Everyday Life in Fascist Society - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14489517
DrSteveBrule wrote:
1) 73% may not be ALL of the economy, but it was a large enough share of the economy to dictate that a recovery would not have occurred at all without an investment in the armed forces. You're trying to imply that a recovery could be possible without an absurd investment in their military, which I have proved is false. My original statement also did not say that it was the only part of the budget. My original statement argued that the recovery was made only because of military spending.


73% of the budget is not 73% of the economy.

I am not trying to imply that recover could be possible without an absurd investment in their military, I am saying that rearmament was far from the only thing revitalizing the pre-war economy. Regardless, it is entirely possible for the economy to have recovered without rearmament if they had instead spent the money in more infrastructure or industry. I don't think you've at all proved that that would have been impossible, just that it didn't happen that way.

Whether you said that military spending was the only part of the budget or that the economic recovery was only possible because of military spending is irrelevant, as you're wrong either way.

2) I consider the 1939-1945 war period as relevant. Of course, their economic success declined as they lost the war, but the German economy did benefit greatly from conquered nations during the stages where Europe was under Nazi occupation.


The recovery occurred 1933-1939. Unless the Nazis had developed time travel, I don't see how their policies during the war could cause an economic recovery in the past.

3) Hitler's economy was barely sustainable. As evidenced by Reagan, a large military industrial complex only grows and leeches funds from other essential services of a nation. The low cost labor came at the expense of the people who were forced to work under less than ideal conditions. In fact, this excess spending caused their debt to grow at an uncontrollable rate. It might be successful on the surface, but the relative lack of quality of life improvements when compared to a democracy negates those gains. Of course, Fascism is always superior if you choose to disregard individual quality of life and civil liberties.


An epically large military was the most essential part of the Nazi geopolitical strategy. Without it, it is likely that Germany would have been swallowed up by the Soviet Union.

In fact, this excess spending caused their debt to grow at an uncontrollable rate.


The only Germans who spent money at an "uncontrollable rate" were the Weimar Republic. Despite its size, I see no reason to believe that Nazi expenditures were unsustainable.

It might be successful on the surface, but the relative lack of quality of life improvements when compared to a democracy negates those gains. Of course, Fascism is always superior if you choose to disregard individual quality of life and civil liberties.


Do you believe that the Germans would have been better off economically had they continued the failed policies of the Weimar Republic? Are you still ignoring the massive improvements in standard of living seen in South Korea under Park Chung-hee?
#14489521
Nazi Germany was spending money at an unsustainable rate. It went through German gold reserves, Austrian Gold reserves, Czech Gold reserves. Without the war the German economy would have been in serious trouble in 1940.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany
" Between 1933 and 1939, the total revenue was 62 billion marks, whereas expenditure (at times made up to 60% by rearmament costs) exceeded 101 billion"

Lower Wages, High taxes. "Donations" to the winter relief were forced by thuggery, and were nothing less than a protection tax to Nazi thugs. Are you sure they had a higher living standard Sure more people were employed, but large numbers were taken out of the workforce, those in camps, jews, women, those conscripted to the army.

There also was a wholesale wrecking of the german education system and science, as Nazi chased out many good educators and science and installed a lot of pseudo science and learning.
#14489558
pugsville wrote:Lower Wages, High taxes. "Donations" to the winter relief were forced by thuggery, and were nothing less than a protection tax to Nazi thugs. Are you sure they had a higher living standard


I've posted before that the reich was a sacrificial system; what mattered was the State the Whole, the cause, not the individual. High taxes and low wages were intended to maximize resources for the State or military e.g. tanks instead of cars.

There also was a wholesale wrecking of the german education system and science, as Nazi chased out many good educators and science and installed a lot of pseudo science and learning.


