Which Nazis read any Marxist works?

Discussions on the propaganda, architecture and culture in the Third Reich.
kuba kowalski
Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 11 Jul 2015, 02:48
Location: England

Re: Which Nazis read any Marxist works?

#16

Post by kuba kowalski » 25 Aug 2015, 07:43

HaShomer wrote:The bizarre quote from Hitler apologist Wagener exactly proves the opposite point. 'That is the socialism of the nations. But it is quite different from the international socialism of a Marx or Lenin!' In other words, you can take any concept, say socialism, and redefine it, distort it, oppose it, give it a 100% contrary definition, and still call it 'socialism'. That's called intellectual dishonesty, mental gymnastics on an order only the Nazis could spawn.
Are you still in denial that there is many different forms of socialism? It's really not all that difficult.

The Nazis definition of socialism was slightly different; they redefined it by rejecting the common internationalist aspect and limited it to the German Volk only. The clue is in the their name 'National Socialism'.

Stalinism was also different from Leninism, are you trying to imply that Stalinism was not socialist too? Stalin's concept was "Socialism in One Country", this was the opposite to Lenin's concept that socialism was to be spread via international revolutions.

You speak of intellectual dishonesty, in one of your previous posts you didn't even recognise the difference between a government system and a political system, it's quite apparent you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Which Nazis read any Marxist works?

#17

Post by wm » 25 Aug 2015, 08:56

His socialism is quite similar to modern socialism (but not the socialism known then), i.e. a capitalistic system closely controlled and directed by a big government, and the sacrifice of personal interests/rights for the common good.

The main difference was he replaced the working class (the main claimed beneficiaries of any socialism) with Volk - community, people in the ethnic sense.

He was even an internationalist:
For, look here, once nations have begun to carry out a socialist and socio-economic reorganization within their own borders, the time is ripe for the totality of nations — that is, all the peoples and states — to give up fighting each other for power and supremacy, enslavement and exploitation, according to liberal principles (meaning the economic liberalism of the Gilded Age)— that is, acting according to imperialist principles.
Then, even among them the time has come for giving consideration to pride of place, communal spirit, even ‘socialism.’ What first occurred on a small scale within the individual nations will then take place among the worldwide community of nations. Even the smallest of them will enjoy equal rights… That is socialism of the nations.

In his time the main difference between communism and socialism was that the communists wanted to build a brave new world the hard way (using violence) and the socialists the easy way (without violence).

Both wanted to abolish the private sector completely (even an artisan would be barred from employing a worker) and abolish private ownership of land. Both wanted a dictatorship (socialism would be mandatory) ruled by a powerful government, impotent parliament and trade unions.

It should be add that the main proponents of the anti-capitalist socialism were Otto and Gregor Strasser, both more socialistic that Hitler (wanted an anti-capitalist, more radical, mass-action and worker-based National Socialism). They were leading members of the Nazi party's left-wing faction.
Strasser believed the original anti-capitalist nature of the NSDAP had been betrayed by Adolf Hitler. The Black Front was composed of former radical members of the NSDAP, who intended to cause a split in the main party. Strasser's organisation published a newspaper, The German Revolution, and adopted the crossed hammer and sword symbol which is still used by several Strasserite groupings today.
The organisation was unable to oppose the NSDAP effectively, and Hitler’s rise to power proved to be the final straw. [Otto] Strasser spent the years of the Third Reich in exile, first in Czechoslovakia and later in Canada. The left-wing of the party itself was eradicated in 1934 during 'The Night of the Long Knives', in which Gregor Strasser, Otto’s elder brother, was killed.
Gregor Strasser in 1926, he was the leader of the NSDAP's national organization at that time:
We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system! And with my inclination to practical action it seems obvious to me that we have to put a better, more just, more moral system in its place, one which, as it were, has arms and legs and better arms and legs than the present one.
The flag of Schwarze Front:
Black_Front.jpg
Black_Front.jpg (23.24 KiB) Viewed 1244 times


User avatar
4thskorpion
Member
Posts: 733
Joined: 10 Nov 2009, 16:06
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Which Nazis read any Marxist works?

