Positive and negative aspects of NS Economics

[Freixel]

*Welfare State towards the Racial-National Community
*Protectionism
*Subsidies to certain strategic industrial sectors (Volkswagen)
*Large companies remained private; monopolies benefited
*State intervention in companies (Corporatism)
*Military rearmament with the objective of conquest in Eastern Europe (Lebensraum)
*Expropriation of property from the Jewish population
*Repression, suppression, and control of unions and organized labor movements
*Refusal to pay the Versailles Debt

I don't know if the work-pattern system was implemented or not, or if it works or not.

If I'm forgetting something, feel free to add it.

 

[Entersocialdemocrat]

I don't know what made you think suppression of labor unions would be wrong considering how labor strikes would cripple the economy in a short timespan. Same thing as Lenin did to stop the meaningless class warfare for a while. Besides you are looking at Volkswagen positively which contradicts your point about labor movements? Furthermore, your corporatism and monopolies points also don't make any sense because one has to be right, and it is Corporatism. Yet Germany's corporatism was different than Italy's since it was not based on mediation or voluntariness but Gleichschaltung which would make large corporations work for the purposes of state. You are either being vague on purpose or aren't that educated on the topic.

 

[Freixel]

I don't know what made you think suppression of labor unions would be wrong considering how labor strikes would cripple the economy in a short timespan. Same thing as Lenin did to stop the meaningless class warfare for a while. Besides you are looking at Volkswagen positively which contradicts your point about labor movements? Furthermore, your corporatism and monopolies points also don't make any sense because one has to be right, and it is Corporatism. Yet Germany's corporatism was different than Italy's since it was not based on mediation or voluntariness but Gleichschaltung which would make large corporations work for the purposes of state. You are either being vague on purpose or aren't that educated on the topic.

I don't consider corporatism either positive or negative, but rather a form of state policy to be analyzed, which is why I added the Pepe emoji.

You can explain the rest and enlighten me, since you present yourself as an expert on the subject:

Why does considering the state's subsidy of Volkswagen contradict rejecting the suppression of unions?

I suppose you say that because there was strict state control and no unions were involved.

In any case, I used Volkswagen as an example of state-subsidized companie that can provide benefits to society as a whole; I consider this positive. I believe that subsidizing companies with strategies that benefit the population as a whole and the state is positive, not because it's Volkswagen specifically.

Companies collaborated, but they remained in private hands; that's how I understand it. The National Socialist state didn't nationalize large companies, it only managed them through the state.

Large monopolistic business owners benefited from the National Socialist regime, like the Krupp family, and I consider that negative.

 

[Freixel]

In Ns Germany, corporatism and a centrally planned economy coexisted with large monopolies that benefited from government direction. I don't know what contradiction the guy above is seeing in this.

 

[Entersocialdemocrat]

I don't consider corporatism either positive or negative, but rather a form of state policy to be analyzed, which is why I added the Pepe emoji.

You can explain the rest and enlighten me, since you present yourself as an expert on the subject:

Why does considering the state's subsidy of Volkswagen contradict rejecting the suppression of unions?

I suppose you say that because there was strict state control and no unions were involved.

In any case, I used Volkswagen as an example of state-subsidized companie that can provide benefits to society as a whole; I consider this positive. I believe that subsidizing companies with strategies that benefit the population as a whole and the state is positive, not because it's Volkswagen specifically.

Companies collaborated, but they remained in private hands; that's how I understand it. The National Socialist state didn't nationalize large companies, it only managed them through the state.

Large monopolistic business owners benefited from the National Socialist regime, like the Krupp family, and I consider that negative.

I also said your corporatism point was right. Let's ignore that and get back to our main issue, Volkswagen being good and suppression of unions being bad, or rather detrimental to the state itself. You have to understand that nationalizing large companies would make Reichswehr or commanders intervene and topple Hitler and NSDAP, which he would rather not prefer at any moment whatsoever.

Many people tend to misunderstand the economic system of Third Reich and say that it was "capitalist" and companies were "monopolized" as if they were the arbiters of production in Germany. A compulsory membership to company groups were enforced so that no corporation could have their way with economy and production.

For example Rheinischwestfalischeskohnlensyndikat was actively being relinquished from competing in Hamburg-Bremen market to keep things sweet between England and Germany. This would not happen if companies were entirely, perhaps more or less, private. But how does this relate to banning trade unions and collective bargaining? As you can see, Schacht prevented RKWS from trading in German ports, this would result in a trade union strike and hamper the production. To illustrate, Minneapolis general strike in 1934 included over 40,000 workers which brought the city's economy into a standstill. Returning to the subject, my point is that cartels were benefitting from rearmament and this became a symbiotic situation between Third Reich and major war companies, as long as they adhered to policies of national socialism.