[This is Section 8 of Nietzsche and the Nazis.]
8. Economic socialism, not capitalism
The second theme of the Program is a stress upon socialism and a strong rejection of capitalism.
Numerically, socialism is the most emphasized theme in the Nazi Program, for over half of the Program’s twenty-five points—fourteen out of the twenty-five, to be exact—itemize economically socialist demands.
Point 11 calls for the abolition of all income gained by loaning money at interest.
Point 12 demands the confiscation of all profits earned by German businesses during World War I.
Point 13 demands the nationalization of all corporations.
Point 14 demands profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
Point 15 demands the generous development of state-run old-age insurance.
Point 16 calls for the immediate socialization of the huge department stores.
And so on.
So strong was the Nazi party’s commitment to socialism that in 1921 the party entered into negotiations to merge with another socialist party, the German Socialist Party. The negotiations fell though, but the economic socialism remained a consistent Nazi theme through the 1920s and 30s.
For example, here is Adolf Hitler in a speech in 1927: “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”[10]
Even more strongly, Josef Goebbels hated capitalism and urged socialism. Dr. Josef Goebbels was perhaps the most brilliant and educated of all the Nazi politicians. Once the Nazis came to power he was to be one of the most powerful of the very top Nazis—perhaps number two or three after Hitler himself. But Goebbels’ commitment to National Socialist principles began much earlier. He received a wide-ranging classical education by attending five universities in Germany, eventually receiving a Ph.D. in literature and philosophy from Heidelberg University in 1921. During his graduate student days he absorbed and agreed with much of the writings of communists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Damning those he called “the money pigs of capitalist democracy,”[11] Goebbels in speeches and pamphlets regularly declaimed that “Money has made slaves of us.”[12] “Money,” he argued, “is the curse of mankind. It smothers the seed of everything great and good. Every penny is sticky with sweat and blood.” And in language that could be right out of the writings of Karl Marx, Goebbels believed fervently: “The worker in a capitalist state—and that is his deepest misfortune—is no longer a living human being, a creator, a maker. He has become a machine. A number, a cog in the machine without sense or understanding. He is alienated from what he produces.”[13]
The Nazi solution, then, is strong socialism.[14] The state should control the economy, organizing its production and distribution in the collective interest.[15]
References
[10] May 1, 1927; quoted in Toland 1976, p. 306.
[11] Quoted in Orlow 1969, p. 87.
[12] Goebbels 1929, in Mosse ed., 1966, p. 107.
[13] Goebbels 1932, “Those Damned Nazis” pamphlet.
[14] See Appendix 2 for more quotations from Nazi leaders on the socialism of National Socialism.
[15] This explains why the Nazi SA “staged joint rallies with the Communists and planned campaigns to win over the KDP members well into 1929 and 1930” (Orlow 1969, p. 210).
[Bibliography.]
[Return to the Nietzsche and the Nazis page. Go to the StephenHicks.org main page.]
They were rhetorical socialists. In practice they were state capitalists–they believed in state control and private ownership, a bit more strenuous version of what Democrats believe in in America. Businesses were only taken over by the state if they were strategic or belonged to “enemies of the people” (Jews, Communists, and Socialists).
A follow up question on the “rhetorical” adjective, Tom. I wonder if you would describe them as merely rhetorical racists, since they didn’t attack all races and even formed alliances with Italians and Japanese. Or if you would describe them as only rhetorical eugenicists, as they focused mostly on obvious Aryan types and Jews in their policies and left most people to choose their own sex partners.
If, to come back to economics, (a) all of the major Nazis said they advocated socialism in theory, if (b) when they came to power they instituted laws that gave them control over all resources (including human resources), and if (c) in practice they enacted the laws vigorously, albeit with some pragmatic exceptions — then what more in your judgment would it take for them properly to be called socialist?
Perhaps it would be helpful to specify some criteria for what socialism is?
