No but they directly benefited financially from the Reichs policies. Their consent and silence to genocide was literally bought.
I highly recommend Gotz Aly's <em>Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State</em>. TL,DR; assets and property looted from Jews and extorted from Nazi-occupied nations were used to keep Nazi Germany fiscally solvent and its people pacified, offering an unheard-of standard of living for a country at war right up until the very end of the war, at the cost of immiserating the rest of Europe. Also, this was a major reasons behind the Marshall Plan: the need to recapitalize the nations of Europe after the Nazis stole everything from consumer goods and food to heavy machinery to gold reserves.
Not quite true. Aktion T4 was more a killing of those deemed genetically inferior by the NSDAP, though part of it was indeed the idea that these people suck up state resources. However for the "ordinary" German, welfare state got expanded. https://www.amazon.com/HITLERS-BENEFICIARIES-G-C3-96TZ-ALY-dp-0805087265/dp/0805087265/ref=mt_other?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=
> I disagree with your analysis. He didn't have a gun to his head he was enticed by ambition. He wanted to build his rocket. After the war it was convenient propaganda to say "I had a gun to my head!" but the historical record is clear in that Nazi consolidated power from the vast majority of Germans through self-interest. Most germans had a higher standard of living throughout the war because of plunder and the subjugation of minorities. Source: https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Beneficiaries-Plunder-Racial-Welfare/dp/0805087265
People knew that if they weren't self-interestedly taking part they would have ungood things happen. Which makes the life of the state easier when you don't have to force everyone, that was by design. Claiming they acted from their own will and motivation because they did not need a gun to their head is wrong. Of course it is also wrong to say nobody had been more than a passive supporter, but your argument takes the opposite extreme.
Source: I highly recommend the Stasi museum in Berlin, near the Parliament. It documents countless cases of people being disappeared, tortured, and murdered for mundane shit of not playing along with sufficient self-motivation. Stuff like folding a newspaper unfavorably to the Führer would get you and your family sent to the camps. When people around you start to disappear you alter your baseline of what you're ready to go along with.
Hitler told this to a confidant, not to someone he would lie to.
I don't care about someone's modern day analysis, I'm sourcing historical accounts from the time. Hitler created a social-welfare state, this is fact (page 13). It's also anti-conservative, and something liberals today advocate for.
It's also fact that during wartime, Nazi Germany seized almost every industry in the country for state production, another anti-conservative action.
I ALWAYS WIN
>Capitalism is authoritarian in nature.
You mean how the employer gets to tell the employee what to do and never vice versa? Except maybe with Union contracts and labor regulations imposed by the state.
>combine that with deregulation, and a higher wealth gap than before the depression. The concentration of wealth, aka capitalism, leads to monopoly.
If you are talking about a reduction in anti-trust enforcement, then sure that leads to monopoly. But monopoly causes increased concentration of wealth, not vice versa. Plus, Fascists have not historically been proponents of Laissez-faire economics. The Nazis had higher government spending as a proportion of GDP than the Soviets did in the interwar period (Soviet and Nazi economic planning in the I930S' By PETER TEMIN. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2597802) The policies of the Nazis didn't increase the concentration of wealth, they reduced it. Nazi Germany was built on the precept of equality within the German majority and inequality towards other groups (Hitler's Beneficiaries) https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Beneficiaries-Plunder-Racial-Welfare/dp/0805087265/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1595752756&sr=8-2. So none of that is an argument for America being a Fascist state.
>And media companies are in the hands of elites. Starting with the allowance of the fairness doctrine to sunset.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
That wiki doesn't say that media was in the hands of the elites after the Fairness doctrine was phased out, or that it wasn't before the Fairness doctrine was phased out. The Fairness doctrine, was never intended to prevent media ownership from being concentrated in the hands of elites. So if that is your argument, then the burden of proof is on you.
I am not going to comb through all those search results. Pick an actual source to cite.
