I feel like you're conflating "socialist" and "economically unfree". "Socialist" is an essentially contested concept and effectively a vague tribal allegiance signal. From a neutral point of view, it points in the direction of a particular kind of economically unfree regime specifically focused on limiting freedom to own private property, engage in entrepreneurship or participate in the market. And here lies the problem - no matter how constrained Nazi-era German companies like Krupp, IG Farben, Siemens or Daimler-Benz might have been, they still were allowed to exist and compete.
Caplan and everyone should emulate Rainer Zitelmann author of "Hitler's National Socialism". He openly eschews the term "Nazi" at 2:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjkQZ3MmGgY
It would be interesting to compare this to chatgpt's scores for other countries during the same time period, including the USSR, France, Spain and the USA.
Would you be willing to share the exact prompt you used to make the results as comparable as possible?
Re "'The Nazis weren’t democratic and egalitarian, so they weren’t socialists.' This excludes history’s leading self-styled socialist regimes, all of which were inegalitarian dictatorships."
It is worth noting that the reason this is the case is that you need totalitarianism in order to overcome the natural inclination to try to evade socialism. For example, the need to crack down on black market transactions leads to a lot of intrusive monitoring and restrictions on liberty. The fact that this is true for a whole host of aspects of society is what leads to totalitarianism.
The historian Dr. Rex Curry exposed the daft reason why Hitler & Marx adopted socialism: BECAUSE Hitler & Marx were antisemitic. & They believed Jews were capitalists. Marx's Lutheranism was his start. Marx was ignorant of his own Jewish past (a top discovery by Dr. Curry).
This seems to be too much academic hair splitting.When the Nazis proudly had banners that proclaimed NSDAP, what more does one need? Both the Nazis in Germany and Communists in Stalinist Russia where way to the Left on the political spectrum, not one representing the far Right and the other the far Left that has been portrayed in the U.S.media and elsewhere.
“Left” and “right” are not absolute metrics on some really-existing spectrum. To say that the Nazis couldn’t be socialist because they were right-wing is both begging the question and reification.
?? I thought I said the Nazis were Far Left? Pundits in the past have portrayed Stalinist Russia as Far Left in the 20th century, and Nazi Germany as Far Right. This is far from the truth. Both are Far Left. Yes, in their quest for power, politicians will do anything, but Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were birds of a feather.
You might not realize you are onto something with your remark about their banners. Hitler had "S for SOCIALIST" flags, symbolism, & NSV (top discoveries by Historian Dr. Rex Curry). Hitler was the top socialist graphic design artist of all time. That fact would aid Caplan's points. Instead Caplan placed the hammer and sickle in the German flag, showing that he completely overlooked the point about Hitler's socialist flag. You should try to avoid the misnomer "Nazis". To assert that "Nazis WERE socialist" you must start by stating that "Hitler didn't call his group 'Nazis' nor 'Fascists'" and then you must expound that point in ALL your writing by showing that you know how Hitler self-identified: SOCIALIST. It was "Socialist" by the very word in voluminous writings and speeches and NEVER “Nazi” nor “Fascist”. The misnomer "Nazi" reinforces widespread ignorance among readers and everyone. Caplan's article never states "Hitler did NOT call his group 'Nazis' nor 'Fascists'." Has Caplan ever said it? Will Caplan ever say it? In some sense he is brainwashed to use the misnomer. Caplan uses misnomers (e.g. Nazi & Fascist) in the manner that socialists WANT him to use them. Caplan repeats socialist lies (the misnomers) that modern socialists use to cover up how Hitler self-identified: SOCIALIST. Socialists want everyone to believe that Hitler produced droning speeches and writings in which he used the term "Nazi" as often as Caplan has used it in his article. Socialists want everyone to believe that Hitler produced droning speeches and writings in which he used the term "Fascist" to self-identify. People have to stop being dupes for today's socialists. In one sense, the overuse of the term "Nazi" means that Caplan has ALREADY LOST THE ARGUMENT.
The Nazi's did most everything the Soviets did, but they didn't officially expropriate your property (most of the time) and allowed the industrialists to live relatively comfortable material lives until the end of the war in exchange for no longer being capitalists (they were not free to use their capital as they wished). They also were pragmatically conscious of needing to keep German civilian consumption at a reasonable enough level to maintain public support, and were willing to loot the rest of Europe to maintain this as long as they could.
