. 17 in the manuscript]
[Comment by M.S. Nazis, like
all other kinds of socialists, were notorious for not
delivering on their campaign promises, never mind their notoriety for attempts to enrich themselves that was characteristic of corrupt governments.]
Once the
Nazis came to power, it did not take long for the
government to produce official statements against
nationalization. In 12 February 1933,
an important advisor in the team of the State Secretary of
Public Economics, Alfred Hugenberg, publicly stated that
“The policy of nationalization pursued in the last years
will be stopped. The state owned enterprises will be
transformed again into private firms.” It is worth noting
that Hugenberg was not a member of the Nazi Party. In fact, most of the
members of the Hitler's first cabinets were not Nazis.
Indeed, these cabinet members were
representative of the conventional right wing parties
(before they were suppressed
in July 1933 [and their representatives austed from the government by Nazis - comment by M.S.]) and had strong ties with German
industrialists. [p.16] [p. 18 in the manuscript]
Nazi Party was looking
not only for business support, but also for increased
control over the economy. In this way, privatization
was seen as a tool in the hands of the Nazi Party
to “facilitate the accumulation of private fortunes and
industrial empires by its foremost members and collaborators.”
This would have intensified
centralization of economic affairs and government in an
increasingly narrow group that Merlin termed “the national
socialist elite.” [p. 12] [p. 15 in the manuscript]
Excerpts
from
a summary description
http://gdc.gale.com/archivesunbound/
archives-unbound-economy-and-war-
in-the-third-reich-19331944-the/
of
The
Economy
and War in the Third Reich, 1933-1944,
by Richard J. Overy
Oxford University Press
Hermann Goering introduced
the four-year
plan whose main aim was to make Germany
self-sufficient to fight a war within four years. Under
Goering imports were slashed. Wages and prices were controlled - under
penalty of being sent to a concentration camp. Dividends
were restricted to six percent on book capital. And
strategic goals to be reached at all costs were declared:
the construction of synthetic rubber plants, more steel
plants, automatic textile factories.
While the strict state intervention into the economy, and
the massive rearmament policy, almost led to full employment
during the 1930s, real wages in Germany dropped by roughly
25% between 1933 and 1938. Trade unions were abolished, as
well as collective bargaining and the right to strike. In place of
ordinary profit incentive to guide investment, investment
was guided through regulation to accord with needs of the
State. Government financing eventually came to
dominate the investment process, which the
proportion of private securities issued falling from over
half of the total in 1933 and 1934 to approximately 10
percent in 1935-1938. Heavy taxes on profits limited
self-financing of firms. The largest
firms were mostly exempt from taxes on profits,
however government control of these were extensive.
Hitler Was A Socialist, (And Not A Right Wing
Conservative)
https://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/
Comment. Some
advocates/sympathizers of Left's ideology claim that
National Socialism and Fascism should be characterized
as Right-wing. Their main argument invokes the fact that
both systems were de facto
military-style dictatorships.
Well, if one accepts
this kind of argument then one should also conclude that
today's North Korea, an undisputedly Communist country,
is a Right-wing regime. (An absurd conclusion that
demonstrates the fallacy of the above mentioned
argument.)
Below are some insightful pictures of North-Korean
"Right-wingers":
It
looks more like the most progressive form of Soviet
collectivism.
Here is a snapshot of People's Republic of China (a socialist country ruled by the Chinese Communist Party) military:
It
looks like the most aggressive form of expansionist left-wing nationalism.
Comment. Another line of (simplistic) argument claims that national socialism was "right-wing" because of its nationalism. There are several flaws in that line.
First, although it is generally true that socialism tends to be international, nationalism does not make a political movement automtically "right-wing". Right-wing means respecting and enforcing individual rights (in particular, natural rights listed by John Locke: the right to life, liberty, and property). Although this may require a sovereign nationhood that without strong sense of national coherence (including enforcement of national borders) would not be sustainable, nationalism in itself is not a reliable indicator of the Left-or-Right oreintation of the political movement in question.
Second, the reason why German socialists added "National" to the name of their party (NSDAP) was their desire to distance themselves from Marxists-socialists (in particular, from Soviet Marxists-socialists) and their international ideology, as well as a need for an excuse to build potent military that they later used to invade other nations. The latter (the invasion) had noting to do with nationalism, and was an expression of expansionism and and its basic tool: aggression. Nationalism is not a reliable indicator of nation's expansionistic or aggressive intentions as it often is a means for defense (a form of group survival strategy) of a society against foreign threats from predatory societies.
The above show the third flow in the above-mentioned line of argument: and unproven and absurd (contradicted by the facts, that is) assertion that nationalism is a characteristic property of "Right-wing", aggresive, and totalitarian societies.
Page last modified December 22, 2021