Nazi Economic Policy
The National Socialists had radical reforms in mind. The "unalterable" 25 point 1920 program of the party proposed, among other things, "that all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished"; "the nationalization of all trusts"; "profit-sharing in large industries"; and "an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land." FULL ARTICLE
Comments (68)
For your information: Nazism was not a "socialist" system. Nazi Germany was a capitalist country, where the big corporations got very rich from military spending. Thyssen, I. G. Farben, et al made lots of money.
If that is "socialism," then you need to rethink your vocabulary. And you need to read about the history of Nazism.
Published: January 2, 2009 11:45 AM
Ya know, we are moving in that direction fast. I saw a sticker on someones car at a store the other day that read, "Get behind our troops, or get in front of them.". Horrible.
Published: January 2, 2009 11:52 AM
Gene, you do realize that Nazi is just short in German for National Socialist, correct? There is no doubt that Nazi economic planning was run by the government, which is the very definition of socialism.
Published: January 2, 2009 11:56 AM
P.S. None other than Henry Ford gave money to the Nazi party in the 1920s. I guess that makes Ford a socialist!
Published: January 2, 2009 11:57 AM
gene, so the government steals property away from some people (taxation, inflation, nationalization) and gives it to others (government approved only, of course). there is no fundamental difference if the government gives the loot to government officials or government approved "businesses". in both cases, the government steals private property and makes it "public", which is exactly what communism is all about. to what you call the benefactors from such theft is completely irrelevant.
Published: January 2, 2009 11:59 AM
Libertarians are a lot like Stalinists. They have this all-encompassing dogma. And into their closed minds no challenging facts may enter! They are impossible to debate with. Truly hopeless. But I'll repeat the facts again:
1. Under fascism, industry remained in private hands, and prospered.
2. Hitler's first concentration camp victims were members of the German Communist Party. The Western press praised him for his anti-Communism.
3. Western capitalism was openly pro-fascist in the 1920s and 30s. TIME's Henry Luce and READER'S DIGEST had warm words for Mussolini, Franco, and Hitler. Henry Ford gave money to the Nazis.
These facts totally contradict the comforting myth that fascism was socialist. But the libertarians out there won't deal with such disquieting knowledge. I challenge all of you to respond to these points. If you don't, it simply proves my argument, and case closed
Published: January 2, 2009 12:03 PM
what is your argument? that ford obviously cant be a socialist, ford gave money to the nazi party, therefore the nazi party is not socialist? you think people can only be completely socialist or completely capitalist?
so there can only be 1 camp of socialists? industry did not remain in private hands, how did the war get funded? it was entirely funded by private corporations?
you prove absolutely nothing, except your inability to reason correctly.
Published: January 2, 2009 12:13 PM
"I challenge all of you to respond to these points. If you don't, it simply proves my argument, and case closed." - Gene
No, it proves that people don't believe you are intelligent enough to deserve a response. Anyway, this whole site responds to your mythical "points".
Published: January 2, 2009 12:17 PM
did the weapons manufacturers make them for free? did the government not give them any money from taxation and inflation? you are a fool if you think that taxation and inflation is money completely remaining in private hands.
Published: January 2, 2009 12:17 PM
As regards the fascists' public program having elements of socialism to it: they had to imitate the opposition Socialists' and Communists' rhetoric in order to gain support from leftists and the undecided.
By the way, one reason the US delayed entry into WW II was that respectable conservatives saw Hitler, Franco, and Mussolini as the lesser evil. Henry Luce of TIME openly praised fascisim. Overcoming that right-wing obstacle was one of FDR's biggest challenges.
Published: January 2, 2009 12:25 PM
this is probably a waste of time, but ill do it anyways.
you engage in false dichotomy when you think people are either completely socialist or completely capitalist. also even if that were true, you beg the question when you assume that some people are completely capitalist without any reasoning or evidence to prove so. and we live in a fascist/socialist country right now, with huge "defense" spending, military bases in over 100 foreign countries, and the most number of people in jail, period. also the aggressive wars in iraq and afganistan. pretty similar to hitler or stalin to me.
