- 10 Aug 2013 17:03
#14286216
I don't know how many National Socialists are on this board but I feel the need to create this topic, anyway, and I'm sure the other kins of fascists my have some interesting insight or opinion to give.
Gottfired Feder was, perhaps most notably, the man who convinced Adolf Hitler to join the German Workers' Party. He was the party's foremost speaker on economic policy up until 1933.
Whereas most leftist National Socialists have begun to identify with the Strasser brothers, Federism (if I can call it that) is not about Revolutionary National Socialism or ultra-agrarianism (as advoctating fro by Otto Strasser). Rather, Feder offered a clear alternative to the perceived Jewish domination of high finance and the charging of usury.
He could be described as a Social Crediter, if you are familiar with such a term, and he is, in my mind, the left-wing counter-part to C.H. Douglas (although I am unsure if they ever met, they were probably aware of each).
Both men wanted to end debt-slavery imposed by the usurers but they disagreed on how the government should issue credit after it had been nationalised.
Douglas' idea could best be described as libertarian; he advocate the issuance of dividend to each citizen to do with as he wished. In this way, the value of the credit issued would depend entirely on the voluntary productive activity of the citizens it was issued to.
On the other hand, Feder believed that the national credit should be issued as wages as to a government sanctioned series of public projects designed to reinvigorate the German economy. I'm unsure as to whether he touched on the idea of a universal dividend (the English translation of his book is too expensive but I am saving for it), but he would likely have championed the idea in a more limited form; perhaps as supplementary, rather than full, income.
Unlike the Strasser brothers, who did admire Feder's work, he was not attacked outright by Hitler and was, instead, sidelined throughout the war (mostly due to the influence of German bankers and capitalists). It is my belief, however, that had Feder's policies been adopted; Germany would have had the enjoyed the most powerful economy on Earth and it, having a domino effect on all the countries that could see its marvellous development, may have averted war altogether.
I hope this doesn't come as like an essay. What are the board's thoughts on this man? Should he have been given a higher position in the Third Reich? Could his ideas have undermined Hitler's leadership?
I should point out that, whilst I am not a National Socialist, I do admire Feder.
Gottfired Feder was, perhaps most notably, the man who convinced Adolf Hitler to join the German Workers' Party. He was the party's foremost speaker on economic policy up until 1933.
Whereas most leftist National Socialists have begun to identify with the Strasser brothers, Federism (if I can call it that) is not about Revolutionary National Socialism or ultra-agrarianism (as advoctating fro by Otto Strasser). Rather, Feder offered a clear alternative to the perceived Jewish domination of high finance and the charging of usury.
He could be described as a Social Crediter, if you are familiar with such a term, and he is, in my mind, the left-wing counter-part to C.H. Douglas (although I am unsure if they ever met, they were probably aware of each).
Both men wanted to end debt-slavery imposed by the usurers but they disagreed on how the government should issue credit after it had been nationalised.
Douglas' idea could best be described as libertarian; he advocate the issuance of dividend to each citizen to do with as he wished. In this way, the value of the credit issued would depend entirely on the voluntary productive activity of the citizens it was issued to.
On the other hand, Feder believed that the national credit should be issued as wages as to a government sanctioned series of public projects designed to reinvigorate the German economy. I'm unsure as to whether he touched on the idea of a universal dividend (the English translation of his book is too expensive but I am saving for it), but he would likely have championed the idea in a more limited form; perhaps as supplementary, rather than full, income.
Unlike the Strasser brothers, who did admire Feder's work, he was not attacked outright by Hitler and was, instead, sidelined throughout the war (mostly due to the influence of German bankers and capitalists). It is my belief, however, that had Feder's policies been adopted; Germany would have had the enjoyed the most powerful economy on Earth and it, having a domino effect on all the countries that could see its marvellous development, may have averted war altogether.
I hope this doesn't come as like an essay. What are the board's thoughts on this man? Should he have been given a higher position in the Third Reich? Could his ideas have undermined Hitler's leadership?
I should point out that, whilst I am not a National Socialist, I do admire Feder.
- By FiveofSwords
- By Tainari88
- By wat0n