Tom Araya skrev 2019-07-17 01:50:38 följande:
Problemet är att konservatism och radikalism annars ses som motsats till varandra, vilket du upprepade gånger uppvisat inte ryms i ditt sätt att se på saker och ting.
Nja...
Då jag grundar mina argument i huvudsak på samma fakta, så utgör skillnaderna i tolkningar.
Jag anser inte att dina tolkningar är belagda i högre grad än mina, men jag förstår att du uppfattar det så.
Jag utelämnar ingen historisk fakta och förenklingarna står du för.
Jag har inte sett filmen då sd-propaganda inte intresserar mig.
Om de så har påståt att äpplen är blå, så är min reaktion; jaha och vad tillför det (dock med en stor portion ointresse och troligen även en gäspning)?
Det finns antagligen mängder skrivet om nazisternas ekonomiska politik som belyser frågan om det du anger som socialistiska kännetecknen - en genomgång av dessa visar at tinget av det kan anses vara uppfyllti fråga om nazisterna.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany
"
When Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, he introduced policies aimed at improving the economy. The changes included privatization of state industries, autarky, and tariffs on imports. Although weekly earnings increased by 19% in real terms[2] in the period between 1932-38, average working hours had also risen to approximately 60 per week by 1939. Furthermore, reduced foreign trade meant rationing in consumer goods like poultry, fruit, and clothing for many Germans.[3]"
"
The Nazis believed in war as the primary engine of human progress, and argued that the purpose of a country’s economy should be to enable that country to fight and win wars of expansion.[4] As such, almost immediately after coming to power, they embarked on a vast program of military rearmament, which quickly dwarfed civilian investment.[5] During the 1930s, Nazi Germany increased its military spending faster than any other state in peacetime,[6]"
"
The Nazi government developed a partnership with leading German business interests, who supported the goals of the regime and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement.[10] Cartels and monopolies were encouraged at the expense of small businesses, even though the Nazis had received considerable electoral support from small business owners.[11]"
"
Nazi Germany maintained a supply of slave labour, composed of prisoners and concentration camp inmates, which was greatly expanded after the beginning of World War II. In Poland alone, some 5 million citizens (including Polish Jews) were used as slave labour throughout the war.[12] Among the slave labourers in the occupied territories, hundreds of thousands were used by leading German corporations including Thyssen, Krupp, IG Farben, Bosch, Blaupunkt, Daimler-Benz, Demag, Henschel, Junkers, Messerschmitt, Siemens, and Volkswagen, as well as Dutch corporation Philips.[13] By 1944, slave labour made up one quarter of Germany's entire work force, and the majority of German factories had a contingent of prisoners.[14]"
Vidare skrivs det om planerna att med statens stöd stimulera ekonomi och minska arbetslöshet, planer ärvda från konservativa Hinderburgs presidentskap - vidare ansåg nazisterna att företag skulle vara privat ägda om inte kravet på militarisering krävde statligt ägande
"
The policies he inherited included a large public works programs supported by deficit spending – such as the construction of the Autobahn network – to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment.[18] These were programs that were planned to be undertaken by the Weimar Republic during conservative Paul von Hindenburg's presidency, and which the Nazis appropriated as their own after coming to power.[19]"
"
The Great Depression had spurred increased state ownership in most Western capitalist countries. This also took place in Germany during the last years of the Weimar Republic. But after the Nazis took power, industries were privatized en masse. Several banks, shipyards, railway lines, shipping lines, welfare organizations, and more were privatized.[40] However, the privatization was "applied within a framework of increasing control of the state over the whole economy through regulation and political interference."[41] The Nazi government took the stance that enterprises should be in private hands wherever possible.[42] 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.”["
"
One of the reasons for the Nazi privatization policy was to cement the partnership between the government and business interests.[48] Another reason was financial. As the Nazi government faced budget deficits due to its military spending, privatization was one of the methods it used to raise more funds.[49] Between the fiscal years 1934-35 and 1937-38, privatization represented 1.4 percent of the German government's revenues.[50] There was also an ideological motivation. Nazi ideology 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 people. [51] The Nazi leadership believed that “private property itself provided important incentives to achieve greater cost consciousness, efficiency gains, and technical progress.” [52] "
"
Social policies
The Nazis were hostile to the idea of social welfare in principle, upholding instead the Social Darwinist concept that the weak and feeble should perish.[70] They condemned the welfare system of the Weimar Republic as well as private charity, accusing them of supporting people regarded as racially inferior and weak, who should have been weeded out in the process of natural selection.[71] Nevertheless, faced with the mass unemployment and poverty of the Great Depression, the Nazis found it necessary to set up charitable institutions to help racially-pure Germans in order to maintain popular support, while arguing that this represented "racial self-help" and not indiscriminate charity or universal social welfare.[72] Thus, Nazi programs such as the Winter Relief of the German People and the broader National Socialist People's Welfare (NSV) were organized as quasi-private institutions, officially relying on private donations from Germans to help others of their race - although in practice those who refused to donate could face severe consequences.[73]Unlike the social welfare institutions of the Weimar Republic and the Christian charities, the NSV distributed assistance on explicitly racial grounds."