>Even in ‘34 we knew capitalism was a problem:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25114526?read-now=1&seq=1
That article is arguing the opposite, that Capitalism is not a problem, because Capitalism is not a thing. Its arguing that the idea of capitalism is premised on the employers, the wealthy, and the people who hold real political power, all being the same people, and all having the same politics. But in real life, that isn't true. Some employers are rich. Some employers are in the red. The people who hold the most political power are usually the landed nobility, the soldiers, or the priests, not business people. The politics of employers, like everyone else, is determined not by their economic interests, but by their individual temperament and education, according to Cohen. In other words, Cohen is arguing against the idea that Fascism is a product of capitalism, not in favor of it, because Cohen doesn't believe that capitalism is a thing.
>Fascism started in ‘22 in Europe.
https://www.newsclick.in/How-Fascism-Has-Converged-With-Capitalism-Redefine-Government?amp
https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/RPUB/article/download/71030/4564456554527/
No. Fascism is at least as old as 1919. https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism Also, I don't find Richard Wolf's analyses compelling. If The capitalists really run the show under liberal democracy, then why would they need to abandon it to crush anti-capitalist sentiment? Why not have the same elected officials that they control under liberal democracy implement whatever policies are necessary to crush anti-capitalist sentiment within liberal democracy? If the state merely reproduces the class relations of the society that produces it, then why do people fight over who gets to control it so much? Richard Wolf either doesn't think to ask these questions or he thinks that the answers are obvious. Both of those possibilities reduce my opinion of his thinking.
The piece on Zizek is interesting. But, it ignores what Fascist regimes actually do in terms of public policy. So its not an explanation of how Capitalism comes from Fascism. Its an explanation of how its possible for Fascism to emerge from Capitalism. They didn't do anything to illuminate what Function Fascism serves in terms of politics or economics because they didn't analyze what Fascists actually do once in power, especially not because this author along with Zizek just assume that Capitalism is a thing. I find Cohen's analyses more persuasive. Capitalism is not actually a distinct discourse or mode of governing a society. Society has had markets throughout recorded history. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/lessons-from-history-how-europe-did-and-didnt-grow-rich Subsuming all those societies under the name of "capitalism" obscures the actual politics of those societies.
Well we don't know much about the Bugs in the movie universe.
In real life Germany and Russia were engaged in a war of extermination. Russian soldiers surrendered (instead of fighting to the death) in the millions but those humans are were killed because Germany wanted to decrease food consumption (https://www.amazon.com/HITLERS-BENEFICIARIES-G%C3%96TZ-ALY/dp/0805087265). So German propaganda described Russia like the bugs, claiming that is was an "us or them" conflict. What actually happened after Russia won was mass oppression including mass rape but no industrial genocide. It was in the interests of the Soviet state to have an east germany with compliant humans living in it to strengthen the soviet empire.
By that historical analogy the fate of earth would not be dependent on earth's agency it would become dependent whatever galactic politics were prevailing at the moment. We don't know anything about that. Here's what we do know, empires come and go. Bug empire, roman empire, Soviet empire, american empire. They all leave some day.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=eichmann+in+jerusalem
Item | Current | Lowest | Reviews |
---|---|---|---|
HITLER'S BENEFICIARIES | - | - | 4.6/5.0 |
^Item&nbsp;Info | Bot&nbsp;Info | Trigger
https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/piechart_1939_UK_total
The UK Governement was spending around 1 billion pounds in 1939 and 0.75 billion in 1930.
https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/the-nazis-and-the-german-economy/
Germany was spending 12 billions RM in 1928, but around 30 billions in 1939.
For the sake of simplicity 1 pound = roughly 12 RM during that time. So Germany was spending a little bit more than the British in 1928, but more than twice as much in 1939.
https://www.amazon.ca/Hitlers-Beneficiaries-Plunder-Racial-Welfare/dp/0805087265
In the Book Hitler's Beneficiaries page 40 they talk about goverenement spending. 20.5 Billion RM spend on military and 16.3 billion spend on social progams. So Germany was spending more on social programs than the entire UK governemental budget. So Nazy Germany was indeed spending an ususually hight amount on social programs. If you have sources that give different numbers, I would be happy to look at them.