There is a class of socialists that think because some Germany industrialists had paper accounts at some bank that said they were making money under the Nazi's means it was all a capitalist plot, even though these accounts could not be liquidated or spent, and all went to $0 at the end of the war.
There is an important distinction here between Nazi-ism and Fascism. Mussolini was mediocre but not an immediate economic train wreck like the Nazi's. Franco was an economic miracle. The East Asian authoritarian tigers all worked pretty well.
<My response: While socialism is terrible for consumer welfare, it’s pretty good for military success. Why? Because total government control is the only feasible way to maximize the production of “guns” over “butter.” >
The Nazis famously did NOT maximize the production of guns over butter, not even to the extent the Western democracies did, never mind the USSR. In 1944 Germany was still manufacturing domestic refrigerators.
Maybe read a book? Or even a blog?
<All actually-existed fascist states practised business-friendly economic policies, even if they were not ideologically laissez-faire. They could have easily done otherwise — this was after all the 1930s, the heyday and apogee of socialism as an ideology. But no fascist in power even contemplated taking the Soviet route of destroying the capital- and land-owning classes.
All actually-existed fascist states repressed labour unions, socialists, and communists. Despite the worker-friendly rhetoric of fascists, they in actual power regimented labour in such a way as to please any strike-breaking capitalist of the 19th century. The Nazis, for example, forced workers into a single state-controlled trades union (DAF), which controlled wage growth and prevented striking and wage arbitration. Businesses (some, not even most), by contrast, were given incentives to consolidate into Morgan-style industrial trusts as shareholers and engage in contractual relations as monopolists or near-monopolists with other trusts and with the state.>
<…companies normally could refuse to engage in an investment project designed by the state – without any consequences. There are to be found quite a few instances where they did so, even after the implementation of the Four Year Plan and the beginning of war, both being considered in some of the literature as watersheds in the economic policy of the regime. And indeed, the rhetoric might sometimes have become more aggressive after 1936. But the actual behaviour of the state in relations with private enterprises appears to have not changed, because firms continued to act without any indication of fear that they could be nationalized or otherwise put under unbearable pressure.
Thus, de Wendel, a coal mining enterprise, refused to build another hydrogenation plant in 1937. In spring 1939 IG Farben declined a request by the Economics Ministry to enlarge its production of rayon for the use in tyres. It also was not prepared to invest a substantial amount in a third Buna (synthetic rubber) factory in Fürstenberg/Oder, although this was a project of high urgency for the regime.>
> All actually-existed fascist states repressed labour unions, socialists, and communists
Communists also repressed rival socialists and independent labor unions.
> The Nazis, for example, forced workers into a single state-controlled trades union (DAF), which controlled wage growth and prevented striking and wage arbitration.
I don’t think this is a great argument. Socialism is more than just state involvement in the economy. Nazi Germany had rich industrialists, and the corporations they ran are still around today.
Every totalitarian government has a lot of people at the top that become rich. That's the point. The fact that rich people like Fidel Castro and idi Amin exist doesn't change the fact that they're running the socialist government. The way they get Rich is by milking the country through involvement in the economy. That's the bottom line. All the rest is window dressing.
If you look at the Heritage framework for economic freedom, indeed Nazi Germany looks like a totally unfree economy. But the Heritage framework also looks at property rights and ownership, and that looks pretty different.
Private firms stayed private, and stayed profitable in the 30s. Krupp, IG Farben, Siemens, Thyssen, Daimler-Benz all made tons of money both during the pre-war years and later during the war. The Nazis didn't nationalize the means of production; they left them in private hands and bought their output. It fixed the prices but at a place that allowed a healthy profit. The Nazis also ran a large privatization campaign where they sold off banks, shipping, steel companies, etc that the state took over in 1931.
The Nazis did take a lot of private property away from politically disfavored groups (notably but not exclusively Jews), but they didn't put them in the hands of the state, they transferred them to different private owners.
The best argument in favor of the National Socialists being socialist, aside from the name, is that there was a generous safety net for Aryans. This was funded by stealing from Jews and plundering Europe, and I think looks quite different from a collectivization approach with a very broad welfare approach.
Fascism is socialism for some and socialism is fascism for all.
I think the only two genuine differences between the two relate to marketing. Fascism aims to appeal its brand of totalitarianism to the in group. Socialism aims to appeal to out groups.
I wrote an article on the topic about 1.5 years ago. The biggest hazard is the slippery and everchanging definition of what socialism is in practice (as opposed to a vague idea).
I love the idea of using ChatGPT to rank all societies over the last hundred years by level of socialistic policies, and then asking people to draw the line where true socialism starts. My guess is that Nazi Germany will rank adjacent to many regimes that few people would dispute were socialist.
I read it as "higher on the axis is freer" but "lower number is freer." The measure is the ordinal placement in the ranking of countries by freedom, with #1 the most free. So lower number is indeed freer.
To argue that "Nazis WERE socialist" you must open with "Hitler didn't call his group 'Nazis' nor 'Fascists'" and then you must expound that point in ALL your writing by showing that you know how Hitler self-identified: SOCIALIST. It was "Socialist" by the very word in voluminous writings and speeches and NEVER “Nazi” nor “Fascist”. Your article reinforces widespread ignorance among readers and everyone. Your article never states "Hitler did NOT call his group 'Nazis' nor 'Fascists'." Have you ever said it? Will you ever say it? You use misnomers (e.g. Nazi & Fascist) in the manner that socialists WANT you to use them. You repeat socialist lies (the misnomers) that modern socialist use to cover up how Hitler self-identified: SOCIALIST. Socialists want everyone to believe that Hitler produced droning speeches and writings in which he used the term "Nazi" as often as you have in your article. Socialists want everyone to believe that Hitler produced droning speeches and writings in which he used the term "Fascist" to self-identify. Stop being a dupe for today's socialists. In one sense, your overuse of the term "Nazi" means that you have ALREADY LOST THE ARGUMENT. It would help you and your audience to understand if you were aware (and could explain) that Hitler had "S for SOCIALIST" flags, symbolism, & NSV (top discoveries by Historian Dr. Rex Curry). That fact would aid your points. Instead you place the hammer and sickle in the flag, showing that you completely miss the point of Hitler's flag.
I feel like you're conflating "socialist" and "economically unfree". "Socialist" is an essentially contested concept and effectively a vague tribal allegiance signal. From a neutral point of view, it points in the direction of a particular kind of economically unfree regime specifically focused on limiting freedom to own private property, engage in entrepreneurship or participate in the market. And here lies the problem - no matter how constrained Nazi-era German companies like Krupp, IG Farben, Siemens or Daimler-Benz might have been, they still were allowed to exist and compete.
Caplan and everyone should emulate Rainer Zitelmann author of "Hitler's National Socialism". He openly eschews the term "Nazi" at 2:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjkQZ3MmGgY
It would be interesting to compare this to chatgpt's scores for other countries during the same time period, including the USSR, France, Spain and the USA.
Would you be willing to share the exact prompt you used to make the results as comparable as possible?
Re "'The Nazis weren’t democratic and egalitarian, so they weren’t socialists.' This excludes history’s leading self-styled socialist regimes, all of which were inegalitarian dictatorships."
It is worth noting that the reason this is the case is that you need totalitarianism in order to overcome the natural inclination to try to evade socialism. For example, the need to crack down on black market transactions leads to a lot of intrusive monitoring and restrictions on liberty. The fact that this is true for a whole host of aspects of society is what leads to totalitarianism.
Yes, exactly. So well put!
The historian Dr. Rex Curry exposed the daft reason why Hitler & Marx adopted socialism: BECAUSE Hitler & Marx were antisemitic. & They believed Jews were capitalists. Marx's Lutheranism was his start. Marx was ignorant of his own Jewish past (a top discovery by Dr. Curry).
This seems to be too much academic hair splitting.When the Nazis proudly had banners that proclaimed NSDAP, what more does one need? Both the Nazis in Germany and Communists in Stalinist Russia where way to the Left on the political spectrum, not one representing the far Right and the other the far Left that has been portrayed in the U.S.media and elsewhere.
“Left” and “right” are not absolute metrics on some really-existing spectrum. To say that the Nazis couldn’t be socialist because they were right-wing is both begging the question and reification.
?? I thought I said the Nazis were Far Left? Pundits in the past have portrayed Stalinist Russia as Far Left in the 20th century, and Nazi Germany as Far Right. This is far from the truth. Both are Far Left. Yes, in their quest for power, politicians will do anything, but Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were birds of a feather.
I apologize for the misinterpretation, but that’s even less coherent than what I thought you said.
You can’t appeal to the “political spectrum” to define Nazis as socialists.