#18

Post by 4thskorpion » 25 Aug 2015, 10:55

wm wrote: The flag of Schwarze Front:
Black_Front.png
Interesting to see the same "Schwarze Front" flag and symbology was being used last year in 1st of May 2014 demonstration organised in Warsaw by Polish Autonomiczni Nacjonaliści - Autonomous Nationalists. The other prominent flag is of the Nacjonalistyczne Stowarzyszenie Zadruga Polish nationalists bearing an "eagle with axe heads for wings" symbol or as it is known in Polish the "Toporzeł" or "axe-eagle"
fig018.jpg
fig0191.jpg
fig0191.jpg (254.08 KiB) Viewed 1239 times

kuba kowalski
Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 11 Jul 2015, 02:48
Location: England

Re: Which Nazis read any Marxist works?

#19

Post by kuba kowalski » 25 Aug 2015, 11:03

wm wrote:The main difference was he replaced the working class (the main claimed beneficiaries of any socialism) with Volk - community, people in the ethnic sense.

He was even an internationalist:
For, look here, once nations have begun to carry out a socialist and socio-economic reorganization within their own borders, the time is ripe for the totality of nations — that is, all the peoples and states — to give up fighting each other for power and supremacy, enslavement and exploitation, according to liberal principles (meaning the economic liberalism of the Gilded Age)— that is, acting according to imperialist principles.
Then, even among them the time has come for giving consideration to pride of place, communal spirit, even ‘socialism.’ What first occurred on a small scale within the individual nations will then take place among the worldwide community of nations. Even the smallest of them will enjoy equal rights… That is socialism of the nations.
Hitler didn't believe in classes, he believed in the German Volk as one people, as part of a Volksgemeinschaft or people's community.

The quote you used doesn't really prove he was an advocate of international socialism - the common usage of the word 'socialism'.
In his time the main difference between communism and socialism was that the communists wanted to build a brave new world the hard way (using violence) and the socialists the easy way (without violence).
Both the Nazis and the Soviets had their own definitions of 'socialism' but despite the ideological differences, they actually had quite a lot of similarities.
It should be add that the main proponents of the anti-capitalist socialism were Otto and Gregor Strasser, both more socialistic that Hitler (wanted an anti-capitalist, more radical, mass-action and worker-based National Socialism). They were leading members of the Nazi party's left-wing faction.
Strasser believed the original anti-capitalist nature of the NSDAP had been betrayed by Adolf Hitler. The Black Front was composed of former radical members of the NSDAP, who intended to cause a split in the main party. Strasser's organisation published a newspaper, The German Revolution, and adopted the crossed hammer and sword symbol which is still used by several Strasserite groupings today.
The organisation was unable to oppose the NSDAP effectively, and Hitler’s rise to power proved to be the final straw. [Otto] Strasser spent the years of the Third Reich in exile, first in Czechoslovakia and later in Canada. The left-wing of the party itself was eradicated in 1934 during 'The Night of the Long Knives', in which Gregor Strasser, Otto’s elder brother, was killed.
Gregor Strasser in 1926, he was the leader of the NSDAP's national organization at that time:
We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system! And with my inclination to practical action it seems obvious to me that we have to put a better, more just, more moral system in its place, one which, as it were, has arms and legs and better arms and legs than the present one.
The flag of Schwarze Front:
Black_Front.jpg
Very true.

Quite a lot of the Nazis were much more inclined to the socialist side of it. Most of the northern branch did in contrast to the Munich branch.

Another Nazi with a more socialist outlook was Goebbels. After Hitler called socialism a 'Jewish creation', Goebbels revealed in his dairy: "I no longer fully believe in Hitler. That's the terrible thing: my inner support has been taken away", he told his diary.

Another ideology some Nazis in the earlier years embraced was 'National Bolshevism', especially the Strasser brothers.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Which Nazis read any Marxist works?

#20

Post by wm » 25 Aug 2015, 12:17

The question is what was international socialism? Because in practice the solidarity between European Socialist parties spectacularly broke down at the beginning of the Great War.

