Interesting question

Boy did the Gini coefficient decline from 1934 to 1945! As Lew Rockwell said of Hitler\’s economics:

Proto-Keynesian socialist economist Joan Robinson wrote that \”Hitler found a cure against unemployment before Keynes was finished explaining it.\”

What were those economic policies? He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public works programs like Autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national health care and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime\’s rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country.

I think Jonah Goldberg says it well:

If you leave out the parts about killing all the Jews and invading Poland, what specifically about the Nazi political platform do you disagree with?

Quite, other than the military expansion I can\’t see anything at all there which is not devoutly desired by most columnists at The Guardian.

And there are certainly those in the comments sections who argue for the confiscation of the capital of rootless cosmopolitans, aren\’t there?

20 thoughts on “Interesting question”

  1. No suprise there . Fascism was movement of the left plus Nationalism , no more Conservative than the IRA. I notice that big ears Duncan is advocating a State Bank which was a wheeze Moseley came up with , after his Labour days and during his Fascist phase.

  2. I don’t quite see the point (except, perhaps, that it’s naive to let the state have so much power). Nazis believed in expanding the armed forces, military interventionism, cutting immigration, restoring their country’s pride, their nation’s exceptionalism – what of those would yer average NR columnist disagree with?

  3. It is a little desperate, Johnathan. As a start at BenSix says many of the Nazis’ policies are very similar to those of NR columnists. Many of their economic policies are very different from those espoused by the Guardian.

    It all seems a very long time ago. After all the British govt from 1930-1945 instigated about 90% of those policies, but Baldwin, Churcill et al were not Nazis.

  4. “brought about national health care and unemployment insurance…”: hold on, surely Bismarck had introduced unemployment insurance back in the 19th century?

  5. Plus Eugenics which was very much a lift wing idea at the time and the Nazis defining policy.

    Eugenic ideas were common amongst “progressives” – who were often against immigration and the welfare state and, thus, not too alike their offspring – but were far from exclusive to them

    When he was Home Secretary (February 1910-October 1911) Churchill was in favor of the confinement, segregation, and sterilization of a class of persons contemporarily described as the “feeble minded.”

  6. The lefties can deny it all they want, but in fact it is very embarrassing, and disturbing, to have so much in common with Hitler. After all, that’s why the Left is always ready to fling Hitler accusations at the right.

  7. Andreas Paterson // Nov 12, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    “..and the unspoken implication (that us leftie Guardianstas and their columnist friends are evil…just like Hitler) is correct because??”

    I don’t think such an unspoken implication is there. But I do think that the criticism ‘right-wing’ (as it is used in the Guardian), is entirely pejorative, & carries with it some of that same unspoken implication, that to be right-wing (e.g. pro-market) is to be tainted with the Nazi brush, yet the original post points out, that in regards to Economics the Nazis do not seem very right-wing at all.

    The various posts about other Nazi policies and the NR (whatever that is), seem a bit pointless, are we debating which Nazi policies we actually like? I’m not super keen, myself.

  8. That doesn’t make sense either – people like to be called right-wing, Tim often declares himself so, etc. It’s a bit weird to expect the Guardian to refrain from using the term.

  9. “If you leave out the parts about killing all the Jews and invading Poland, what specifically about the Nazi political platform do you disagree with?”

    Since this was the question, it’s worth looking at the Nazi programme (the 25 point programme issued in 1920). Do any lefties agree with this type of stuff?:

    3. We demand land and territory (colonies) to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.
    4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.
    5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.
    6. The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.
    7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
    8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.
    18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.
    23. We demand legal warfare on deliberate political mendacity and its dissemination in the press. To facilitate the creation of a German national press we demand:

    (a) that all editors of, and contributors to newspapers appearing in the German language must be members of the nation;
    (b) that no non-German newspapers may appear without the express permission of the State. They must not be printed in the German language;
    (c) that non-Germans shall be prohibited by law from participating financially in or influencing German newspapers, and that the penalty for contravening such a law shall be the suppression of any such newspaper, and the immediate deportation of the non-Germans involved.
    The publishing of papers which are not conducive to the national welfare must be forbidden. We demand the legal prosecution of all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our national life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand.

  10. Tom,

    You’ve picked the Nationalist ones. What about the Socialist ones.

    Surely many on the left would agree with 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 & 20?

    16 only causes a problem because of the use of ‘middle class’ – but what it describes aren’t the modern ‘middle class’.

    18, again, is only a problem because it insists that ‘common criminals’ should be slaughtered along with bankers and capitalists.

    25 – just replace “Reich” by “Guardian” and they’d riot for that too.

  11. TomP
    Agreed that non of your items are espoused by the Graun readership but their opposites are & in common with the Nazis they want their wishes enshrined in law.
    Fascists are facists whatever their hymnsheet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *