| | What academic authority, Steven? I also happen to be in the minority regarding political theory, economics, philosophy, human rights, social science, and probably many other subjects. Does the majority in academia determine the validity of any given position? Objectivism is a minority, Steven.
"The industrial policy of the NSDAP greatly favored the industrialist-owner. The "Third Reich" bequeathed almost unfettered power on the "Fuerhers" of individual industrial enterprises. Factory owners and management were allowed to beat and kill enslaved Jews and Slavs. Factory owners were given "uebermenschen" slaves at 'discount' rates and were granted fat, luxurious lives and war-industry contracts."
See my above quotes from Hitler, or possibly read them for the first time in this discussion. If the state claims the right of control and distribution you do not have any private property at all. What you have is citizens that are lucky enough to be in favor with the arbiters of the "public good". This has happened in every socialist system in history.
"None of these policies mimic a socialist/communist state in the slightest. I readily grant that the heavy breathing of the Fatherland was on the neck of every industrialist, but ask EG Farben or Oskar Schindler if the policies were socialistic. Were the factories owned and run by the workers or local councils? Were the profits spread evenly to workers? Did the regime of the NSDAP in any way attempt to implement "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?" No, no and no."
First off, you seem to be equating socialism and communism as the same thing. What criteria did you use that doesn't also apply to national socialism? I direct you to the 25 point plan below.
Socialism as defined by webster, see above, does not require that factories be run by "worker's councils" or "local" councils. Does China do that? Did the old USSR? I seem to recall that the state is pretty influential under those systems.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." is a hallmark of Marxism. See the above definition of socialism. Definitions one and two apply to national socialism. There are more varieties of socialism than marxism.
"This does not make any sense to me. The very basic definition of socialism is one in which profits are 'fairly' and evenly distributed among egalitarian lines, where total economic equality and economic opportunities are enforced on the "capitalists". The regime of the NSDAP looked nothing like this...at all. Ever."
Again, see the above definition of socialism. Profits being fairly and evenly distributed along egalitarian lines is not fundamental to the definition of socialism, its part of the PR campaign. No socialist system has EVER done it. The same goes for total economic equality. Have a little look at the excerpts from the national socialism plan below. Seems pretty harsh on the capitalists to me. As a matter of fact, one of the primary criticisms national socialism had with the Jews was their capitalist behaviors.
The regime of the national socialism looked exactly like socialism, from the start. National socialists defined the "people" along racial lines. That was their variant of socialism.
"Or...because calling fascists socialists is kind of silly? The only motivation I see in trying to tie two distinct ideologies together is so you can beat leftists over the head with argumentum ad Hitlerum. You can say to the socialists "you're just like Hitler!"
The following are excerpts from the 25 point plan of the National Socialist program.
"We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens."
""We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts)."
"Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery."
"We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare."
"We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality."
"We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land."
"We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest"
You're right Steven. I have no idea how I ever got the idea that an ideology with the above goals could possibly be related to socialism.
Oh, I almost forgot. I provided a link you probably didn't bother to read. Here are some highlights.
"The difference between [socialism and fascism] is superficial and purely formal, but it is significant psychologically: it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open...." -“The Fascist New Frontier,” The Ayn Rand Column, 98
“If ownership” means the right to determine the use and disposal of material goods, then Nazism endowed the state with every real prerogative of ownership. What the individual retained was merely a formal deed, a contentless deed, which conferred no rights on its holder. Under communism, there is collective ownership of property de jure. Under Nazism, there is the same collective ownership de facto." - Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 18.
I realize that statements from the organization being discussed, along with Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff aren't nearly as complete or authoritative as "I am the basis and I am the authority for what I say." or some undefined phantasmal academia, but I find those points of view useful.
|
|
