There has been so much revisionism of the nazis in recent years that certain propagandists now have the cheek to claim Hitler was not a right winger or a capitalist. They like to point to the fact that the name of the Nazi Party is the National Socialist workers Party and therefore claim the party was socialist. This however would be like me claiming North Korea is a democratic country because the full title of the nation is "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea". I prefer to judge politicians and parties on their actions when trying to analyse their ideology.


If anyone is to understand the rise of the nazi party they must read this book



It explains how the nazi's were the political and military wing of capitalism. The nazis were propped up and funded by bankers, industrialists and aristocrats who feared the growing influence of socialists and communists. The rich right wingers saw the nazis as the best hope of crushing the trade unions and perserving capitalism.

To understand the relationship between the nazis and the capitalist class you must study the curious case of Fritz Thyssen. He was just one of many rich industrialists who backed the Nazis.
Fritz Thyssen : Nazi Germany

Anyway the right wing rag that is the Daily Mail was fully supportive of Hitler and Mussolini during the 30s. Enough said!

If anyone is to understand the role of property, socialism and fascism they should read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism. It explains that capitalism is a system of property rights and exchange for mutual benefits.



It methodically explains that all institutionalised forms of property rights invasion are socialistic in nature, and that fascism is merely the 'rightist' element of socialism. Nazi Germany was an economy in which private property existed in name only, and hence could hardly be described as capitalistic.

One of these books is based on anaylis of historic events and the other is a right wing tract. I wonder which one tells us more about Naziism?

Can you explain why "socialist" Naziism was virulently anti-communist and anti-socialist, 2000 miles ?

Fascism is an adaptation of capitalism to crisis conditions: breaking of independent Trade Unions and workers organisations is a requirement for a facist regime to come to power.

Originally Posted by cactusflower

One of these books is based on anaylis of historic events and the other is a right wing tract. I wonder which one tells us more about Naziism?

Can you explain why "socialist" Naziism was virulently anti-communist and anti-socialist, 2000 miles ?

If you wish to analyse nazism in historical perspective, you should probably include its rise as a response to "unfettered" capitalism and a revolt against liberalism too. If the Nazis really were as capitalistic as you say, the government would have at worst contained itself to protecting property rights.

Thus the analysis of the Nazis being protectors of capitalism fails; in reality they were protectors of some (incumbent) capitalists.

Originally Posted by cactusflower

Fascism is an adaptation of capitalism to crisis conditions: breaking of independent Trade Unions and workers organisations is a requirement for a facist regime to come to power.

No, fascism is the collectivisation of resources while maintaining the facade of a free economy.

[quote]

Originally Posted by 20000miles

If you wish to analyse nazism in historical perspective, you should probably include its rise as a response to "unfettered" capitalism and a revolt against liberalism too. If the Nazis really were as capitalistic as you say, the government would have at worst contained itself to protecting property rights.

Thus the analysis of the Nazis being protectors of capitalism fails; in reality they were protectors of some (incumbent) capitalists.

Its rise was a response to the catastrophic collapse of the capitalist economy under the Weimar Republic and the decapitation of the left leadership by the Social Democrats.

No, fascism is the collectivisation of resources while maintaining the facade of a free economy.

No, fascism retained private ownership of the means of production and land, except where necessary for the purposes of putting the economy on a war footing. Workers rights were removed, not added to. Communism/socialism means that the working class have ownership and control over the means of production.

You haven't explained by fascists hate communists/socialists.

We are seeing something not dissimilar in the "nationalisation of the banks" and bank bailouts. It is all being done to try to prop up capitalism, not to overthrow it.

Surely it was never in doubt. To use a clichée, wasn't it the capitalist classes who 'hired' him?

Originally Posted by Monkey-Magic

There has been so much revisionism of the nazis in recent years that certain propagandists now have the cheek to claim Hitler was not a right winger or a capitalist. They like to point to the fact that the name of the Nazi Party is the National Socialist workers Party and therefore claim the party was socialist. This however would be like me claiming North Korea is a democratic country because the full title of the nation is "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea". I prefer to judge politicians and parties on their actions when trying to analyse their ideology.


If anyone is to understand the rise of the nazi party they must read this book



It explains how the nazi's were the political and military wing of capitalism. The nazis were propped up and funded by bankers, industrialists and aristocrats who feared the growing influence of socialists and communists. The rich right wingers saw the nazis as the best hope of crushing the trade unions and perserving capitalism.

To understand the relationship between the nazis and the capitalist class you must study the curious case of Fritz Thyssen. He was just one of many rich industrialists who backed the Nazis.
Fritz Thyssen : Nazi Germany

Anyway the right wing rag that is the Daily Mail was fully supportive of Hitler and Mussolini during the 30s. Enough said!

Here is a poster with perfect vision. Too bad he only has one eye.

Originally Posted by youngdan

Here is a poster with perfect vision. Too bad he only has one eye.

Ha.. bad taste dude...

, the poster being refered to is Monkey-Magic, not the cover of the book ya dimwit.

Fascism is an adaptation of capitalism to crisis conditions: breaking of independent Trade Unions and workers organisations is a requirement for a facist regime to come to power.

If suppressing free trade unions is evidence against Hitler then it can also be used against the Soviet Union, China and every other communist country that ever was.

The people who financed Hitler were trying to protect their own wealth not the free market. Like most business people they wanted a government that would rig the market in their favour and give them a monopoly position. Fascism divides up the economy among the various interests and protects them from a free market. Social partnership with jackboots.

But the most striking characteristic of fascism (and the main reason we call it evil) is that it sees people not as individuals with rights but as members of groups based on race. In fairness to Marx he had no time for that. He divided people by class instead.

When you look at the race obsession of today's left it appears to be more influenced by fascist thinking that Marxism. It is protectionist and divides people by race (and even religion!) rather than by class.

Of course you don't have the mass murders. But Fascism and Communism were both mass-murdering ideologies so that 's not really a basis for distinguishing them.

Stalin, Lenin and the other communist butchers still have defenders on this site.