I had always read that the aspects of the official Nazi Party Programme that smacked of “Socialism” were an embarrassment to Hitler when he later enlisted the aid of the large industrialists. I find it hard to believe that Germany’s largest corporations would have so enthusiastically supported the National Socialists had they truly been “socialists.” Every single Hitler biographer whom I have read (Kershaw, Evans, Shirer, Toland, Fest, et. al) has agreed on this point. Mr. Mitchell is correct. The Nazis were “socialists” in name only where the rubber met the road.
Perhaps one should consider Social Survivalism as a sane alternative. http://tinyurl.com/28xnk2h
Mark,
“I find it hard to believe that Germany’s largest corporations would have so enthusiastically supported the National Socialists had they truly been “socialists.” ”
I think the same thing when corporations give money to the Democrat Party. Corporations give support to those who’d oppress them because they either want a piece of taxpayer-coerced largess, or they want the oppressors off their backs.
If you were the CEO of a German corporation, would you say “no” to Hitler? Would you say “no” if it meant your death and the deaths of your family members? One need not “own” the means of production in order to control every facet of production as if one did. Fascism, Socialism, and Communism are just different names for the same thing: authoritarianism.
It is ridiculous to try and use the 25 points or the Nazi propaganda as so-called proof of the Nazis’ socialism. Written in 1920 it is usually recognized by historians as nothing more than a propaganda sham. None of the economic principles were even attempted and Hitler was to repudiate them when he came to power. They were only a device to attempt to steal issues from the real left. See Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” p41-42.
“In 1920 the 25 points were useful, because they brought support; as soon as the party had passed that stage however, they became an embarrassment… Hitler had agreed to the socialist clauses of the programme, because in 1920… such phrases were essential for any politician,” (who wanted to attract mass support)
“What Hitler meant by socialism can be illustrated by a speech he made on 28 July 1922. ‘who ever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of his nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, Deutschland, Deutschland Uber alles, to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land, land and people – that man is a socialist.'” Alan Bullock, “Adolf Hitler” p 75 -76
So for Hitler, his ‘Socialism’ is nothing more than an extreme nationalism and elitism. That’s not socialism!.
We should look and see more truth behind his Jan. ’32 speech in front of some 650 businessmen as the Industry Club in Dusseldorf, when he denounced Marxism as the source of all of Germany’s ills and emphasized the importance of private property. And we can believe that because that is how he acted. He attacked socialism, communism and leftists in general, and protected private property that was not slow in meeting the needs for his war.
NONE of the economic principles in the 25 Points were even talked about being put into action after they were written. “A pseudo-socialist note was sounded by the demand for abolition of unearned incomes, the confiscation of war profits… It was a typical far-right document of its time. In practice it did not mean very much,” Evans, Ibid, 179
And the points were far from ‘unalterable’ And as a matter of fact on April 13, 1928; Hitler issued a clarification to the effect that when he was making any negative comments about capitalism all he really meant was Jewish speculators. “The Nazi Party was committed in principle to the sanctity of private property.” Separating the words from the actual actions is not a good way to study the Nazis as most Historians adept in the period recognize. By putting weight upon the words of propagandists without convening actions, only makes one a victim of that propaganda. Hitler proclaimed that he had “No more territorial ambitions” and that the German Army didn’t lose WWI amongst other things. Are to now accept, because of those words, that all the invasions after Munich didn’t happen? Are we to believe that the St Michael offensive wasn’t a failure, and that the German Army wasn’t in retreat in 1918 and about to break? No, we can only put weight behind the words that are backed by action, and as Robert Paxton states:
“Whenever fascist parties acquired power, however, they did nothing to carry out these [early] anticapitalist threats. By contrast, they enforced with the utmost violence and thoroughness their threats against socialism. Street fights over turf with young communists were among their most powerful propaganda images. Once in power, fascist regimes banned strikes, dissolved independent labor unions, lowered wage earners’ purchasing power, and showered money on armaments industries, to the immense satisfaction of employers.” Robert O. Paxton. “The Anatomy of Fascism” p53
And Paxton also makes it clear, that by doing what Hicks is here, one gets a very twisted view that doesn’t really fit the historical picture.