As I understand it, at the end of the nineteenth century those people were called internationalists (members of an International) because they organized international meetings, tried to iron out ideological differences, co-ordinate activity, supported each others - such a cooperation was quite unusual at that time.

But the others quickly adopted this type of cooperation too, for example there were/are:
Fascists: Fascist International,
Christian Democrats: Centrist Democrat International,
Conservatives: International Democrat Union,
Monarchists: International Monarchist League,
Liberals: Liberal International, and many more. So more or less the others eventually became internationalists too.

HaShomer
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 07 Aug 2015, 23:41
Location: USA

Re: Which Nazis read any Marxist works?

#21

Post by HaShomer » 25 Aug 2015, 23:28

Oh yes, there are different types of socialism, but anything diametrically opposed to socialism and antithetical to it, i.e. fascism, of which nazism is one form, peronism another, people's 'republic' of China another, is not any type of socialism. You said yourself 'Hitler didn't believe in classes' etc. So if there are no classes, no proletariat, no internationalism, only nationalist militarists underpinned by capitalist industrialists, oh yes I can see how that's a form of socialism, because that's what the liars called it. Keep looking for clues...Murdering captured commissars surely proves their good will toward fellow socialists.

kuba kowalski
Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 11 Jul 2015, 02:48
Location: England

Re: Which Nazis read any Marxist works?

#22

Post by kuba kowalski » 26 Aug 2015, 00:09

HaShomer wrote:Oh yes, there are different types of socialism, but anything diametrically opposed to socialism and antithetical to it, i.e. fascism, of which nazism is one form, peronism another, people's 'republic' of China another, is not any type of socialism. You said yourself 'Hitler didn't believe in classes' etc. So if there are no classes, no proletariat, no internationalism, only nationalist militarists underpinned by capitalist industrialists, oh yes I can see how that's a form of socialism, because that's what the liars called it. Keep looking for clues...Murdering captured commissars surely proves their good will toward fellow socialists.
As already explained, some fascists aimed at creating a nationalist form of socialism.

You're still confusing a political ideology with a government ideology when you keep rambling your red herring about China.

Again, as already explained, the Nazis definition of socialism was completely different to the Soviets and they were not side by side socialists.

trekker
Member
Posts: 311
Joined: 16 Mar 2011, 08:55

Re: Which Nazis read any Marxist works?

#23

Post by trekker » 27 Aug 2015, 08:52

wm wrote:In his time the main difference between communism and socialism was that the communists wanted to build a brave new world the hard way (using violence) and the socialists the easy way (without violence).

Both wanted to abolish the private sector completely (even an artisan would be barred from employing a worker) and abolish private ownership of land. Both wanted a dictatorship (socialism would be mandatory) ruled by a powerful government, impotent parliament and trade unions.
As far as I know Marx and Engels (marxism) through analysis of modern capitalist societies came to the conclusion that capitalism would come to its end because of its inner social and economic conflicts. When capitalism would have reached its mature stage of development it would be replaced by communism – similar to feudalism being replaced by capitalism.

In reality, the communist party in Russia managed to come to power in a country where capitalism hardly existed therefore the communist society was impossible. Thus, the concept of socialism was invented (not by Marx and Engels) as an intermediate stage between capitalism and communism. Socialism with the help of the state was to develop the society until it would reach the stage when communism would be possible. Note that marxism was explicit in defining communism as a non-state society.

Therefore USSR and post-WWII socialist countries where communist parties came to power were not communist countries and didn't even call themselves communist countries. They were officially called socialist countries. Calling them communist countries in the West is a fake. If my name is Joe and one keeps calling me Jack I am still Joe.

When communist parties came to power they immediately abolished private ownership of means of production and introduced complete state ownership. On the other hand when fascists in Italy and nazis in Germany came to power they never introduced complete state ownership of means of production. Therefore it cannot be said that National Socialists wanted to abolish the private sector completely. If they had wanted they would have done it.

kuba kowalski
Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 11 Jul 2015, 02:48
Location: England

Re: Which Nazis read any Marxist works?

