Adolf Hitler: Defender of the Capitalist Class

Monkey-Magic

Member
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
67
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!
 


20000miles

Active member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
257
Website
www.irishliberty.wordpress.com
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.
 

cactusflower

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
1,278
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.
 

20000miles

Active member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
257
Website
www.irishliberty.wordpress.com
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.

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.
 

cactusflower

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
1,278
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.
 

Riadach

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
12,817
Surely it was never in doubt. To use a clichée, wasn't it the capitalist classes who 'hired' him?
 

youngdan

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
1,371
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.
 

youngdan

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
1,371
, the poster being refered to is Monkey-Magic, not the cover of the book ya dimwit.
 
Last edited:

TradCat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
1,989
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.
 

bormotello

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
12,251
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!
Bolsheviks were not exception
Textile king of Russia Savva Morozov subsidized their Iskra newspaper...
German capitalists were hoping that they will manage to keep Hitler under control, but they were wrong. Capitalist were keeping their companies, but number of state-owned companies in Germany was growing, especially when 1936 “four years plan” has been accepted.
Main idea of Nazism at this time was "Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz" - "Common Good before Personal Gain”, which is not much different from what communist proposed, except that fascist were thinking more about whole country, rather then one class and they didn’t want to put country in long civil war.
Communists were opposite. Workers in Russia were not in majority. Russia was peasants country. But they did a revolution and killed a lot people only to try some stupid Marx ideas.
 

Fr. Fahey

Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
89
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.

Excellent post trad cat. Facts that Marxists don't like recognising. Nazism and Communism a lot more in common than they like to admit. Closest thing to the Nazi regime that currently exists is North Korea.
 

hopi watcher

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
1,000
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.
While not wishing to defend any 'mass murderers', capitalism has its own candidates. How many have the west butchered todate in the mid-east and that general region? And the reason, control oil. People do not count in the capitalist system either. Socialism is the mark of a civilised community.
 

liamfoley

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
3,267
It was in the factories of capitalist countries that nazism was defeated (The Russians would never have gotten through '42 if it were not for the convoys).
 

hopi watcher

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
1,000
It was in the factories of capitalist countries that nazism was defeated (The Russians would never have gotten through '42 if it were not for the convoys).
The conditions that prevailed during the war in factories in the west were more akin to those in Russia. BTW, the aid that was sent hardly scratched the surface of what was needed and was essentially to counter Stalin's anger with the delay in opening the second front, which the 'capitalist' west in '42 had not the means or the wherewithal to do.
 

liamfoley

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
3,267
The conditions that prevailed during the war in factories in the west were more akin to those in Russia. BTW, the aid that was sent hardly scratched the surface of what was needed and was essentially to counter Stalin's anger with the delay in opening the second front, which the 'capitalist' west in '42 had not the means or the wherewithal to do.
And your point is? Mine was that it was capitalism that saved Russia.
 

Fr. Fahey

Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
89
The conditions that prevailed during the war in factories in the west were more akin to those in Russia. BTW, the aid that was sent hardly scratched the surface of what was needed and was essentially to counter Stalin's anger with the delay in opening the second front, which the 'capitalist' west in '42 had not the means or the wherewithal to do.

What nonsense! The Soviet people were state slaves. Millions were in labour camps and those who were not were living little better. Workers in Britain and US wwere given pay rises and had unions and elections during the war. I suppose workers in North Korea and France are all in the same boat as well.
 

hopi watcher

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
1,000
What nonsense! The Soviet people were state slaves. Millions were in labour camps and those who were not were living little better. Workers in Britain and US wwere given pay rises and had unions and elections during the war. I suppose workers in North Korea and France are all in the same boat as well.
Not at all. The conditions that prevailed in factories in Britain during the war were extremely harsh. Overtime working was mandatory and shiftwork was enforced, food was rationed. Regarding Russia, you need to compare the life style of the people prior to the revolution with that which followed. There was very significant improvements in all the basics such as healthcare, education, housing etc. That what developed was state dictatorship is not denied, but to suggest that the life style of Russians did not significantly improve under communism is just plain wrong.
 

hopi watcher

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
1,000
And your point is? Mine was that it was capitalism that saved Russia.
Tell that to the relatives of the 20 million Russian soldiers that gave their lives in the fight. We owe a great debt to the sacrifice that they made. Even when Germany was on its kness the western allies made heavy work of moving through Europe and very nearly suffered a catastrophic defeat at the 'Bulge'.
 

Fr. Fahey

Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
89
Tell that to the relatives of the 20 million Russian soldiers that gave their lives in the fight. We owe a great debt to the sacrifice that they made. Even when Germany was on its kness the western allies made heavy work of moving through Europe and very nearly suffered a catastrophic defeat at the 'Bulge'.


Tell it to the 20 million murdered by the Bolsheviks and of course the massive death scale suffered in the war was also in large part due firstly to Stalin's collaboration with the Germans and murder of the Army leadership, the poor equipping of the Army, the sacrifice of millions in tactical blunders, and then of course for those who survived the war in the Red Army millions were sent to the GULAG or into exile. You sound like one of those pathetic fellow travellers of the 1940s and 50s.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top