“What they said cannot be ignored, of course, for it helps explain their appeal. Even at its most radical, however, fascists’ anticapitalist rhetoric was selective. While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization — capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation. When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history. For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity. Once in power, fascist regimes confiscated property only from political opponents, foreigners, or Jews. None altered the social hierarchy, except to catapult a few adventurers into high places.
At most, they replaced market forces with state economic management, but, in the trough of the Great Depression, most businessmen initially approved of that. If fascism was “revolutionary,” it was so in a special sense, far removed from the word’s meaning as usually understood from 1789 to 1917, as a profound overturning of the social order and the redistribution of social, political, and economic power. It turned out in practice that fascists’ anticapitalism was highly selective. Even at their most radical, the socialism that the fascists wanted was a “national socialism”: one that denied only foreign or enemy property rights (including that of internal enemies). They cherished national producers. Above all, it was by offering an effective remedy against socialist revolution that fascism turned out in practice to find a space. Robert O. Paxton. “The Anatomy of Fascism” p53
“Yet the equality of status so loudly and insistently proclaimed by the Nazis did not imply equality of social position, income or wealth. The Nazis did not radically revise the taxation system so as to even up people’s net incomes, for example, or control the economy in the manner that was done in the Soviet Union, or later on in the German Democratic republic, so as to minimize the differences between rich and poor. Rich and poor remained in the Third Reich, as much as they ever had. In the end, the aristocracy’s power over the land remained undisturbed, and younger nobles even found a new leadership role in the SS, Germany’s future political elite. Peasant families that had run their village community for decades or even centuries managed for the most part to retain their position by reaching a limited accommodation with the new regime. Businessmen, big and small, continued to run their business for the usual capitalist profit motive.” – Evans, “The Third Reich in Power” p500
So, as opposed to the mere words of their propagandists, and those who foolishly believe them, the record shows that the Nazis actually acted not as socialists, but as capitalists do; property and profits remained private in Nazi Germany and they even privatized many areas of previous public ownership.
“Whatever level of state intervention, it could be argued quite forcefully that belief in private property was central to fascist ideology, as [Roger] Eatwell states: the sympathetic reference to socialism did not mean that fascists accepted the abolition of private property. This was seen as a law of nature.” – “The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right” p141
“Nazi planning left business intact, from the great firms like IG Farben all the way down to small retailers and backstreet artisanal workshops” “The Third Reich in Power” Evans, p371
“The Darwinian principles that animated the regime dictated that competition between companies and individuals would remain the guiding principle of the economy, just as competition between different agencies of state and party were the guiding principles of politics and administration.” Evens. Ibid, p410
“Although modern economic literature usually fails to notice it, the Nazi government in 1930s Germany undertook a wide scale privatization policy. The government sold public ownership in several state-owned firms in different sectors. In addition to this, delivery of some public services (welfare) previously produced by the public sector was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the Nazi Party.”
“Nazi Privatization in the 1930s” – Economist’s View 9/06
“Both Mussolini and Hitler showed their gratitude to their big business patrons by privatizing many perfectly solvent state-owned steel mills, power plants, banks and steamship companies. Both regimes dipped heavily into the public treasury to re-float or subsidize (private) heavy industry. Agribusiness farming was expanded and heavily subsidized. Both states guaranteed a return on the capital invested by giant corporations while assuming most of the risks and losses on investments. As is often the case with reactionary regimes, public capital was raided by private capital.”
Parenti – “Blackshirts and Reds” p7
“It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc.”
“In an article published in the Der Deutsche Volkswirt in February 1934, Heinz Marschner proposed ‘The reprivatization’ of urban transportation, which after the period of inflation came under public control, especially in the hands of local governments.” This proposal was related to the Nazi government’s support for returning the ownership of urban transportation back to the private sector.”
“Several months later, in an article discussing banking policy in Germany, Hans Baumgarten analyzed the conditions required for the reprivatization in the German banking sector. Discussion of privatization was increasingly common soon after the Nazi government took office early in 1933, and privatizations soon followed.”