#24

Post by kuba kowalski » 29 Aug 2015, 23:13

Goebbels read books on Marxism, including the works of Marx and Engels.

Source: Ralf Georg Reuth, Goebbels, p.28

User avatar
Eschenbach
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 21 Jul 2015, 06:53
Location: North America

Re: Which Nazis read any Marxist works?

#25

Post by Eschenbach » 07 Sep 2015, 20:28

As someone who has been interested in the political development and application of both Soviet/Eastern European Communism and National Socialism for many years, I find this heated topic particularly interesting.

In my point of view, early Nazi literature and propaganda definitely emphasised the priority of the working class, although it was careful never to have its ideology associated with any internationalist affiliation. The NSDAP originated out of an early nineteen-twenties German working class atmosphere, thus its original demands were unsurprisingly indicative of that which is categorized as leftwing, especially regarding its insistence that industries are not only to be nationalized, but their profits also divided. Take, for example, section 2 of the NSDAP’s constitution, which Hitler himself supposedly declared inalterable on Feburary 25th, 1920 at the Hofbrauhausfestsall in Munich. Here, we can see a staunch opposition to classless society in Point 16, (demanding the creation of a middle class) revealing that from the onset, the Nazi’s resented Marxism:
WE DEMAND; THEREFORE:
11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
Furthermore, we see earlier within Point 8 and then later in Point 24 is what perhaps best distinguished themselves from other socialistic oriented parties during the era:
8. All non-German immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Ayran, who entered Germany subsequent to August 2nd, 1914, shall be required forthwith to depart from the Reich.

...

24. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats Jewish materialist spirit within us, and is convinced that our nation can only achieve permanent health from within on the principle: THE COMMON INTERREST BEFORE SELF.
The main theoretical aspect of National Socialist political philosophy was indubitably the legal concept of Volkisch equality, i.e. “ascribed racial equality of opportunity, equality before the law, and full legal rights to those able people of German blood or related Aryan blood, but deliberately excluded people outside of this definition, who were regarded as inferior.” (I took this definition directly from the “Volkisch Equality” Wikipedia page.) Volkism stood for populist socialism only for a particular caste as opposed to any political humanistic universalism. Hence the distain for internationalism whether it be communistic or capitalistic.

Obviously, this racial egalitarianism concept was hardly adhered to in reality, as many senior officials engaged in rampant corruption and also interfered in the judicial process by legislating ex post facto laws applicable to those who already were on trial. Within NS Germany, rule of law was completely neglected and the fundamental legal principle established throughout the western world, nemo est supra legem, was patently violated through Enabling Act. From 1933 up until May 1945, the Third Reich was entirely an authoritarian single party dictatorship whose legislative system could be rewritten depending on the whim of its Führer.

Gottfried Feder’s “fight” against usury and mammonism, Theodor Fritsch’s baseless accusations that economic globalism was entangled within Jewish “spider-web” conspiracy and Anton Drexler’s socialist awaking all linked European-American Jewry for being responsible for the moral and economic downfall of Germany. Americanized consumerism and Soviet communism, they argued, promoted racial mixing thus it had no place to exist within an ideal society. What these volkists aimed for was the establishment of a eugenic society that would devote its care for the übermensch and rid those who were perceived as being unworthy of life. Later on, topics concerning progressivism became the catalyst for heated dispute among National Socialists. Whereas personalities like Gobbles and Goering wanted a new generation of Germans to live in modern urbanized cities, they faced strong resistance from the pastoral Blut und Boden fraction which emphasized a revival of rural customs and medieval aristocracies. Similar discrepancies existed regarding Art and Religion, although such debates almost always culminated with Hitler giving the final world. It seems that had it have been permitted to last longer, National Socialism would have become a rather abstract political ideology with different streams, similarly to how Communism branches out with different trains of thought, e.x. Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc...