"
The Nazis banned all trade unions that existed before their rise to power, and replaced them with the German Labour Front (DAF), controlled by the Nazi Party.[78] They also outlawed strikes and lockouts.[79] The stated goal of the German Labour Front was not to protect workers, but to increase output, and it brought in employers as well as workers.[80][80] Journalist and historian William L. Shirer wrote that it was "a vast propaganda organization...a gigantic fraud."[80] Meanwhile, the Chamber of Economics (whose president was appointed by the Reich minister of economics) absorbed all existing chambers of commerce. By 1934 these two groups merged somewhat when the Chamber of Economics also became the economics department of the DAF."
... und so weiter ...
Så vilka socialistiska element kan du dra ur denna politik..
Tom Araya skrev 2019-07-08 20:26:29 följande:
Enligt min mening är viktiga beståndsdelar i socialism en stark stat, minska klassklyftor, strävan efter hög sysselsättning, arbetarpolitik med en stark fackföreningsrörelse, socialförsäkringssystem/välfärdssystem, ett samhällssystem för ekonomi och marknad där det allmänna tillåts eller uppmuntras att driva viss verksam och äga/förvalta viss egendom, inte att enbart privata intressen gör det.
Vilka av dessa beståndsdelar drev nazisterna en motsatt politik?
Stark stat - är detta ett socialistiskt eller ett totalitärt/auktoritärt element inom nazismen? Det senare.
Minska klasskyftor - Verkligen inte på något sätt
Strävan efter hög sysselsättning - Det behövdes slavar för att upprätthålla produktionen, så detta handlar inte per se om att vilja ha hög sysselsättning utan om kritsmaterialproduktion. Så, Nej
Arbetarpolitik med en stark fackförening - Nej, var ju både arbetareoch arbetsgivare intvingade i DAF som styrdes av finansministern -
By 1934 these two groups merged somewhat when the Chamber of Economics also became the economics department of the DAF
Socialförsäkringssystem/Välfärd - Nej.
The Nazis were hostile to the idea of social welfare in principle, upholding instead the Social Darwinist concept that the weak and feeble should perish.[70] They condemned the welfare system of the Weimar Republic as well as private charity, accusing them of supporting people regarded as racially inferior and weak, who should have been weeded out in the process of natural selection.
[71]
Ett samhällssystem för ekonomi och marknad där det allmänna tillåts eller uppmuntras att driva viss verksam och äga/förvalta viss egendom - Nej ,
The Nazi government took the stance that enterprises should be in private hands wherever possible.[42] 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.”
["
"One of the reasons for the Nazi privatization policy was to cement the partnership between the government and business interests.
[48] Another reason was financial. As the Nazi government faced budget deficits due to its military spending, privatization was one of the methods it used to raise more funds.
[49] Between the fiscal years 1934-35 and 1937-38, privatization represented 1.4 percent of the German government's revenues.
[50] There was also an ideological motivation.
Nazi ideology 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 people. [51] The Nazi leadership believed that “private property itself provided important incentives to achieve greater cost consciousness, efficiency gains, and technical progress.” [52] "
