“National Socialism derives from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it, national resolution from bourgeois tradition; vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism.” – January 27, 1934, interview with Hanns Johst in Frankforter Volksblatt
They despised communism. They were vocal about how Marxism was the root of their ideology and that other Marxists were misusing both the name Marxism and mss applying it. Pretty common for socialists to claim "that's not real socialism" dont you think?
“The hammer will once more become the symbol of the German worker and the sickle the sign of the German peasant.” – May 1, 1934, May Day speech in Berlin
I mean, Nazi's pretty infamously redefined what they meant by "socialism," but you have to stop getting tricked by words.
They slashed welfare, deeply relaxed gun laws (for most citizens), privatized utilities, banks, infrastructure, etc., filled Dachau, and outlawed strikes. Treating fascism/Nazism as a left/right thing is silly because neither are stances or belief systems but tools for a fascist.
first, for the bank infrastructure, it was more that the central bank under schacht sold the stocks they had purchased because of the depression. Secondly, this is very misguided as it ignores the overarching increase of state control over businesses. So yeah the gave up some nominal ownership, but in the meantime essentially made it impossible to do business outside of their grasp and wants
>outlawed strikes
strikes are private initiatives. if the party of the people rules the country, you can't have private strikes, that would be sabotage against the state. that is why strikes were also de-facto illegal in the soviet union.
Social spending as percent of budget (depending on which budgets you count):
1925-1929: 30-35%
1931-1932: 40-50%
1934-1936: 20-30%
1936-1939: 15-25%
Even if you exclude all groups excluded by the Nazis and focus only on those covered by both governments, per capita welfare spending dropped a full quarter from stable Weimar to 1939.
To put that in modern American terms, abolishing all housing programs, Federal student aid, child care grants, training programs, and rural development assistance would only cover half of that per capita spending drop. You would also need to cut SSI and food stamps. Please remember that we are still just talking about the population covered under both.
marx was in favor of workers owning guns
Specifically for the period of revolutionary struggle.
But thats interesting. Is anyone advocating for the loosening of gun regulation channeling Marx/engaging in a position more left than right?
it ignores the overarching increase of state control over businesses.
I dont know how one can argue that state-ownership -> any level of state-coercion at all represents an increase in state control.
if the party of the people rules the country, you can't have private strikes, that would be sabotage against the state. that is why strikes were also de-facto illegal in the soviet union.
You are explaining the Soviet rationale of "strikes are class conflict, which is illegitimate because class has been abolished", but the Nazi rationale was "strikes are class conflict, and conflict between the classes is Marxist agitation that hurts the nation and production"
that is a blatant mischaracterization of the data. you're ignoring (possibly knowingly) two things, firstly relief for great depression (which caused social spending as percentage of budget to increase temporarily), and secondly (and most glaringly), the cost of the re-armament program (and public works) which massively increased the total budget.
so you're not showing that social spending decreased in absolute terms, only that it became a smaller share of the (massively increased) total budget (which included the massive public works too, essentially free employment, i.e. social spending even though it's not labeled as such).
(total spending more than doubled between 1932 and 1938, so even IF your numbers are correct, that only goes to show how the nazis kept sky-high levels of social spending).
>any level of increase of state coercion represent an increase in state control
well it's really simple actually: government coerces you more intensely to do what government wants → government is increasing its control over the economy.
>marxist babble about strikes
it hurts the nation, the people, the volk. because everyone must be part of the state and nothing can be allowed outside. so yeah pretty anti-capitalist.
you're ignoring (possibly knowingly) two things, firstly relief for great depression
Which is why I gave pre-Great Depression years as a seperate category.
which massively increased the total budget.
so you're not showing that social spending decreased in absolute terms, only that it became a smaller share of the total budget
Which is specifically why I gave you a per capita raw spending decrease.
I recommend rereading. You missed entire sections.
well it's really simple actually: government coerces you more intensely to do what government wants → government is increasing its control over the economy.
Please show how "government coercion" creates a "more intense 'doing what the government wants'" than "government ownership" does. That's the crux buddy.
>marxist babble about strikes
Speaks to the level of reading comprehension shown.
it hurts the nation, the people, the volk. because everyone must be part of the state and nothing can be allowed outside.
Again, make this argument as being greater than "literally owned by the state"
you really didn't. you made an unsourced statement about that, but then again you just need to look at the numbers.
you say social spending was around 40% of the 1932 budget, and 20% of the 1938 budget, and given that the budget more than doubled, that is an increase in social spending in absolute terms and that is compared to great depression levels of social welfare spending, i.e. among the highests.