While this was the philosophic intention behind the ideology, controversy among historians proceeds to amasses as to whether or not Hitler’s government succeeded in fulfilling the creation of a welfare state in the strictest sense of the term. Personally, I fall under the predominant camp of those who believe that sometime shortly before or after the Night of the Long Knifes, Hitler largely abandoned the socialistic aims of his party in order to win support from industrialists so that he could build an efficient military-complex capable of conducting massive expansionism, especially in the east. That is why Hitler avoided discussing anything about his left leaning rivals like Strasser, Goebbels and Röhm within Mein Kampf. Not only was he aware that these powerful figures within the Sturmabteilung posed as a potential danger to his acquisition of power, but Hitler additionally knew that his lebensraum aspirations would have never have got off the ground had their economic policies prevailed. Throughout the span of the Third Reich, it is my opinion (although I might be totally wrong about it, please correct me) NS Germany was the only country out of the European Axis powers to have large-scale organizations designed to serve their domestic working class such as the Kraft durch Freude -KdF, Volkswohlfahrt -NSV and the Deutsche Arbeitsfront -DAF. While these organizations were not by any means perfect nor did they conform with today’s standards within most socialist countries, at least they had provided something to the masses which, from what I understand, either did not exist or never surpassed the magnitude of their German counterparts within Fascist Italy, Falange Spain, Arrow Cross Hungary, Vichy France, Ustaše Croatia or Romania under Antonescu.

(Comparing the trade/welfare organization(s) belonging to the NSDAP with those that might have existed in other Axis countries would be a really interesting topic, btw.)

Regards

Alixanther
Member
Posts: 411
Joined: 04 Oct 2003, 05:26
Location: Romania

Re: Which Nazis read any Marxist works?

#26

Post by Alixanther » 14 Sep 2015, 15:53

National-Socialists were eugenic socialists. Or - putting it differently - socialist eugenists. The whole "volk" stuff was only a facade, a farce. All their political decisions were socialist in nature and most of the time in form too.

The so-called "racial egalitarianism" was a placeholder concept because Germany could not impose their culture to the rest of Europe and they tried to create a pan-European Empire without Germanistic traits (adding such Germanistic traits would only create opposition for their political construct). It's an imperialist form of socialism (same as USSR which continued the imperial tendencies of the Russian Empire long after their "revolution") - that's why most of the people do not seem to accept the fact it was also socialism and all stemmed from Marx.

Hitler agreed to cut the reptile's tail when he brought Wehrmacht into '34 double coup (NSDAP and Army versus SA and conservatives) - which practically ended any pretense of ideological continuity and showed the National-Socialists as mainly opportunistic in nature and only then ideological - if anything. Therefore, Germany after 1934 was not nationalism (or volkism) and not socialism - it was a military dictatorship who backed Hitler as Caesar. Yes, you can find yout ideological bits long after '34 (and most of the time they're collectivist) but there's extremely hard to "paint" Hitler's regime with only one word.
Economically it was a state capitalism which favored big enterprises (and therefore resembled autocratic conservatism, which it was NOT) and also lumped workers and bosses together into some guild-like structure (without any relation or continuity to Medieval guilds) but politically it was a "L'Etat c'est moi" doctrine - similar to "Le Roi Soleil" one (colbertianism?) backed by military support (which in turn was politically held prisoner through former SA leftists massively absorbed into the military - thus the Officer Class was unable to persuade and employ their soldier base into political ends and means).

There's a big mistake to lump all nationalism movements from diferent European parts and consider all of the "fascist" on the ground they all opposed international socialism ( = USSR bolschewism). As regarding Romania - Antonescu took all decisions on either personal grounds ( = as a royal-empowered dictator - the king was still a kid) or opportunistically ( = to consolidate the popularity of his personal regime). It was Antonescu who brought the Iron Guard to power, not the other way around (although IG was naive enough to believe they successfully mounted a "revolution"). Only select representatives of Iron Guard got high political positions and all were cherry-picked by Antonescu. Thus, it's incorrect to say it was - even for a brief period - an "IG regime". Antonescu tried to drape himself into such a political clothing because of the popularity he gained and of the possible scapegoat he could use (which he latter did, sending thousands of low ranking individuals to the front on the base of their IG appartenence and not on the grounds of breaking the law). Now, there are vets today stripped of any recognition because in their youth naivete they believed a State who trumpeted (by Antonescu's voice) that IG was good to join (so they did) and they were later held in contempt, thrown into penal battalions on the Eastern Front, got arrested by RKKA and considered "fascists" all their life - although IG was never condemned for anything as an organisation - mainly because they were NOT fascists, they were a religious renewal movement whose leaders blundered big time and their playerbase payed for instead.

trekker
Member
Posts: 311
Joined: 16 Mar 2011, 08:55

Re: Which Nazis read any Marxist works?