Published: January 2, 2009 12:32 PM
Gene
George Reisman has a good article on this blog
http://blog.mises.org/archives/004325.asp
"Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian"
Published: January 2, 2009 12:37 PM
Gene: “1. Under fascism, industry remained in private hands, and prospered.”
Why do you think the Germans named the party “National Socialist” if it had no pretensions of being socialist? The genius of German socialism was that it left the paper title in the hands of the “owner” but took away all control of property, so it fooled people into thinking they still had private property. But the essence of property is control, so they didn’t own property, they were merely fooled as are most people today. The Soviet form of socialism is much more honest. Besides, the leadership of the Soviet Union prospered while the peasants starved. Does that make them capitalists?
Gene: “2. Hitler's first concentration camp victims were members of the German Communist Party. The Western press praised him for his anti-Communism.”
Socialists of different stripes have always fought each other. The communists opposed the Nazis and wanted power for themselves. That’s why Hitler murdered them. He wanted to protect his power. That didn’t mean he opposed everything about their philosophy.
Gene: “3. Western capitalism was openly pro-fascist in the 1920s and 30s.”
I don’t know who you refer to as “Western capitalism.” Roosevelt was a Marxist as were many politicians. Many businessmen were socialists, too. They didn’t like the discipline required to operate in a free market and wanted state protection. As Adam Smith wrote, any time businessmen and politicians get together they are scheming to rob the people. Often the greatest enemies of capitalism are businessmen. And many people in the 20's and 30's were as fooled by German socialism as people are today.
Published: January 2, 2009 12:40 PM
Gene
George Reisman has a good article on this blog
http://blog.mises.org/archives/004325.asp
"Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian"
Published: January 2, 2009 12:42 PM
1. Are you against Social Security--which, many empirical studies show, has reduced poverty among the elderly?
2. Do you hate single-payer medical care, which has provided health care to all in Europe? Or are you brainwashed and believe that "socialized medicine is a disaster"? (Oh, sorry, only Communist countries "brainwash"!)
3. Are you against aid to the victims of natural disasters, as many haters of the New Deal are? So do you believe in letting the victims of Katrina simply die?
4. Are you against the G.I. Bill, which provided college educations to millions who otherwise could not have afforded it?
The simple fact is, social democracy works. Sometimes its modest U.S. version works, too. American conservatives who hate it are motivated by blind ideology, hatred of the poor, lack of compassion, and love of the rich.
Published: January 2, 2009 12:43 PM
Gene, you state that since entrepreneurs were supporting fascism then the market in which they participate is fascist? You do know what a categorical fallacy is, correct? That's when you try to categorize a thing by a sample of its members.
For every entrepreneur you state that was fascist supporters, I am certain there was others who were communist, libertarian, or classical liberals. Does it mean that the market changed as such, depending on the person being addressed. Of course not.
In the 20s and 30s the US was no doubt sliding to socialism given the onerous state government control of the economy. A free market is no government intervention in the market, something that libertarians understand has not occurred in a long time.
Published: January 2, 2009 12:43 PM
Although Fascism and Socialism are different political systems, both feature State direction of production. From a free-marketeer's perspective, they're both socialist.
Published: January 2, 2009 12:46 PM
response to Gene:
On your first point: Under Fascism “private business” was essentially and strictly a corporatist and crony-capitalist affair. The State controlled all aspects of the economy. That is far more like socialism and communism than a de-centralized free market under classical liberalism advocated by Mises or Hayek.
On your second point: Hitler spouted the very same anti-business, anti-capitalist tripe that socialists and communists did during the early 1930’s. Hitler always sided with the trade unions over the “ruthless” employers. What landed the Reds in trouble with Hitler was their attempt to discredit Nazism; the communists envied its quick success. It all amounted to an internal spat within the same ideological community. They angered Hitler with their propaganda against him and he acted just like a Fascist and a Socialist would.