That may be true. But at least they made good use of existing know-how like the internal combustion engine.
#14489563
The important question is, is the economic planning as conducted by General Park's government able to continue bringing in growth? Korea in the 1950s was not a very industrialised country and its GDP was not very much either. Can we attribute the growth to something like the growth of the USSR under Stalin? In other words the development looked massive but this was because there was little there before it. I wonder if such an economic model is sustainable once the economy reaches a certain point.

After Park was assasinated did the regime continue with these same economic policies? Does South Korea still run on something of this basis? I heard Chaebols are still in existence.
#14489585
But do they make good use combustion engine? The German army was not very mechanized they relied on a awful lot of horses. They also failed to standardize their trucks, so poor marks there again for the use of the internal combustion engine.

Sure they had some technological gains but they were not on their own.
#14489708
Saeko wrote:
73% of the budget is not 73% of the economy.

I am not trying to imply that recover could be possible without an absurd investment in their military, I am saying that rearmament was far from the only thing revitalizing the pre-war economy. Regardless, it is entirely possible for the economy to have recovered without rearmament if they had instead spent the money in more infrastructure or industry. I don't think you've at all proved that that would have been impossible, just that it didn't happen that way.

Whether you said that military spending was the only part of the budget or that the economic recovery was only possible because of military spending is irrelevant, as you're wrong either way.

The recovery occurred 1933-1939. Unless the Nazis had developed time travel, I don't see how their policies during the war could cause an economic recovery in the past.

An epically large military was the most essential part of the Nazi geopolitical strategy. Without it, it is likely that Germany would have been swallowed up by the Soviet Union.


The only Germans who spent money at an "uncontrollable rate" were the Weimar Republic. Despite its size, I see no reason to believe that Nazi expenditures were unsustainable.

Do you believe that the Germans would have been better off economically had they continued the failed policies of the Weimar Republic? Are you still ignoring the massive improvements in standard of living seen in South Korea under Park Chung-hee?



You fail to realize that I was referring to both the pre war and wartime economy of Germany. How many times do I have to repeat myself? When did I ever say that the war caused a recovery in the past? My statement was with respect to the entire time period of the Nazi regime. You seem to have a tendency of incorrectly interpreting statements to create nonexistent errors.

But what about public works, you say? Well the Nazis tried to do that during their early years, which is when the defense and civilian budgets relatively even, and it still produced unsavory results. Let's get real here : Fascism puts the state before the people, and as such, their needs and wants will come before that of the dictator. Even if there was more money for infrastructure, Hitler would have just used it to build more grandiose buildings to feed his ego, instead of raising wages.

"the unemployed did not always thank Hitler for their employment; German workers employed on the building of the autobahns repeatedly went on strike from 1934 onward because of their atrocious working conditions."

And yes, I do think that the Weimar Republic could have recovered after the depression, just like any other nation. The recovery might have been slower, but it would have been a lot better than the havoc that the Nazis waged on Europe.

It was Hitler's own fault for destroying Russian/German relations. Before that, diplomacy and cooperation was common among the Weimar Republic and the USSR.
#14489835
pugsville wrote:But do they make good use combustion engine? The German army was not very mechanized they relied on a awful lot of horses.


Not necessarily a bad thing given fuel shortages. The Soviets had plenty of cavalry. As they said grass for horses was often easier to find than oil for tanks.

They also failed to standardize their trucks, so poor marks there again for the use of the internal combustion engine.


Actually I was alluding to blitzkrieg warfare as an example of a statist system making good use of existing technology, even if it wasn't particularly good at inventing more.
#14494084
This is not an easy question to answer. It would completely depend on the society. "Fascist" is somewhat of a blanket term. Are we talking about a Peronist society? A National Socialist society? A society which employs traditional Corporatist methods?

The Germans apparently loved their "Fascist" society before the war. Argentina was in love with Peron and his "Third Position". Italy hated Mussolini.

So it really depends on a number of factors. This is why I don't call myself a Fascist. It is a loaded word that has almost zero meaning anymore.
#14494491
Stormvessel wrote:The Germans apparently loved their "Fascist" society before the war.


