Fascism Question: Were Hitler and National Socialism socialist?

submitted by 8thmonitor from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]AidsVictim69 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, not in any concrete way. National Socialism was a sort of semi-collectivist capitalism, operating practically as some hybrid between private and state capitalism. To an extent it simply did whatever was politically convenient or necessary in the realm of economics. The capitalist class was maintained although they became subservient to the state (not unlike the US et al). One of the primary reasons Germany lost the war was the unwillingness and/or inability to prepare or adapt the economy for a total war the way the Soviets could; this would have disrupted the semi capitalist system they operated under and might have compromised their political power if capitalists political and financial support shifted too far away from the party (they were subservient but still a powerful group who influence within the party). Nor was there any strong indication the party intended to move away from the capitalist system, if anything they seemed to be preparing post war Germany for a capitalist model. They also purged the party in earlier years of "actual" socialists, rejecting it as possible future for the party/Germany.

I find that thread and most definitions of "right socialism" to be fairly vague and the German state under Nationalism Socialism much more strongly resembled capitalism under wartime conditions than anything meaningfully distinct. Elements of collectivism and state control within Italy and Germany never really materialized into anything more substantial and I don't believe they were evolving in that direction but who knows with enough time. I suspect they would have eventually looked something like France or other "social democracies" in a post world war victory.

Bottom line is there was no ownership of the means of production, workers councils, vanguard workers movements etc in control of the state. The state "guided" the capitalist class but it was essentially still capitalist in production and ownership.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

One of the primary reasons Germany lost the war was the unwillingness and/or inability to prepare or adapt the economy for a total war the way the Soviets could; this would have disrupted the semi capitalist system they operated under and might have compromised their political power if capitalists political and financial support shifted too far away from the party (they were subservient but still a powerful group who influence within the party). Nor was there any strong indication the party intended to move away from the capitalist system, if anything they seemed to be preparing post war Germany for a capitalist model. They also purged the party in earlier years of "actual" socialists, rejecting it as possible future for the party/Germany.

The USA was more Capitalist and it held a higher GDP than both Germany and the Soviets through every year of the war. Germany was also slightly ahead of the Soviets in several cases.

https://www.zuljan.info/articles/0302wwiigdp.html

But the Soviets had the direct benefit of the U.S also supplying it with money, oil, material etc to make up for those short comings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

There was nothing a German economic model could have done to stop this.

[–]AidsVictim69 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

GDP is only loosely useful as a guide here. Germany had superior industrial capability to the USSR (especially including the combined Euro industry it directly or indirectly owned) yet it severely lagged behind the USSR in material production (tanks, planes, artillery etc) once the war began. By 1942, before lend lease had really significant impact, the USSR had already retooled and raced ahead of German war production. This can largely be chalked up to the USSRs central planning economic model that allowed them to relatively easily direct production as needed and recognizing much earlier the scale needed for "total war".

Conversely Germany was caught up in web of competing capitalist interests and the NSDAP was reluctant to commandeer industry because of how it would have affected the political-economic balance within Germany and their expectations that they would be able to return to a more "balanced" post war economy where private industry took the lead after victory in the East. A further complication was that German industry was less streamlined than Soviets and they built more complex equipment in general. By the time they became desperate enough in 44 to actually take the necessary industrial-economic steps for the total war they were actually in it was too late, they saw a large increase in war production (despite Allied bombings) but by that time the matter had already been decided - they were never going to catch up to the Soviet material already on the field.

While there were other constraints on Germany (chiefly oil production) if Germany had directed towards war production on the scale of the USSR in 1941 it would have been a much closer run war in the East at least. It's less about GDP and more about Germanys industrial failure to match their ambitions, hamstrung by the economic-political model and underestimation of the industrial scale needed to win the war.