On your third point: American socialists in the 1920’s and 1930’s waxed admiringly of Mussolini and his collectivist methods: For example, journalists like Isaac F. Marcosson and Ida Tarbell (who helped break up Standard Oil); Ida even praised Mussolini on his progressive attitude towards labor. Lincoln Steffens, the man who famously uttered “I have been to the future, and it works” after visiting the Soviet Union saw no contradiction in his support of Communism and Fascism because he understood that they were working towards the same goal. It is well documented that Benito Mussolini, the father of Fascism, was a life long socialist intellectual that built his movement upon the ideas of Lenin and Trotsky.
The historical facts are very clear: Socialism, Fascism, and Progressivism are rooted in the same political philosophy.
Published: January 2, 2009 12:58 PM
Gene,
To address your issues:
1) Social Security - This program is a Ponzi scheme that will inevitably fail. The capital that is redirected by the government from current wage earners goes directly to current pension holders. When the amount of money owed to pension holders is greater than the redistributed money, then the plan will collapse. Whether this has reduced elderly poverty is irrelevant, and incorrect factually.
2) Subsidized medical - Subsidies will always create more demand than the ability to supply a good, thus creating a shortage. Prove the fact that there is not a shortage of medical care in subsidized countries. Further, government intervention will always cause lower efficiency, lower quality, and higher prices for goods and services. Is this not the case of these subsidized countries?
3) Against the victims of natural disasters? Of course not. I personally scoff at reports about people thinking the government should have 'prevented' the disaster or some other nonsense. The government reaction was slow, lumbering, and inefficient because that is the inherent property of the State.
4) GI Bill and college education - subsidies again. When you redistribute wealth from productive sectors to other sectors (education in this example) the government assumes a demand for that service exists regardless of reality. Now, you have people going into debt for $40K (lets assume a 10K college at four years) for a variety of different degrees, and the education and degree will give that person exactly 0% knowledge on the job. Plenty of anecdotal evidence out there if you wish to investigate.
Social democracy works at what?
Published: January 2, 2009 1:04 PM
1. Yes -it sucks wealth from it's more valueable uses and it gives it to the elderly. I'm sure that you'd be applauding the subsidization of stagecoaches if you thought it'd help the rural farm boy get to market faster and with less strain on his feet; then come here and show us your empirical study about how stagecoaches are faster than walking -oohh you win! The point is that, just as the stagecoach subsidy takes money that would've gone to car R&D and gives it to someplace where people wouldn't have spent it otherwise, the whole social security thing takes money from future wealth and diverts it to present wealth. People become poorer, families dissolve, etc.
Same problem with the rest of your post really.
Published: January 2, 2009 1:05 PM
yes, social democracy works. if by works you mean causes unemployment, kills millions a year both directly and indirectly thru wars, increasing the cost of medical care, highway non-accidents due to poor road design, etc.
it is quite an interesting feature of your posts that you jump from one subject to another once you are refuted.
are you for robbing people at gunpoint so that others can have medical care? i have no beef with the red cross.
Published: January 2, 2009 1:08 PM
Phil:
Damn it man you beat me to it!
Gene:
I would suggest to you and anyone who reads this who is a socialist/protectionist/ or just thinks that we are plain wrong -use the mises search: the words "fascist" and "socialist" are used very differently around libertarians than it is used in everyday speech! If only people knew this, then 9/10 of the questions on this site would be answered.
Published: January 2, 2009 1:11 PM
"The simple fact is, social democracy works. Sometimes its modest U.S. version works, too."
Well, it may "work" for you, Gene, depending on your scale of values. But for the tiny minority of us who value freedom over the illusions of economic "security," "health care," disaster "relief" and "education" provided by government by means of picking our pockets and doling out the loot in the form of wasteful and inefficient programs that few would choose to pay for voluntarily, we'd appreciate it if you kept your preferred monopoly to yourself on off our backs, thanks.
Published: January 2, 2009 1:13 PM
"The simple fact is, social democracy works. Sometimes its modest U.S. version works, too. American conservatives who hate it are motivated by blind ideology, hatred of the poor, lack of compassion, and love of the rich."
So what you are saying is that only through the government's intervention, can compassion and care for your fellow beings exist? All the things you mentioned could be financed through private means. It is not like people cannot care for other people. It has occurred in history and still happens today. That is of course, a choice each individual has to make (Which is the basis of libertarianism. At least, in my humble opinion).