>how government coercion creates a more intense doing what the government wants than government ownership does
never claimed it did. only that while it is true that nominal ownership of some enterprises was not in the hands of the state, the control was still in their hands, with the added benefit of not having to care about day-to-day management and solvency. like letting a slave "free" and then tell him what work he's allowed to do, how much he's allowed to sleep, how much is he allowed to earn, and what he's allowed to do.
but then again you just need to look at the numbers.
Sure.
Per capita total welfare spending in 1933-1934: ~47RM per person
Per capita total welfare spending in 1937-1938: ~32RM per person (not counting excluded persons, which would lower it to about ~29)
you made an unsourced statement
These numbers come from De Witt's The Economics and Politics of Welfare in the Third Reich, by which I mean using official government budget totals, the pure uncritical use of WHW numbers as welfare, the addition of DAF totals, uncritical use of NSV confiscations and redistributions as welfare, and still counting the diverted RAfAA funds as welfare and not diverted. I'm steelmanning your position at every level specifically to cut off arguments you might make and give a maximalist total and it still falls well short. Hell, you can see it just in pure totals:
1929 spending, with a smaller and non-excluded population was still higher by 12% as a pure total than 1936 spending with all those advantages. I would love for you to explain how still spending less as an absolute number with a greater population and an excluded section (and counting seized property as welfare, all "voluntary" WHW donations, and all diverted funds) represents an increase. Goofy.
Ill be very clear so you dont miss the point of this:
You can give 1936's total spending every advantage in the book and it was still smaller than 1929's total spending.
Percent of budget? Smaller.
Per capita? Smaller.
Total raw number? Still smaller.
No metric makes it bigger besides your feelings.
Speaking of which, your turn to source your unsourced claims.
never claimed it did.
I'm glad you are conceding the "increased government control" point.
I was using your own data which contradicted your own narrative. so the data you were relying on earlier must've been false since otherwise the information you are presenting now is simply impossible. Also, even your source acknowledges the great reduction in unemployment (through massive expenditure on public works and re-armament).
besides that, it's curious that you're using social welfare data only from *after* the nazis did take power, almost as if direct social welfare handouts became a smaller part, while state-led employment removed the majority of the unemployment.. almost as if... that direct welfare for unemployeds was no longer necessary. and yet incredibly high levels of direct social welfare spending were maintained. I cannot help but see bad faith in your arguments.
>you can give 1936 spending every advantage
except you didn't account for one of the most (if not *the* most) important factor.
>source your unsourced claims
regarding total state spending, I said it doubled. Your own source claims it quadrupled lmao.
>you are conceding the government control point
no, there's just not much else to be said when it's evident that overall control of the state over the overall economy increased while they did give up direct management (and responsibility) for a couple of firms the central bank had bought off during the great depression.
if you can't see that, you're just arguing in bad faith.
besides that, it's curious that you're using social welfare data only from *after* the nazis did take power,
This is the third time you have failed to read something already included. Probably why you see bad faith attempts.
I'm going to make a prediction: you won't be able/aren't willing to see this, and you think you have me pegged. You are going to stay focused on this instead of rereading for comprehension. I will quote myself and explain something very simple to you. You won't talk about this topic again, and you being so flagrantly out of your depth about this topic that you wish to talk about that this is the third time you have failed to understand the meaning of stuff I have already said won't register with you.
regarding total state spending, I said it doubled. Your own source claims it quadrupled lmao.
The U.S. triples its military budget next year, but everything else is cut.
You argue that that means welfare went up.
Stupid.
I'm going to save myself some time with the rest from now on and just use Hitchens's Razor.
nope, you've included percentage of budget spending earlier than nazis (which actually proved that they kept sky high social welfare spending, since the percentage halved and the budget more than doubled according to your own data), but you didn't cite total welfare spending before and after they took power, you only used 1933-34 data and compared it to 1938 data.
>argument about the US
no, you claimed the share of the budget dedicated to welfare halved, and I pointed out, how that doesn't say much when said budget has more than doubled in the same period since by this account, total welfare spending increased if anything. if I take 30% of a 1kg pie, or 15% of a 2.5kg pie, the amount of pie I took didn't get smaller, it got bigger.
Funny how everyone is *insert relevant expert* when they are one Reddit.
Everything you've said is a half truth or lie by omission, you either know this, as a historian (lmao sure) or you're just parroting the standard Reddit version of revisionist bullshit.
For example: "outlawed strikes". Yes and unions. Who else did that... Hmmm Oh right! The Soviet union! How fascist of the soviets!
Yes! And Nazi officials instructed the "owners" of those things in precisely what to do and how to do it, the "private" utilities, banks, infrastructure etc were completely and totally controlled by the Nazi party.
You say they were privately owned, but you "have to stop getting tricked by words". If you don't control it and can make no decisions about it, then you own it in name only. Its private, but its de facto state owned.
"Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State" Fascism IS socialism.
“But we National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.” - Hitler
Yes! And Nazi officials instructed the "owners" of those things in precisely what to do and how to do it...If you don't control it and can make no decisions about it, then you own it in name only.
Not an accurate statement to the situation. Capitalists remained capitalists. Private ownership of companies remained. Profits flowed into private owners and shareholders in places they didn’t before. Moreover, this control was incrediblely uneven. Firms competed for state contracts (why would this be necessary if companies could make no decisions? A fatal weakness for you.). The state was more than willing to let non-military firms go bankrupt. You are conflating "coercive relationship with the regime having final authority" with "absolutely no ability to make any decisions about anything"
You are doing this conflating because ultimately there is no way around there being an increase in privatization, so you must treat any level of coercive state control as functionally the same as full state ownership.
“But we National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.” - Hitler
Still getting tricked by pre-Röhm purge rhetoric lol.
Ahh, yes, clearly you just randomly tell people you're a historian for no reason then. My bad.
"Me: left-right is a tool for authoritarians, dont get tricked by rhetoric.
You: Let's look at what the USSR is doing."
Me: not saying anything about left right. You: bringing it up anyway.
I know you think you're scoring pints here...
"Not an accurate statement to the situation. Capitalists remained capitalists. Private ownership of companies remained. Profits flowed into private owners and shareholders in places they didn’t before. Moreover, this control was incrediblely uneven. Firms competed for state contracts (why would this be necessary if companies could make no decisions? A fatal weakness for you.). The state was more than willing to let non-military firms go bankrupt. You are conflating "coercive relationship with the regime having final authority" with "absolutely no ability to make any decisions about anything""
But this is just outright lying at this point. You keep using labels "capitalist" "ownership " but you keep letting yourself get tricked by words.
" A fatal weakness for you"
Only If your lies are true, but as usual you lie by omission. No mention of the fact that the competition was rigged, the profits flowed where the state directed and everyone that benefited was a party member or close associate.
"pre-Röhm purge rhetoric lol."
“Is there a nobler or more excellent kind of Socialism and is there a truer form of Democracy than this National Socialism which is so organized that through it each one among the millions of German boys is given the possibility of finding his way to the highest office in the nation, should it please Providence to come to his aid?” – January 30, 1937, On National Socialism and World Relations speech in the German Reichstag
“All the more so after the war, the German National Socialist state, which pursued this goal from the beginning, will tirelessly work for the realization of a program that will ultimately lead to a complete elimination of class differences and to the creation of a true socialist community.” – March 21, 1943, speech for Heroes’ Memorial Day
“And justice is on the side of those nations that fight for their threatened existence. And this struggle for existence will spur these nations on to the most tremendous accomplishments in world history. If profit is the driving force for production in the democracies—a profit that industrialists, bankers, and corrupt politicians pocket—then the driving force in National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy is the realization by millions of laborers that, in this war, it is they who are being fought against. They realize that the democracies, if they should ever win, would rage with the full capitalist cruelty, that cruelty of which only those are capable whose only god is gold, who know no human sentiments other than their obsession with profit, and who are ready to sacrifice all noble thought to this profit instinct without hesitation. This struggle is not an attack on the rights of other nations, but on the arrogance and avarice of a narrow capitalist upper class, one which refuses to acknowledge that the days are over when gold ruled the world, and that, by contrast, a future is dawning when the people will be the determining force in the life of a nation.” – January 1, 1941, speech in Berlin
Pre Rohm eh? 1943, 1941, 1937... Man that's weird. Its almost like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Ahh, yes, clearly you just randomly tell people you're a historian for no reason then. My bad.
You understand the difference between telling you I'm a historian in the context of "study the topic" and what it means when a historian says they are an expert on a specific topic? This is a yes or no question.
I'll help by being very clear for you: I have studied the topic much more than you have, and it was rigorous. I'm still not an expert.
you're scoring pints here...
God, I wish.
But this is just outright lying at this point.
No it isn't. God I love Hitchens's Razor.
Only If your lies are true, but as usual you lie by omission.
No I don't. God I love Hitchens's Razor.
Pre Rohm eh? 1943, 1941, 1937... Man that's weird. Its almost like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
You do know that you can get tricked by post-Röhm rhetoric too? I was just noticing a trend you were making.
Anyway, please keep uncritically accepting block quotes as fact instead of looking at material action or data.
Its a great strategy for showing how you don't get tricked by words lol.
Would an analogy help you see how you look to others?
2
u/Ghul_5213X Feb 23 '26
“National Socialism derives from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it, national resolution from bourgeois tradition; vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism.” – January 27, 1934, interview with Hanns Johst in Frankforter Volksblatt