You might not realize you are onto something with your remark about their banners. Hitler had "S for SOCIALIST" flags, symbolism, & NSV (top discoveries by Historian Dr. Rex Curry). Hitler was the top socialist graphic design artist of all time. That fact would aid Caplan's points. Instead Caplan placed the hammer and sickle in the German flag, showing that he completely overlooked the point about Hitler's socialist flag. You should try to avoid the misnomer "Nazis". To assert that "Nazis WERE socialist" you must start by stating that "Hitler didn't call his group 'Nazis' nor 'Fascists'" and then you must expound that point in ALL your writing by showing that you know how Hitler self-identified: SOCIALIST. It was "Socialist" by the very word in voluminous writings and speeches and NEVER “Nazi” nor “Fascist”. The misnomer "Nazi" reinforces widespread ignorance among readers and everyone. Caplan's article never states "Hitler did NOT call his group 'Nazis' nor 'Fascists'." Has Caplan ever said it? Will Caplan ever say it? In some sense he is brainwashed to use the misnomer. Caplan uses misnomers (e.g. Nazi & Fascist) in the manner that socialists WANT him to use them. Caplan repeats socialist lies (the misnomers) that modern socialists use to cover up how Hitler self-identified: SOCIALIST. Socialists want everyone to believe that Hitler produced droning speeches and writings in which he used the term "Nazi" as often as Caplan has used it in his article. Socialists want everyone to believe that Hitler produced droning speeches and writings in which he used the term "Fascist" to self-identify. People have to stop being dupes for today's socialists. In one sense, the overuse of the term "Nazi" means that Caplan has ALREADY LOST THE ARGUMENT.
The Nazi's did most everything the Soviets did, but they didn't officially expropriate your property (most of the time) and allowed the industrialists to live relatively comfortable material lives until the end of the war in exchange for no longer being capitalists (they were not free to use their capital as they wished). They also were pragmatically conscious of needing to keep German civilian consumption at a reasonable enough level to maintain public support, and were willing to loot the rest of Europe to maintain this as long as they could.
There is a class of socialists that think because some Germany industrialists had paper accounts at some bank that said they were making money under the Nazi's means it was all a capitalist plot, even though these accounts could not be liquidated or spent, and all went to $0 at the end of the war.
There is an important distinction here between Nazi-ism and Fascism. Mussolini was mediocre but not an immediate economic train wreck like the Nazi's. Franco was an economic miracle. The East Asian authoritarian tigers all worked pretty well.
<My response: While socialism is terrible for consumer welfare, it’s pretty good for military success. Why? Because total government control is the only feasible way to maximize the production of “guns” over “butter.” >
The Nazis famously did NOT maximize the production of guns over butter, not even to the extent the Western democracies did, never mind the USSR. In 1944 Germany was still manufacturing domestic refrigerators.
Maybe read a book? Or even a blog?
<All actually-existed fascist states practised business-friendly economic policies, even if they were not ideologically laissez-faire. They could have easily done otherwise — this was after all the 1930s, the heyday and apogee of socialism as an ideology. But no fascist in power even contemplated taking the Soviet route of destroying the capital- and land-owning classes.
All actually-existed fascist states repressed labour unions, socialists, and communists. Despite the worker-friendly rhetoric of fascists, they in actual power regimented labour in such a way as to please any strike-breaking capitalist of the 19th century. The Nazis, for example, forced workers into a single state-controlled trades union (DAF), which controlled wage growth and prevented striking and wage arbitration. Businesses (some, not even most), by contrast, were given incentives to consolidate into Morgan-style industrial trusts as shareholers and engage in contractual relations as monopolists or near-monopolists with other trusts and with the state.>
<…companies normally could refuse to engage in an investment project designed by the state – without any consequences. There are to be found quite a few instances where they did so, even after the implementation of the Four Year Plan and the beginning of war, both being considered in some of the literature as watersheds in the economic policy of the regime. And indeed, the rhetoric might sometimes have become more aggressive after 1936. But the actual behaviour of the state in relations with private enterprises appears to have not changed, because firms continued to act without any indication of fear that they could be nationalized or otherwise put under unbearable pressure.
Thus, de Wendel, a coal mining enterprise, refused to build another hydrogenation plant in 1937. In spring 1939 IG Farben declined a request by the Economics Ministry to enlarge its production of rayon for the use in tyres. It also was not prepared to invest a substantial amount in a third Buna (synthetic rubber) factory in Fürstenberg/Oder, although this was a project of high urgency for the regime.>
> All actually-existed fascist states repressed labour unions, socialists, and communists
Communists also repressed rival socialists and independent labor unions.