Right, and even during it.

Italy hated Mussolini.


I don't think his support waned until Italy teamed up with Germany and began losing the war.

This is why I don't call myself a Fascist. It is a loaded word that has almost zero meaning anymore.


For years I've urged others to drop that term and use a new one. Too much historical baggage, a failure and an old, 20th century doctrine.
#14494845
starman2003 wrote:For years I've urged others to drop that term and use a new one. Too much historical baggage, a failure and an old, 20th century doctrine.


I agree. That is why I call myself a National Syndicalist.

There are a lot of inferior specimens in this world, so it's only natural that a few would find themselves allied with us. But we certain do not need them undermining our cause.
#14494912
Stormvessel wrote:I agree. That is why I call myself a National Syndicalist.

There are a lot of inferior specimens in this world, so it's only natural that a few would find themselves allied with us. But we certain do not need them undermining our cause.


It's a shame the only alternatives to parties representing the obsolete system tend to be lunatic fringe like the KKK and neo-nazis. They don't stand a ghost of a chance of succeeding. I've long thought that, if/when a severe crisis exposes the weaknesses of the system big time, more intelligent people would question it and form a rational alternative.
#14495321
Stormvessel wrote:There are a lot of inferior specimens in this world, so it's only natural that a few would find themselves allied with us. But we certain do not need them undermining our cause.



Any movement serious about gaining power has to have mass appeal, so there must be an outward facade to it, even if the inner core is exclusive.
#14495591
Do you guys see the irony of wanting to be masters, yet your slaves?

Fascism is an ideology which tends to appeal to the disenfranchised and deracinated petty-bourgeois elements of capitalist society. These people feel cheated of their 'rightful' position in society, and they want to find someone to blame for their misery. Preferably some group or minority who can themselves be easily victimised, such as, oh I dunno, the Jews for example. These people claim to be masters, yet most of them are actually slaves in search of a master.
#14495594
Yeah a bunch of whining losers in life who feel somebody owes them something. Go head Hitlers and tell me how potemkin and I are wrong. Slaves...

Oh and everday day in a fascists society? I'd imagine pretty sad and shitty like the people who identify themselves as fascists.
#14495598
Potemkin wrote:Fascism is an ideology which tends to appeal to the disenfranchised and deracinated petty-bourgeois elements of capitalist society. These people feel cheated of their 'rightful' position in society, and they want to find someone to blame for their misery. Preferably some group or minority who can themselves be easily victimised, such as, oh I dunno, the Jews for example. These people claim to be masters, yet most of them are actually slaves in search of a master.


And you "know" all of this how?
#14495600
From the fact that the vast majority of the fascist rank-and-file in the 1920s and 1930s were of petty-bourgeois origin, that the Nazi leadership were, as someone at the time so memorably put it, "bohemians with guns", from the fact that the Nazi speeches and articles clearly displayed the symptoms of what Nietzsche called "ressentiment", from the fact that the Nazi leadership saw themselves as honest, creative people who had been "cheated" of status, success and recognition by a 'cabal' of Jews, Freemasons and other assorted 'alien elements' who were conspiring against the hard-working and sturdy German (or Italian, or Spanish) shopkeepers, small businessmen and creative artists for sinister purposes of their own, and so on and so forth. It's in everything they ever said or ever wrote or ever did.
#14495603
Fascism in general was a working class movement and the Nazi party itself consciously courted working class voters through the platforms which appealed to them. By emphasising ethnic solidarity, fascism blurred class lines and those from lower-class backgrounds would be treated equally in an ideal fascist society. In Imperial Japan, fascism grew strongly among young soldiers from impoverished rural communities and Japanese fascists dreamed about creating an egalitarian society without rich industrialists and bankers, some of whom were assassinated. German Jews were targeted in Nazi Germany because many Jews took up prominent positions such as college professors and CEOs of major commercial banks and the Holocaust was a repeat of the Russian Revolution, by which most Russian aristocrats were killed or driven into exile. Moreover, it was the Australian Labour Party which introduced and fought extremely hard to entrench the White Australia Policy.

