X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:06:22 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Organization: Institute of Computer Science, Jagellonian University Cracow
Subject:      Re: Furtherance of a discussion ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              SMITH" at Jan 21, 93 2:04 pm

VALENTINE M. SMITH pisze:

>> I am not an "expert" in the sense that I do not have a PhD in German
>> history. But, I HAVE studied German history on my own for 35 years,
>> and I feel I have a good grasp of it, especially the period 1914-45.

It is interesting, that although your profound experience, you are quotting
only source:
>> >From _The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, p.205:
BTW: Thanks to your recomendation, I have notices a translation in a bookshop.
If I have enough courage to buy a book with a big, awful hakenkreuz on it,
I will be able to discover more quotations.


>> Secondly, the "socialism" end of National Socialism was never
>> seriously embraced by Hitler. Again, I offer sources, not rhetoric:

>> "But Hitler had contrary thoughts (in 1933). For him the Nazi
>> socialist slogans had been merely propaganda, means of winning over
>> the masses on his way to power.

I agree that ALL socialist ideologies are only for propaganda, not real
political programmes. And the masses still believe their living standards
can be increased in a miraculous way by plundering "the rich".

Of course there are *some* politicians who believe in their own propaganda,
usually if they have no opportunity to implement it in real life.

So I reject your serious/unserious socialism difference. They are all leftist.

>> Now that he had the power he was
>> uninterested in them. (I maintain, as does Shirer, that he was NEVER
>> interested in the "socialism" end of "national socialism," nor did he
>> behave in such a manner.)

I agree that Hitler was not interested in implemeting political slogans,
(socialist ot nationalist, they were merely slogans). Actually he was
interested in POWER. But to stay in power, he has to fulfil some of his
promises. Second, to judge the system we have to look at all its participants,
not only at the leader (althout he played a significant role).

In my opinion, it was NOT Hitler who created National-Socialism, but all the
leaders and supporters of National-Socialism created Hitler.
They believed in their ideology in the same sense other socialists believed in
theirs. And all those groups had advertised their socialism to be THE TRUE one.

So I sustain my opinion that National-Socialist (Nazi-Sozi) ideology is leftist
And there is simple explanation for the fact it was not fully implemented by
the leftist administration: it IMPOSSIBLE to implement.


>> Early on that page, Shirer states: "The Nazis had destroyed the Left,
>> but the Right remained: big business and finance, the aristocracy,
>> the Junker landlords, and the Prussian generals ..."

In the same sense the Left remained: working class, the peasants, etc.
Hitler destroyed all political movements: both on right and on left. I don't
think that destruction of some poltical movements automatically means that
the authorities belong to the opposite political wing. Factions of the same
(or similar ideology) were fighting each other very frequently in history
of all totalitarian regimes.

It is unwise to attack all your political enemies at once. It is better to
destroy them small group after small group. (It was applied by the communists
in E.Europe after 1945, and was called "salami strategy") I think Hitler
user similar aproach.


>> I also maintain, to address another contention of Caius', that he is
>> DEAD wrong in maintaining that big business was "managed" on behalf
>> of the state. I offer _The Arms of Krupp by William Manchester as AN
>> exhibit on this issue - Krupp, one of the largest companies in
>> Germany, was OWNED by the Krupp family, NEVER taken over by the
>> state, and did not go "public" as a stock company until Alfried
>> Krupp's suicide in 1967.

I think you are WRONG in stating the above. The big difference between
two big implementations of the socialism (Communism and Nazi-Sozi) is
that the communists denied all property rights, while the Nazis allowed the
property to be officially "owned", but gave them plans to be followed.
It may be interesting to you that the communist approach WAS NOT implemented
at once. In the 1920s limited private property was allowed in Soviet Russia.
The peasant owned land up until 1930s. And private property was never abolished
entirely in communists economies of Eastern Europe.

In my opinion Hitler didn't have enough time to abolish private property rights
and fully control the economy. Instead he had chosen easier way, "advise" and
"pressure". Would you refuse the local authorities if there were NSDAP
hooligans on the streets?

>> At NO time did the Krupps, or IG Farben, or
>> most other "big businesses" give up ownership of their companies.
>> They ALLIED themselves with the state, and went along with the
>> state's goals, but at no time did ownership devolve to the state, and

Ownership has two distinctive elements:
1) official ownership, which is worth nothing more than paper it is printed on;
2) real ownership, (the right to do with your property whatever you want)

My assetion is :The citezens of Germany under national-socialist regime were
deprived of REAL OWNERSHIP RIGHTS, not of official component. Some of them,
e.g. Jews were deprived of official property rights too.

>> I would challenge Caius' assertion that such companies were only
>> "managed" by their owners. Yes, the Nazis DID destroy Jewish
>> companies like Rothschild, but in general, alliance was the rule.

Look at the "salami strategy" above. First one group, later another.

>> Yes, I would agree that "socialism" was used by the Right, and even

If "the Right" uses socialism it is no longer the Right (by definition), it
becomes the Left (by definition)

(I hope you agree socialism, in words or in practice, is leftist, isn't is?)


>> some of Hitler's followers (Feder, Drexler, and the Strassers) bought
>> into the "socialist" parts of the Nazi program of of 1920. That
>> program called for "abolition of incomes unearned by work" (not
>> carried through on); "sharing with the state of profits from large
>> industry" (done only in a minimal way, Krupp for example, made a
>> fortune during the war that they NEVER shared with the regime);
>> "abolishment of land rents and speculation in land" (never done);
>> "...insisted on the communalization of department stores and their
>> lease at cheap rates to small traders" (never done). "These demands
>> were put in (the program) at the insistence of Drexler and Feder, who
>> apparently really believed in the "socialism" of National Socialism.
>> They were the ideas which Hitler was to find embarassing when the big
>> industrialists and landlords began to pour money into the party
>> coffers, and of course nothing was ever done about them." Shirer,
>> p.41.

We can consider rightist-leftist differences on two platforms: (1) the
ideology formulated by the politicians and (2) real implementations of it, if
the party comes to power.

First: You have proved by the above examples NSDAP was Nazi-Sozi, not only
Nazi party, as far as ideology (1) is conserned.

Second: You seem to identify The Right with the interests of the BIG BUSINESS.
The truth is the big business is sometimes not interested in competition from
the small business and supports the Leftist government actions, which was the
case in Nazi Germany in 1930s. (2)

That's why I call the Nazis leftist in both meanings.


The essence of the Right is to support free-market and property rights for
everybody not for a group. But if property rights are threatened by the
radical socialists both big and small business are on the right.


Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU