albionfagan wrote:You can have nationalisation without a planned economy
On the condition that the commodity status of the means of production is not abolished, the abolition which is the smallest imaginable stepping stone between state-capitalism and socialism.
I don't really buy the argument that Hitler was a pawn of big business, it's too easy.
No one is making such an argument here. Hitler was a dictator of a bourgeois state, and the nazi regime had to be a "pawn" of capital like any regime intending to rule on the basis of a capitalist mode of production.
Nazi Germany was no Capitalist haven
Is there a point you're trying to make with this comment in relation to the content of this thread?
the Nazi's were constantly interfering and there was a quasi-corporatist system brought in.
Corporatism is a fairly normal element in any form of capitalist political system, be it fascist or liberal. The nazi corporatism was far more
openly pro-capital than what witnessed in liberal systems, where corporatism is usually presented as a mechanism of impartial, or "three-partite" (employer-state-employee) conciliation of capital-labour contradictions.
BUT there was a general direction the Nazis pushed for; war.
That was not a nazi invention. It was a strikingly clear reality that WWI had left Germany, unlike England or France, in such isolation where the only way of expansion was through war in Europe. This militarist expansion was needed to remove the economic basis of the revolutionary crisis that had necessitated fascism in the first place.
Obviously some business benefitted, but not all.
And obviously not all business benefitted, while some did. What's the point of such overly general, overly obvious comments?
Anyway, just look at the Nazis attempts to destroy department stores, big corporations.
Show me. The nazi approach to nationalisations and privatisations wasn't any less pragmatic than in the capitalist countries in general.
The Nazis were not Capitalism's best friend, despite Marxists desperately trying to prove it with arbitrary stats and Marxist dogma.
Try to address what has actually been said here, instead of implicated straw-men.