The most important arguments that arise are, first, that the Nazi party never abandoned its efforts to attract workers, not even after 1928 when it devoted more attention to the countryside, where the agrarian crisis soured peasants, estate owners, and agricultural laborers against the Republic. The platforms of the party and its union, the NSBO, appealed directly to the material and status concerns of workers, evoking the symbols, concepts, slogans, and enemies (high finance, capitalists) of the left. Brustein's and Mai's essays, as well as Boak's piece on working-class women, delineate the promises that the Nazis marshalled, such as job creation, the resettlement of bankrupt estates, autarky, the eight-hour day, the extension of social security, and economic security for families. Second, forty percent of the Nazi electorate consisted of workers, the biggest contingent of whom were laborers from heavily Protestant rural districts. Moreover, workers joined the party and its affiliated organizations--the SA and NSBO--in large numbers, although among the new members skilled and semi-skilled workers from such secondary sector industries as construction, wood working, metal works and transport predominated. In no way were Nazi workers "marginal" or "atypical" of their class, the authors of these essays collectively insist. On the one hand, the variables of gender and religious affiliation, as well as the diversity of occupations and places of residence, demand that we not limit our conception of "worker" to those in large-scale urban industries. On the other hand, even "classical" industrial workers showed a striking propensity to join the SA, as Conan Fischer and Detlev Muehlberger indicate.
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=2090
#14495608
Potemkin wrote:From the fact that the vast majority of the fascist rank-and-file in the 1920s and 1930s were of petty-bourgeois origin, that the Nazi leadership were, as someone at the time so memorably put it, "bohemians with guns",


Where's your evidence for that?

from the fact that the Nazi speeches and articles clearly displayed the symptoms of what Nietzsche called "ressentiment", from the fact that the Nazi leadership saw themselves as honest, creative people who had been "cheated" of status, success and recognition by a 'cabal' of Jews, Freemasons and other assorted 'alien elements' who were conspiring against the hard-working and sturdy German (or Italian, or Spanish) shopkeepers, small businessmen and creative artists for sinister purposes of their own, and so on and so forth. It's in everything they ever said or ever wrote or ever did.


This is just silly. I can honestly not name even a single person who has not felt cheated by something in some way.

I agree with what ThirdTerm just said by the way.
#14495692
ThirdTerm wrote:Fascism in general was a working class movement and the Nazi party itself consciously courted working class voters through the platforms which appealed to them.


The nazis paid all kinds of lip service to the proles but that was just a facade. They suppressed prole aspirations with Roehm in 1934, and German workers thereafter didn't live much above subsistence. What mattered most was the State not the masses.


By emphasising ethnic solidarity, fascism blurred class lines and those from lower-class backgrounds would be treated equally in an ideal fascist society.


In theory and certainly in practice, the nazis and fascists generally were very hierarchical. Uniforms and insignia clearly distinguished superiors from inferiors, and at the top was the best of all, the Leader, Fuhrer or Duce.

German Jews were targeted in Nazi Germany because many Jews took up prominent positions such as college professors and CEOs of major commercial banks and the Holocaust was a repeat of the Russian Revolution, by which most Russian aristocrats were killed or driven into exile.


Na, plenty of German aristocrats and fatcats did fine--much better than the proles-- provided they weren't jews. The latter were targeted because they were considered a detriment to the State and race.

I can honestly not name even a single person who has not felt cheated by something in some way.


Right. Nonfascist systems, especially our own, are loaded with whiners and sob story tellers. Communists point to exploitation of proles, and Americans are bombarded with woeful tales of blacks, Indians, proles, immigrants and above all, Jews, who have made their great sob story practically a civil religion here....

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]