Nazism: Difference between revisions

It is sometimes claimed that Nazism was an anti-capitalist ideology, deemed as a “Third Position” other than both Communism and Capitalism. However, neither Hitler nor any Nazi ideologues ever have qualified themselves as a “Third Position”—a term which appeared only years after the collapse of XXth century European fascist regimes, as a set of neo-fascist political ideologies that developed in the context of the Cold War. In fact, economics wasn't a structuring part of the Nazi ideology, as it has always been an accessory, or secondary aspect of it which primarly served its rhetoric depending on the context, resulting in a lack of any coherent theory. Hitler actually believed that the lack of a precise economic programme was one of the Nazi Party's strengths, saying: "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all". This led Nazism to align with German capitalists’ interests and integrate the then traditional capitalist mode of production in its economic policies and ideology. To Hitler, "the capitalists have worked their way to the top through their capacity, and as the basis of this selection, which again only proves their higher race, they have a right to lead." Nazi ideology indeed held entrepreneurship in high regard, and private property was considered a precondition to developing the creativity of members of the German race in the best interest of the economy, and therefore the nation. The Nazi leadership believed that private property itself provided important incentives to achieve greater cost consciousness, efficiency gains, and technical progress. Adolf Hitler used Social Darwinist arguments to support this stance, explicitly cautioning against bureaucratic managing of the economy that would “preserve the weak” and "represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value." Thus, in spite of their rhetoric condemning big business prior to their rise to power, the Nazis quickly entered into a partnership with German business leaders. Industrialists massively supported the Nazi accession to power once his accession to power was seen as unavoidable, from about mid-1932 onwards, and what oppositon was initially present among them disappeared as they decided to collaborate with the new regime following private interests and/or political and ideological affinities, and thus as early as February 1933. That month, after being appointed Chancellor but before gaining dictatorial powers, Hitler made a personal appeal to German business leaders to help fund the Nazi Party for the crucial months that were to follow. He argued that they should support him in establishing a dictatorship because "private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of democracy" and because democracy would allegedly lead to communism. He promised to destroy the German left and the trade unions, and in the following weeks, the Nazi Party received contributions from seventeen different business groups, with the largest coming from IG Farben and Deutsche Bank. The leaders of German capitalism therefore collaborated with the Nazis during their rise to power, and were willing partners in the destruction of political pluralism in Germany. In exchange, owners and managers of German businesses were granted unprecedented powers to control their workforce, collective bargaining was abolished and wages were frozen at a relatively low level. The Nazis granted millions of marks in credits to private businesses, and many businessmen had friendly relations to the Nazis, most notably with Heinrich Himmler and his Freundeskreis der Wirtschaft. German capitalists received substantial benefits from the Nazi state after it was established, including high profits monopolies and cartels. In this way, privatization was a tool in the hands of the Nazi Party to facilitate the accumulation of private fortunes and industrial empires by its foremost members and collaborators. This would have intensified centralization of economic affairs and government in an increasingly narrow group of collaborators to the Nazi regime made of capitalist leaders and economic elites. The Nazi government in 1930s Germany undertook a wide scale privatization policy. The Nazis privatized public properties and public services, only increasing economic state control through regulations already practiced by prior conservative governments. The government sold public ownership in several State-owned firms in different sectors. In addition, delivery of some public services previously produced by the public sector was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the Nazi Party. Ideological motivations do not explain Nazi privatization. However, political motivations were important. The Nazi government may have used privatization as a tool(worth to improvenote its relationship with big industrialists and to increase support among this group for its policies. Privatization was also likely used to foster more widespread political support for the party. Finally, financial motivations played a centralthat roleback in Nazi privatization. The proceeds from privatization in 1934-37 had relevant fiscal significance: No less than 1.37 per cent of total fiscal revenues were obtained from selling shares in public firms. Moreover, the government avoided including a huge expenditure in the budget by using outside-of-the-budget tools to finance the public services franchised to Nazi organizations. Nazi economic policy in the mid-thirties went against the mainstream in several dimensions. The