#27

Post by trekker » 15 Sep 2015, 08:44

Alixanther wrote: ... most of the people do not seem to accept the fact it was also socialism and all stemmed from Marx.
Limiting myself to the state of facts I note that socialism does not stemm from Marx. There were many socialists in his time whom Marx criticized. He did not consider himself a socialist.

Alixanther
Member
Posts: 411
Joined: 04 Oct 2003, 05:26
Location: Romania

Re: Which Nazis read any Marxist works?

#28

Post by Alixanther » 15 Sep 2015, 18:48

trekker wrote:
Alixanther wrote: ... most of the people do not seem to accept the fact it was also socialism and all stemmed from Marx.
Limiting myself to the state of facts I note that socialism does not stemm from Marx. There were many socialists in his time whom Marx criticized. He did not consider himself a socialist.
Maybe I haven't been too clear. Let me rephrase: All twentieth century socialisms stemmed from Marx. All pre-Marx "socialism" went under. (exception, maybe, the all too peculiar type of socialism called social-democracy - which does not mix the process with the results; while in "process", they respect the rules of the political game - they vowed to do this and they have historically been proven accurate and faithful; however when they reach the "results" phase - the supposedly transformed society, then they drop the disguise and go full-fledged socialism; they also historically vowed to pursue and accomplish this)

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Which Nazis read any Marxist works?

#29

Post by wm » 15 Sep 2015, 22:49

The German Social-Democrats were a part of the Labour and Socialist International. And its program was so radical its members could be called without any exaggeration communists today.
Even the communists weren't the communists we know today. The father of fascism, Mussolini called the Soviet communism a kind of Slavonic fascism.

The Nazis favored big enterprises for the same reason the Soviet Block favoured big enterprises - because they were big and according to them useful, not because they were privately owned. In the Nazi Germany enterprises were tightly regulated and controlled by the State too.

trekker
Member
Posts: 311
Joined: 16 Mar 2011, 08:55

Re: Which Nazis read any Marxist works?

#30

Post by trekker » 16 Sep 2015, 08:57

In a history forum a certain level of historical therefore scientific approach is expected which in practice means the priority of facts and common use of terms.

When talking of socialism and communism a certain level of confusion at the level of terms already exists:
1) The idea of socialism was not born by Marx.
2) The idea of communism was born by Marx.
3) The practice of socialism in Eastern Europe was born by Lenin who was a communist and Marx's follower.
4) The practice of socialism in the Eastern Europe born by Lenin has been called communism in Western Europe.

Definitions of capitalism and socialism (also called communism) are based on the ownership of the means of production. Capitalism is defined by private ownership of the means of production. Socialism (also called communism) is defined by state ownership of the means of production. Such definitions are found in Merriam-Webster dictionary so they should be commonly accepted.

It is important to realize that while in practice different types of ownership of the means of production may exist in one country what really matters is which type is predominant. For instance, in socialist (also called communist) countries there were private farmers and artisans but their share in GDP was insignificant and their activity was state controlled and regulated. Similarly, state owned companies in capitalist countries do not make these countries socialist as these companies act in the same way as private owned companies with the only exception that profit goes to the state.

Common definitions imply that during WWII Germany, Italy, Great Britain, USA were all capitalist countries. Differences among them arose from their different political systems. Comparing Germany and USSR similarities are found in their political systems. However, trying to picture Germany a socialist (also called communist) country because its political system was similar to that of the USSR is according to capitalism/socialism common definitions incorrect.

Post Reply

Return to “Propaganda, Culture & Architecture”