I don't have to answer the question of whether nazism had some socialist elements. That has been answered. As for fascism, I would add that Mussolini used to be a socialist. So, the truth is Nazi Germany had a mixed economy with a heavy governmental intervention.
Published: January 2, 2009 1:27 PM
Good post Pat - I would argue that if the government would not redistribute through coercion, then the efficiency of aid through private means would be much greater and timely. As it is, this is already true for much of the relief that the private citizens give.
Published: January 2, 2009 1:39 PM
1. Are you against Social Security--which, many empirical studies show, has reduced poverty among the elderly? Oh wow, defending the biggest ponzi scheme in the U.S.? The bankrupt one too for that matter. How about instead of encouraging stupidity. You encourage people to SAVE! Save for their retirement. I promise you, you will get more than what Social Security will give you in the end.
2.)Oh, please! Europe(and any other country that has single payer medical care) has problems with it's medical system. You obviously haven't done any research on it. There are LONG waiting lines and people die in them. You can't get an appointment unless you wait a month! The reason people like it is because it's "free" and don't have to worry about their health. This form of welfare does what welfare is all about.
3. We don't want them to "die." We want them to be independent. There are plenty of private organizations that went down there to help. A lot of Americans donated to the cause of Katrina. You don't need gun point to help. In order to do good you must use force? Utter nonsense. Social Democracies are a massive failure.
4.Another government created problem that it is trying to fix. Same thing with this housing bubble.
We don't hate the poor, we hate gunpoint and force by people like you. Rich people aren't always a bad thing, after all they have a lot of money for investments which leads to job creation.
Published: January 2, 2009 2:02 PM
The G.I. Bill gave college to millions for the first time. FDR made possible America's modern economy based on educated workers. "Empire of Wealth" includes an excellent chapter on the Post-War Boom following WWII. Built on the New Deal reforms, Americans realized unprecedented prosperity in the many decades that followed.
The real forgotten men (and women) of the Depression era are the members of the Communist party who pressured Roosevelt to enact some worthwhile programs. I won't list those programs here, but there are ways to "promote the general welfare" (as the Constitution instructs a government of, by and for the people to do).
Published: January 2, 2009 2:41 PM
Gene,
1. Are you against Social Security--which, many empirical studies show, has reduced poverty among the elderly?
Which empirical studies? What do you mean by poverty? Because inflation (that socialist gift to humanity) offsets any "benefit" the elderly can receive from S.S.
2. Do you hate [sic] single-payer medical care, which has provided health care to all in Europe? Or are you brainwashed and believe that "socialized medicine is a disaster"? (Oh, sorry, only Communist countries "brainwash"!)
You mean like, immediately, instead of months later when it's too late?
BTW, nobody needs to be brainwashed about the failure of a system if the system already provides evidence of its failures.
3. Are you against aid to the victims of natural disasters, as many haters of the New Deal [sic] are? So do you believe in letting the victims of Katrina simply die?
The New Deal was not implemented to save victims of disasters, unless you want to call the Union bosses and big business executives that benefited from it "victims". By the way, private organizations and people TRIED to send help to victims of Katrina and were stopped by government officials, showing just who are the measly ones.
4. Are you against the G.I. Bill, which provided college educations to millions who otherwise could not have afforded it?
Ask yourself if the problem was the affordability of college education or simply if the GIs NEEDED a college education in the first place. I may be offered a free car tomorrow and indeed I would take it, but before that I would not have NEEDED one, and if it happened that the car being offered was procured by taking it from someone else, I would not have acted ethically or morally by accepting it, since my benefit would come at the expense of someone else.
And that is how Socialism works: making a few better off by making others worse off.
Published: January 2, 2009 2:49 PM
Getting back to the article, our current path is not the same path of the rise of Nazism. Any comparison is just plain sick!
You really need to look at why the Nazi government failed - Hitler was a nut! But on more technical terms:
1. It was a society based on military build-up. Production of these items add no asset value to the economy. Simply put, you build something that you blow up and usually cause some type of counter productive damage to something else.