huge increase in public expenditure programs was unique, as was the increase in the armament programs, and together they heavily constrained the budget. Exceptional policies were put in place to finance this exceptional expenditure, and privatization was just one among them. Nazi Germany privatized systematically, and was the only country to do so at the time. This drove Nazi policy against the mainstream, which flowed againstword "privatization of state ownership or public services until the last quarter of the twentieth century. Hitler believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather than "parasitical". Private property rights were conditional upon following the economic priorities set by the Nazi leadership, with high profits as a reward for firms who followed them and the potential threat of nationalization being used against those who did not. However, in practice such potential threat wasn't carried out in practice, . Furthermore, as soon as the Nazis came to power, it did not take long for the regime, then made of both Nazi officials and representative of the conventional right wing parties before they had toopposite leave them following their suppression in July 1933, to produce official statements against nationalization practiced by previous governments (partmeaning of thewhat thenwe mainstreamhave set of economic policies pursued in Western capitalist coountriestoday). "The policy of nationalization pursued in the last years will be stopped. The state owned enterprises will be transformed again into private firms.” (State Secretary of Public Economics). While it may be asserted that free competition and self-regulating markets diminished overall, it wasn't to extents unheard of in most western capitalist countries. Furthermore, Hitler's social darwinist beliefs made him emphasize, in a typically laissez-faire capitalist fashion, business competition and private property as economic engines. Another fact refuting the idea that Nazis were anti-capitalists is which that what Nazi theorists and politicians blamed for Germany's previous economic failures were not capitalism or economic structures, but political causes such as the influence of Marxism on the workforce, the sinister and exploitative machinations of what they called international Jewry and the vindictiveness of the western political leaders' war reparation demands. Furthermore, what is often cited as criticism of capitalism emitted by Nazis was in reality aimed specifically at the financial sphere with no question of the overarching economic system it was functionning within ; and, instead of a structural criticism of said sphere, typically consisted of a demonization of global financial "elites" portrayed as politically and/or morally opposedtool to German'improve interests.its Nazi political communication, indeed, often relied on vague socialist-like appeals while calling to the rejection of structured socialist political propositions, communists or social-democrats, to try and attract as much as possible from the important electoral base the left had in the working classes. Nazism rejected socialism as class conflict-based, as well as economic egalitarianism, favouring instead a stratified economyrelationship with socialbig classes based on meritindustrialists and talent,to retainingincrease privatesupport propertyamong andthis the creation of national solidarity that transcends class distinction while actively maintaining them. Hitler rhetorically distrusted free-market capitalismgroup for being unreliable due to its egotism and preferred a state-directed economy that maintains private property and competition but subordinates them to the interests of the Volk and Nation. But in practice, the Nazi government took the stance that enterprises should be in private hands wherever possible. State ownership was to be avoided unless it was absolutely necessary for rearmament or the war effort, and even in those cases the Reich often insisted on the inclusion in the contract of an option clause according to which the private firm operating the plant was entitled to purchase it. The Nazi regime’s rhetoric stated that German private companies would be protected and privileged as long as they supported the economic goals of the government—mainly by participating in government contracts for military production—but that they could face severe penalties if they went against the national interest. Yet such threats were rarely carried out in practice, and companies normally could refuse to engage in an investment project designed by the state without any consequences. Additionally, while claiming to strive for autarky in propaganda, the Nazis crushed existing movements towards self-sufficiency and established extensive capital connections in efforts to ready for expansionist war and genocide, as usual in alliance with capitalist and commerce elitespolicies.

*Hitler appointed Hjalmar Schacht, right-wing liberal economist, as President of the Reichsbank in 1933 and Minister of Economics in 1934. Hjalmar Schacht created a scheme for deficit financing, in which capital projects were paid for with the issuance of promissory notes called Mefo bills, which could be traded by companies with each other, and which was vastly used for the Reich's military expansion. He opposed policy of German re-armament insofar as it violated the Treaty of Versailles and (in his view) disrupted the German economy. And was resigned as President of the Reichsbank in January 1939. In 1944, Schacht was arrested by the Gestapo.