“In the 1930s The Deutsche Reichsbahn (German Railways) was the largest single public enterprise in the world, bringing together most of the railways services operating within Germany. The German Budget for fiscal year 1934/35, the last one published established that Railway preference shares worth Reichsmark 224 million were to be sold.”
“The Commerz-Bank was reprivatized through several share sales in 1936-37. These shares amounted to Rm. 57 million, and the largest single transaction was a sale of Rm. 22 million in October 1936. Deutsche Bank was reprivatized in several operations effectively implemented in 1935-37.” – Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany,” Germà Bel
So despite their words, the Nazis acted not like socialists, but as the capitalists they really were. It is rather disingenuous and simplistic to use the words of propagandists and ignore what really was actually the case.
The Nazis were in fact firmly on the left, and indeed socialists NOT capitalists.
Whether the Nazis were truly socialists or not can be straightforwardly ascertained by looking at their policies and actions as well as understanding the difference between collectivism and individualism. Collectivism requires the individual to subordinate to some group, such as broader society or state. It undergirds “sacrifice for the general good“. Consequently, collectivism requires “big” expansive government to coercively implement the ”will of the people”. Central planning dominates where government bureaucrats intervene in the economy through heavy taxation and regulation (as in mixed economies); state directed rules and imperatives imposed on businesses as was the case for the National Socialists (Nazis); or outright ownership of the means of production as in communist societies.
The right side of the political spectrum favors individualism. In this arrangement of society the individual is the “primary” and no longer subordinate to any group. For individual liberty to flourish, limited government is required. The government’s job is not to socially engineer but to protect individual rights (such as property rights). As a consequence, pure or laissez-faire capitalism is embraced. Capitalism works when two parties engage in a voluntary transaction in which both benefit (as they most often do). This is the key difference: capitalism relies on voluntary transactions, whereas socialism is run coercively with the “gun“ of the government backing it up.
The right favors a free and prosperous society with only a light touch government. Thus, society is seen as a group of individuals working and cooperating together voluntarily. The left favors a big intrusive government that imposes “Collective” values on the society in a top-down fashion. This ranges from intervention into the economy (as discussed above) to virtually almost every aspect of how we behave in our lives. In the 1930’s Hitler stated it wasn’t politics that he was interested in, but determining how people lived their lives. And in 1930 he explicitly declared he was a socialist.
Property rights are a central aspect of capitalism that the right favors. Without property rights, why would anyone take a risk if whatever they innovate or create could be taken away at a whim? Property rights ensure innovators can reap the benefit of their productivity. Profit incentive is key to innovation, and competition ensures higher product quality and lower prices. That is the beauty of capitalism. On the other hand, socialism (certainly in its most extreme forms) has little use for respecting private property since government bureaucrats run the economy from the top down.
The proposition, as put forth by the previous individual, that somehow Nazis valued and respected property rights (and therefore were capitalists) does not align with reality. For example Kristallnacht in 1938 saw the widespread destruction of Jewish owned businesses, buildings and places of worship by the Nazis. This is not exactly demonstrating a respect for property rights. And if they don’t respect them for their Jewish citizens, who they scapegoated, they certainly are NOT going to respect them for anyone else who does not align with their agenda. For example, when Nazi leader Martin Bormann was overseeing the building of Hitler’s retreat in southern Bavaria at Obersalzburg he determined he needed to procure some of the surrounding land. However, there was a German couple who owned a hotel on that land and were reluctant to sell it. They were sent to Dachau concentration camp. Again, not exactly respective of property rights.
It’s pretty easy to see that the Nazis were as far left as could be and avowed socialists NOT capitalists. Individuals were completely subordinate to the state, and the state directed businesses on how to conduct their transactions, allocate labor and resources. Not exactly laissez-faire capitalism.
As Matt Ridley put it in his book, The Evolution of Everything, the Communists were the international socialists, while the Nazis and fascist were the national socialists (as they stated explicitly).