> The Nazis, for example, forced workers into a single state-controlled trades union (DAF), which controlled wage growth and prevented striking and wage arbitration.
How is that different from Communist states?
You’re drawing a direct equivalent between socialism and low economic freedom? That feels like you’re presupposing the conclusion
🤦
I don’t think this is a great argument. Socialism is more than just state involvement in the economy. Nazi Germany had rich industrialists, and the corporations they ran are still around today.
Every totalitarian government has a lot of people at the top that become rich. That's the point. The fact that rich people like Fidel Castro and idi Amin exist doesn't change the fact that they're running the socialist government. The way they get Rich is by milking the country through involvement in the economy. That's the bottom line. All the rest is window dressing.
If you look at the Heritage framework for economic freedom, indeed Nazi Germany looks like a totally unfree economy. But the Heritage framework also looks at property rights and ownership, and that looks pretty different.
Private firms stayed private, and stayed profitable in the 30s. Krupp, IG Farben, Siemens, Thyssen, Daimler-Benz all made tons of money both during the pre-war years and later during the war. The Nazis didn't nationalize the means of production; they left them in private hands and bought their output. It fixed the prices but at a place that allowed a healthy profit. The Nazis also ran a large privatization campaign where they sold off banks, shipping, steel companies, etc that the state took over in 1931.
The Nazis did take a lot of private property away from politically disfavored groups (notably but not exclusively Jews), but they didn't put them in the hands of the state, they transferred them to different private owners.
The best argument in favor of the National Socialists being socialist, aside from the name, is that there was a generous safety net for Aryans. This was funded by stealing from Jews and plundering Europe, and I think looks quite different from a collectivization approach with a very broad welfare approach.
Fascism is socialism for some and socialism is fascism for all.
I think the only two genuine differences between the two relate to marketing. Fascism aims to appeal its brand of totalitarianism to the in group. Socialism aims to appeal to out groups.
I wrote an article on the topic about 1.5 years ago. The biggest hazard is the slippery and everchanging definition of what socialism is in practice (as opposed to a vague idea).
I love the idea of using ChatGPT to rank all societies over the last hundred years by level of socialistic policies, and then asking people to draw the line where true socialism starts. My guess is that Nazi Germany will rank adjacent to many regimes that few people would dispute were socialist.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/was-hitler-a-precursor-of-anti-semitic
I think the the right axis on your first graph is mislabeled - it should say _Higher_ is freer.
I read it as "higher on the axis is freer" but "lower number is freer." The measure is the ordinal placement in the ranking of countries by freedom, with #1 the most free. So lower number is indeed freer.
Either way, confusing. Should be re-labelled.
To argue that "Nazis WERE socialist" you must open with "Hitler didn't call his group 'Nazis' nor 'Fascists'" and then you must expound that point in ALL your writing by showing that you know how Hitler self-identified: SOCIALIST. It was "Socialist" by the very word in voluminous writings and speeches and NEVER “Nazi” nor “Fascist”. Your article reinforces widespread ignorance among readers and everyone. Your article never states "Hitler did NOT call his group 'Nazis' nor 'Fascists'." Have you ever said it? Will you ever say it? You use misnomers (e.g. Nazi & Fascist) in the manner that socialists WANT you to use them. You repeat socialist lies (the misnomers) that modern socialist use to cover up how Hitler self-identified: SOCIALIST. Socialists want everyone to believe that Hitler produced droning speeches and writings in which he used the term "Nazi" as often as you have in your article. Socialists want everyone to believe that Hitler produced droning speeches and writings in which he used the term "Fascist" to self-identify. Stop being a dupe for today's socialists. In one sense, your overuse of the term "Nazi" means that you have ALREADY LOST THE ARGUMENT. It would help you and your audience to understand if you were aware (and could explain) that Hitler had "S for SOCIALIST" flags, symbolism, & NSV (top discoveries by Historian Dr. Rex Curry). That fact would aid your points. Instead you place the hammer and sickle in the flag, showing that you completely miss the point of Hitler's flag.
The most common retort is to point out how the Nazis smashed unions, making union advocacy the pillar of real socialism.
Kudos, Brian! Terrific article!
A critique: fascism is not socialism; rather, socialism tends to drift toward fascism.
https://jameshanley.substack.com/p/fascism-isnt-socialism-and-facile