2. Trade came to a stand-still. The only way Germany could get a trading partner was to take them over and take their assets. A very short term benefit. But the long term effect is a reduction in resources.
3. Eliminated a labor force by killing them.
4. Misdirected production by force to military uses.
I could go on, but the point I want to make is that this article should rank as the worse I have ever read on this site.
Published: January 2, 2009 2:56 PM
Gene,
Your m.o. seems to be this: raise a point; see that point responded to; ignore those responses and move on to another point; see that point responded to; ignore that respose, move on, etc.
Why should anyone bother responding anymore? From my read of the comments, you seem to be the one with a closed mind, constrained by dogma rather than theory or fact and "impossible to debate with".
Published: January 2, 2009 2:56 PM
Sigh... What a disaster it was for FDR to build the middle class while saving capitalism for future generations! The leisure-class should be playing cards all day while Americans slave away in the sweat shops for 60 hours a week.
There was no impetus for the economy to pull out of the Great Depression without government help, and it was getting worse. The economy was in a liquidity trap. Millions of people were discontented, and radical economic ideas swept across the globe. Hitler came to power in this environment.
The economy was spiraling deeper into the abyss when FDR finally took office. Most of the banks in the country had failed; 9,000 banks failed! Thousands of people scrambled for their deposits. Loans were called in. Money was kept in reserve. That caused a MULTIPLE CONTRACTION OF THE MONEY SUPPLY, a total drop of 25% of the money supply, the worst economic catastrophe in American history! The economy was bombed out.
The do-nothing classic economists stood by stating that it would all take care of itself. What a bunch of garbage! The economy was heading deeper into the abbys.
Then Roosevelt stepped in and called for a "national bank holiday," putting a stop to it all. With great leadership he calmed the nation. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." In his first fireside chat he reassured Americans into trusting the banking system and sweet-talked them into keeping their money at the bank. It worked. The meltdown stopped.
Published: January 2, 2009 3:12 PM
OK, fess up. Who's playing this Gene character?
I mean it is funny stuff, but it's way too rudimentary to be real. The answer to all these questions and positions is to read anything, and everything at this site.
Maybe it's Krugman coming in here for a little holiday laugh?
Happy New Year everyone!
Published: January 2, 2009 3:40 PM
Were the members of the Fabian society socialists? I see no difference between what the Fabian's wanted and what the Nazi's wanted. Maybe the differed slightly in method but the significant long-term goals were pretty much the same. Even if you don't think the Nazi's were socialists, they did lean much, much closer to it than capitalism. Capitalism is, at its heart, about the voluntary distribution of available resources. Socialism, at is heart, is about forced distribution of available resources.
Published: January 2, 2009 3:53 PM
i hope this gene guy is a austrian who is trolling.
FDR built the middle class, and i built the upper class, so there! because i said so. and i also saved the world from geneism, make the sun rise in the morning, and make it rain so the crops dont die.
Published: January 2, 2009 3:55 PM
Gene wrote "The simple fact is, social democracy works".
This is true in the same specialised sense that Mugabe's approach works. They each maintain and grow their base.
Published: January 2, 2009 3:56 PM
greg, dont forget about the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on afghanistan and iraq, the constant enormous spending on "defense", the fact that the USA has the most people in jail out of all countries, the constant debasement of the currency, and i could list more. the USA spends more on "defense" than the rest of the world combined, if you include iraq and afganistan.
Published: January 2, 2009 4:03 PM
"For your information: Nazism was not a "socialist" system. Nazi Germany was a capitalist country, where the big corporations got very rich from military spending. Thyssen, I. G. Farben, et al made lots of money."
Silly little twit. You come on this site ignorant of economics and try to make assertions like this? What is capitalist about the state directing the usage of private property? Nothing. Go back to your socialist cave.
"The do-nothing classic economists stood by stating that it would all take care of itself. What a bunch of garbage! The economy was heading deeper into the abbys."
Prove it. BTW, it's "abyss". So far you have not responded to a single argument raised against you. If you can't, then GTFO.