As for your second point that Nazi ran a capitalist market economy. Your point is too simplistic. I feel a bit lazy, so here I'm gonna link a study and then quote on paragraph of the study, which I think explain how the economic system was capitalism but not really. Hitler hated both free market capitalism and communism and pushed for a third way of socialism. Now of course the term evolved and mean different things for different people today.
http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
''Even if Hitler was an enemy of free market economies (Overy, 1994, p. 1), he could by no means be considered a sympathizer of economic socialism or nationalization of private firms (Heiden, 1944, p. 642). The Nazi regime rejected liberalism, and was strongly against free competition and regulation of the economy by market mechanisms (Barkai, 1990, p. 10). Still, as a social Darwinist, Hitler was reluctant to totally dispense with private property and competition (Turner, 1985a, p. 71; Hayes, 1987, p. 71). Hitler’s solution was to combine autonomy and a large role for private initiative and ownership rights within firms with the total subjection of property rights outside the firm to State control. As Nathan pointed out (1944a, p. 5) “It was a totalitarian system of government control within the framework of private property and private profit. It maintained private enterprise and provided profit incentives as spurs to efficient management. But the traditional freedom of the entrepreneur was narrowly circumscribed.” In other words, there was private initiative in the production process, but no private initiative was allowed in the distribution of the product. Owners could act freely within their firms, but faced tight restrictions in the market. ''
You should read this: Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State https://www.amazon.de/dp/0805087265/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_DhmaGbZ185GMN
Hitler was definitely not a socialist by the time he got into power. Abandoning socialism is a common theme amongst rising socialists. I'm not disputing Hitler specifically. The rest of the Nazis, however, never identified as capitalists. They had a different strategy on how to implement socialism differently than Marxists. Their end goal was never capitalism, only an ends to a mean. Hitler kept his supporters happy with a welfare state and the redistribution of seized assets. Many democrats and jews were capitalist. Hitler killed socialists, as well as capitalists, industrialists, and anyone else who stood in his way to Aryan supremacy.
https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Beneficiaries-Plunder-Racial-Welfare/dp/0805087265
The Economics of Nazism was relying heavily on theft.
National Socialism and the Marxist Socialism we see today are very much alike. To answer your question in two parts:
First, economically speaking the economic policies of the NSDAP are very much in line with the same economic policies advocated by many marxist socialists today. Government sponsored expenditure on infrastructure? The Germans did that - it was Organization Todt. Government seizure and redistribution of private property? They were known as the repossession task forces - The Raumungskommando and the DSK. The Social Welfare State and numerous government sponsored beneficiary programs, aimed particularly at helping women and low-income households? The Germans had those. If you are interested in reading on the topic further, and I recommend doing so as it is a fascinating subject I recommend reading "Hitler's Beneficiaries, by Gotz Aly. The amazon link is here: https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Beneficiaries-Plunder-Racial-Welfare/dp/0805087265
Secondly, Ideologically. It is true that Hitler and the nazis did not believe in class as a true construct, believing it to be a fabrication craeted by the jewish bourgeoisie. However, they instead believed in the divisions of race, as is plainly known. If we accede that the basic definition of socialism as defined by google is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." then we can simply state that socialism is state-controlled or "public" control of the means of production, which is in direct contrast to capitalism which emphasizes privatizate or individual control of the means of prouction. It should be noted that to National Socialists, it was believed that the State was the extension of the singularly purified race and therefore both terms were largely interchangeable. National Socialism was therefore a system in which the Race(and by extension the nation-state) was in control of the means of production. Both ideologies focus on the nationalization of private property, the former on grounds of wealth and class, and the latter on grounds of race and bloodline. Two sides of the same coin. Two approaches with the same end-goal in mind: Public control over private property and life.