26 Jan 2024 7:40 am
(PART II of III)
LowIQTrash: "In Marx's ideation of socialism (the end goal of which is communism) anti-bourgeois methods must be taken. However, there are other variants of socialism (Fabian Socialism, National Socialism, Mutualism, Owenism, Guild Socialism), which undoubtedly Marxists like yourself would criticize as anti or pseudo-scientific, that allow for limited ownership of private property."
Yes, none of those tendencies would allow for the social ownership and democratic administration of the means of industrial production.
LowIQTrash: "The reason I classify National Socialism as a subset of socialism (although you could equally make the case that it should be classified under 'Fascism' - why not both?) is that the Nazis were adamant about controlling the direction of their economy as a whole. Yes, there were privatizations... Still, there's a historical consensus that if you were the owner/the person running the business, you 'had to do' what the Nazis told you to do, or there would be devastating consequences."
Indeed, "National 'Socialism'" is nothing other than the vulgarity known as fascism, which was hatched in response to Marxism, which was created in response to capitalism. Per "[W]hy, not both [nationalism and socialism]," because they're opposed to one another. Because nationalism abhors socialism, and socialism loathes nationalism - because "National Socialism" is a contradiction in terms - an oxymoron akin to "almost exactly" and "old news."
Nationalism is an inward-looking ideology that demands allegiance to a nation-state, which always translates to a devotion to capitalism. At the same time, socialism is a way of thinking that necessitates loyalty to the international brotherhood and sisterhood of workers. "Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!" Sound familiar? "... the Nazis were adamant about controlling the direction of their economy as a whole. Yes, there were privatizations..."
"[T]here were privatizations"? Save for a very few insignificant state-owned industries, Germany's entire economy was privately owned. Ergo, what was there to privatize? Answer: Nothing. "...the Nazis were adamant about controlling the direction of their economy..." A tiny group of individuals was adamant about controlling Germany's economy. That bears no relationship to the societal ownership and democratic administration of the means of production put forth by Marxism. Here is an approximation - although not a blueprint of what a socialist commonwealth's system of economic production would look like: http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf
Does that look like something Germany's Nazis or any other Nazis would promote?
LowIQTrash: "The idea behind letting private individuals and organizations continue to run their businesses in Nazi Germany was simple - these CEOs had far more experience in their fields and would likely do a better job than a random government bureaucrat appointed to do their job. The only requirement was that once Hitler's government made some 'request,' you had to follow it.)"
IOW, although the pro-capitalist Nazis often told Germany's capitalists what their wage slaves were to produce, they - the Nazis didn't threaten Germany's capitalist system.
(END OF PART II)