If this ignoramus repeats his strategy perhaps he is best ignored. No time for trolls.
Greg, do you dislike hearing the US's stupid government being compared to the Nazi gov't? You're right, it's too inept.
Published: January 2, 2009 4:44 PM
@Gene and others who disagree with the article:
The author used specific facts and cited specific references to support his case. Can you cite any incorrect facts? Or faulty conclusions? (In the case of the latter please explain specifically how the conclusion is faulty--"Huh! It's wrong 'cuz I say so!" is not specific enough).
I'm just trying to learn here...I'm not sufficiently well educated (yet) to say that the article is absolutely right. So I can be persuaded--by a real argument.
Published: January 2, 2009 5:07 PM
The poster called "Gene" must be satirical in his statements. His statements are so absurdly ignorant considering the website for which he is posting that he is otherwise as completely brainwashed as one individual could be concerning economics and history.
The Nazis never called themselves "Nazis," rather they referred to themselves as National Socialists. Hitler believed in universal healthcare, universal state education, animal rights, and was quite the environmentalist. The Nazis were indeed extremely socialist, only their ideology was exclusive rather than all-inclusive as Communism is.
Insinuating that Nazi Germany was a capitalist nation is the epitome of ignorance or perhaps, as stated above, an individual acting satirically.
Published: January 2, 2009 5:35 PM
Heh, Hitler was a non-smoker too... You see what happens when get rid of tobacco? This is coming from a smoker by the way, so I am a bit biased. :)
Published: January 2, 2009 5:42 PM
As someone relatively new to Austrian Economics, I find the responses to Gene of great interest, though I am sure they have been said many times before.
One point that particularly interests me is the issue of bank failures during the Great Depression. Should the Fed have done more to prevent this? What would have happened if every single bank in the US failed?
Published: January 2, 2009 6:00 PM
Hooami, American banks failed because they weren't allowed to merge and centralize their structure like in Canada. Hoover & FDR bought into the rosy image of the local bank and foisted that structure upon them, only to realize later that local banks also must depend solely on local capital and local borrowers (as was stipulated in legislation). So whenever local economies tanked during the early 30's, they brought their forcibly-made-local banks down with them too. Since most small towns didn't have complex economies, ones usually centered on agriculture since it had been so heavily subsidized during and after WWI, once that one sector fell victim to real market demands, their banks (not allowed to diversify their holdings beyond the town) suffered immensely. Like I said previously, Canadian banks were allowed to merge and diversify their holdings outside of their localities to across the country. During the same period that America lost 9,000 banks, Canada lost one ... through a merger.
Published: January 2, 2009 7:00 PM
Just want to assure you all that "Gene" is not me (though I could certainly believe that it's someone "pulling our legs").
But, anyway...Gene: could you back up your assertion that Reader's Digest favored Hitler and the Nazis? References, perhaps? I knew the owner of the outfit (very slightly) and it's hard to imagine him with sympathy for socialism of any kind (though, later he ran laudatory pieces on tin-pots who took pro-US positions during the US-USSR detente).
And what's your opinion of Roosevelt commandeering of all the money (gold) in Americans' possession (then worth $20.67 per oz. Troy) and then, with it safely in Ft. Knox, raising its price to $35 per oz., effectively stealing approx. 41%
of everyone's purchasing power?
Published: January 2, 2009 7:12 PM
Gene-
The "General Welfare" clause in the constitution did not allow the government to give anybody money for college. That would have been considered by the founders as individual welfare, and they were certainly against that. To refute the myth of the laissez- faire Hoover, I have added a link to one of Woods' MP3 files. For our views on the New Deal, go right here.
Hooami-
For information on the gold- exchange standard of the 1920's, see "What Has Government Done to Our Money". For more information on the gold- exchange standard, see Rothbard's great contribution to monetary history here. You may see a whole reading list I made for beginners here. Roger Garrison's PowerPoint presentations may be of interest when used with the Robert Murphy article in the reading list.
Published: January 2, 2009 7:14 PM
E. Harding,
One should also probably added the following to educate others on the myth of of Hoover's Laissez-faire policies:
Hoover's Attack on Laissez-Faire
Published: January 2, 2009 8:02 PM
"gene" is an Internet Troll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Stop feeding the troll! =)
Published: January 2, 2009 8:10 PM
"American conservatives who hate it are motivated by blind ideology, hatred of the poor, lack of compassion, and love of the rich."
Definitely a troll. Or a very immature14 year old.
Published: January 2, 2009 8:11 PM
Walt D.,
Excellent article! Thanks for posting.
Gene,
Whether or not this is a joke, the scary truth is that there are many out there who think like you do.
Published: January 2, 2009 9:23 PM
well at least one thing united both hitler and marx:
""Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry".
and no, the quote is not from hitler.
Published: January 2, 2009 10:32 PM
Don't forget this Star Trek episode:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_of_Force_(Star_Trek)
Published: January 2, 2009 11:52 PM
Then Roosevelt stepped in and called for a "national bank holiday," putting a stop to it all. With great leadership he calmed the nation. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
At this point, it's obvious that Gene isn't serious. He had me going too, though.
Published: January 3, 2009 12:42 AM
Richard, don't attack us 14 yrs. old because of a mentally delusional troll.
Sincerely,
Luis
Published: January 3, 2009 1:42 AM
Troll? interesting. It could be that "Gene's" views are so mainstream that it would seem that way to Mises.org thinkers. When I recently went on a highly read education blog and stated that teacher unions are remnants of medieval protection rackets that ought to be abolished along with pub.admin of schools, the regular bloggers there- most of them educrats- replied to me similarly: "You must be joking" "I am assuming you are being facetious" "Don't answer the troll" "That blogger is in crisis, flailing about as he tries to deal with the destruction of his free market world..."
Even if "Gene" is a troll his comments are representative of the vast majority of educated folk. Well, there is a war on for minds. Maybe Sgt. Gene was merely spot checking the Austrian troops?
Published: January 3, 2009 2:52 AM
anyway, gene only told half the story about thyssen. notwithstanding his early bankrolling of the nazis, he split with hitler after kristalnacht and the religious persecution. fled to switzerland and then to france. sent back to germany by the vichy government and spent the rest of the war in a concentration camp.
after the war he was ordered to cede 15% of his property to nazi victims.
Published: January 3, 2009 3:22 AM
i eagerly await america's new autobahn programme.
Published: January 3, 2009 3:29 AM
i eagerly await america's new autobahn programme.
There will probably be a new "people's car" too.
Published: January 3, 2009 12:09 PM
Gene,
The same could be true of industry under socialism; e.g. a government could nationalize industries and increase the pay of its workers and management. Socialists cannot fight other socialists? If you look at the two parties as competing groups vying for power, their ideologies aren't that important. Of course industrialists would support fascism; they have something to gain under it, just as union workers may stand to gain under socialism.For what its worth, I agree with you that calling fascism socialist is a poor choice of words. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. Fascism is government direction of private industry, which owns the means of production. Although their results may be similar (as in both systems the state controls the commanding heights of the economy), their system of control is definitely not the same. A better way to express the similarity between socialism and fascism is to say they are both statist systems with different means of control.
Published: January 3, 2009 12:36 PM
Well, I see that libertarians can make snide little comments and make pointless put downs with the best of them. Way to make yourselves irrelevant.
My thoughts on Gene's posts: Personally, I'm only interested in a consistent philosophy. The problem with Social Security is that it's inconsistent. It does some good for people in the short run but it's not possible to invent a system of administering it that will work in the long run.
When those that are for SS say, 'we don't want the elderly to starve do we?' they are activating our pc gland. It's a point that I will have to give you. You're correct we don't want that to happen. I wonder though, how do we know that would happen if we didn't have SS? I mean, I'm estranged from my mother and haven't spoken to her for years. But the fact is that I wouldn't let her starve, no matter how I feel about her. So, I want to know how we know that the elderly would starve?
As far as administering the program the current method is inconsistent. Do you know that the Amish don't pay SS tax? That's because SS was sold (to Americans) as insurance and the Amish are religiously against insurance. Or is it a tax? I suppose that if it really was insurance that would send our argument down a different road, but it's a tax. The philosophy of the system is to take a little from all and give it to the eligible. This method of funding can be shown to be broken at some point in the future (which means it's broken from the beginning).
So, it may do some good today, it causes bigger problems in the future. It's an inconsistent philosophy.
Published: January 3, 2009 1:42 PM
"When those that are for SS say, 'we don't want the elderly to starve do we?' "
I reply to those people that I, ME, MYSELF don't want to starve...but social security and all other government taxes rob me of my hard earned money.
I end up with less money to save and invest and even when I make money with after tax dollars, I am taxed again on the profits of my investment.
I reply that less people would starve if government would mind it's own business and leave us alone.
I also reply that WHY do you want government to forcibly take money away from you to help the elderly ? Why don't you help them yourself with your own money right now ?
I also reply to them that I'd rather starve as a free man than pig myself out as a subject of the government.
Live free or die !
Finally, I reply that if you need to take away my freedoms and my hard earned honest money away in order to feed the elderly, LET THEM STARVE !
And finally, if you try to take away my freedoms and my hard earned honest money, there is a high probability that you will find a quicker way to hell than starvation.
Published: January 3, 2009 4:31 PM
IHT,
Can I submit that you don't really want to starve people but you're exaggerating to make a point? Unfortunately, it's not a good point. The emotional outburst might be therapeutic but I wish you'd do it on a platform where you don't appear to represent what I consider to be a sound life philosophy.
I submit that this argument for a libertarian life can be summed up in one word, selfish. But, I think that you're just repeating what you think are cool sayings but I doubt you'd really use the tone and words as these.
Actually, I feel sorry for if you've missed the point of libertarian philosophy. Possibly because it's the irony of ironies. All of the competing philosophies claim to benefit all of society. Socialism, communism, democracy, theocracy. Even the worst dictators through time say they will benefit the people 'I'm good for the people.' But when each is analyzed, they are actually enslaving the people.
Only one philosophy has the outcome of the good of all; the philosophy of individual liberty.
Published: January 3, 2009 6:18 PM
gooddebate says:
"So, it may do some good today, it causes bigger problems in the future. It's an inconsistent philosophy."
consistency or viability of any programme doesn't make it moral or right. any institutionalized "aid" weakens familial bonds that may still exist, notwithstanding estrangement. for the few that really fall through the cracks, civil organizations and churches would step in. their biggest rival is currently the government.
any talk about people starving in their old age is nonsensical hyperbole. hong kong hasn't had a universal social welfare programme and there's none of the extreme poverty that would have old folks croaking for want of food.
"I submit that this argument for a libertarian life can be summed up in one word, selfish.
another way of putting it is that altruism is a rocky foundation on which to build the social edifice. "ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man", and the rest is history....
Published: January 3, 2009 8:08 PM
Gooddebate wrote "The problem with Social Security is that it's inconsistent. It does some good for people in the short run but it's not possible to invent a system of administering it that will work in the long run."
Would you accept an approach as being consistent and long term if it aimed to phase the system out? While that doesn't give you a continuing system, and the latter stages don't match the earlier ones, it strikes me as producing a long run effect with a consistent purpose.
Published: January 3, 2009 8:34 PM
to fix the rabbit plague, we introduce the fox, to solve the fox plague we bring in poison 1080....
Published: January 3, 2009 8:46 PM
"Well, I see that libertarians can make snide little comments and make pointless put downs with the best of them. Way to make yourselves irrelevant."
wow, so if you include a valid argument and a snide putdown, your whole argument is invalid and irrelevant! what an understanding of logic you have...
Published: January 3, 2009 11:37 PM
But 1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate) is different in kind to the others on that list: it doesn't breed and spread itself.
Published: January 4, 2009 1:04 AM
1080...touche!
but schemes to solve schemes still does win me over.
Published: January 4, 2009 2:59 AM
....still doesn't win me over.
Published: January 4, 2009 3:01 AM
I have a friend who defines Fascism as:
Socialism that allows you to pay taxes.
Published: January 5, 2009 4:09 PM