the Individual or the Collective??

[wildorchid]

Individuality and self-dependence/ self-reliance are core American values, and Capitalism is a partner to them. (oppurtunity, ect…)
Collectivism is becoming more mainstream in American ‘thinking’ and culture, and i see more liberal-minded people label themselves as ‘socialist’ all the time.
when questioned about that, they maintain that it’s not the same socialism of the National Socialists (nazis), or of Soviet or Chinese Communism.
obv, distancing yourself from the political philosophy of Hitler, Mao, and Stalin is a no-brainer, since they were the most evil criminals of the last century…
so, is there really a warm and fuzzy version of Collectivism available that will mean unicorns and rainbows for the world, and is the human dignity of the Individual worth sacrificing in order to achieve this?
…or is the sanctity, and dignity of the Individual worth sticking up for??
are the other American values that go along with it to be kept around?

[John_Mace]

Welcome to Obama’s America. You can’t swing a stick without hitting some politician claiming to be a socialist. Resistance is futile.

[wildorchid]

@John_Mace

Welcome to Obama’s America. Resistance is futile.

au contrare
socialist regimes have historically failed even before they began,
unless they would consider causing widespread misery and genocide ‘success’? (the bolshevik revolution caused the death of 5 million by starvation directly following it under Lenin, and that was before Stalin got going.)
I don’t see a reason that a 21st century socialist ‘Planetary Regime’, as John Holdren calls it, would be any different, as far as it being lasting, or of representing any kind of real ‘progress’ for humanity itself.
just another black mark of failure, but on a grander scale.
they underestimate the human spirit as they disregard it, imo.

[BrainGlutton]

@John_Mace

Welcome to Obama’s America. You can’t swing a stick without hitting some politician claiming to be a socialist. Resistance is futile.

Say what? Not even Dennis Kucinich calls himself the s-word; only Bernie Sanders.

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

Say what? Not even Dennis Kucinich calls himself the s-word; only Bernie Sanders.

But don’t you whoosh they would?

[jayjay]

@wildorchid

Individuality and self-dependence/ self-reliance are core American values, and Capitalism is a partner to them. (oppurtunity, ect…)
Collectivism is becoming more mainstream in American ‘thinking’ and culture, and i see more liberal-minded people label themselves as ‘socialist’ all the time.
when questioned about that, they maintain that it’s not the same socialism of the National Socialists (nazis), or of Soviet or Chinese Communism.
obv, distancing yourself from the political philosophy of Hitler, Mao, and Stalin is a no-brainer, since they were the most evil criminals of the last century…
so, is there really a warm and fuzzy version of Collectivism available that will mean unicorns and rainbows for the world, and is the human dignity of the Individual worth sacrificing in order to achieve this?
…or is the sanctity, and dignity of the Individual worth sticking up for??
are the other American values that go along with it to be kept around?

It’s a balance that you need to maintain. Too much one way or the other messes everything up. No one wants to be the Borg, but most people can’t be the mountain man or frontiersman or voyageur, either. The vast majority of the population NEEDS civilization, which can’t really be maintained without SOME collectivism. There has to be a government to maintain the commons and infrastructure, and protect the rights of all against the will of the strong, and that government needs fuel to do its job, thus taxes.

Don’t forget that the traditional motto of the USA is a collectivist one…E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one.

[Mosier]

wildorchid, you seem to have at a few misconceptions about what socialism means, and are factually wrong about at least one point of history. The Nazis were socialist to the same degree that Congo is a republic. They adopted socialism in their name because it was popular, not because they actually believed the ideology.

I call myself a socialist because I think we can create a better society. I am not at all opposed to the “sanctity and dignity of the individual.” As our societies evolved from hunter-gatherer tribes all the way to modern nations, we have developed more complex and effective forms of government. We learned pretty early on that the “every man for himself” style of organizing communities really sucks. We know that societies are more than just a collection of individuals, and that a cooperative effort is sometimes much more than the sum of its parts. Socialists realize that “Individualism” in the modern usage is just a code word for “the strong dominate the weak,” and isn’t actually about promoting the dignity and sanctity of an individual person. For example, if it is a “free market,” why are there so many rules and laws preventing organized labor? What could be more free than a market which doesn’t restrict people from negotiating with their employer? Yet somehow, the most powerful people have convinced quite a few of us that somehow a labor force that organizes and negotiates from a united position isn’t something that belongs in a free market. Why? It’s so the strong can continue to dominate the weak. Divide and conquer. The most powerful individuals in the world want nothing more than to divide the rest of humanity into “individuals,” because it makes it much easier to dominate them. That’s why American society is falling apart with income disparity and poverty levels and education levels way, way below what our wealth would predict.

[BrainGlutton]

@John_Mace

But don’t you whoosh they would?

:grumble: Been saving that one, have you?

[BrainGlutton]

@Mosier

wildorchid, you seem to have at a few misconceptions about what socialism means, and are factually wrong about at least one point of history. The Nazis were socialist to the same degree that Congo is a republic. They adopted socialism in their name because it was popular, not because they actually believed the ideology.

Actually, what distinguished the Nazis in this area was that economic issues as such were of marginal importance in their ideology.

Early in his political career, Adolf Hitler regarded economic issues as relatively unimportant. In 1922, Hitler proclaimed that “world history teaches us that no people has become great through its economy but that a people can very well perish thereby”, and later concluded that “the economy is something of secondary importance”.[3] Hitler and the Nazis held a very strong idealist conception of history, which held that human events are guided by small numbers of exceptional individuals following a higher ideal. They believed that all economic concerns, being purely material, were unworthy of their consideration. Hitler went as far as to blame all previous German governments since Bismarck of having “subjugated the nation to materialism” by relying more on peaceful economic development than on expansion through war.[4]

For these reasons, the Nazis never had a clearly defined economic programme. The original “Twenty-Five Point Programme” of the party, adopted in 1920, listed several economic demands (including “the abolition of all incomes unearned by work,” “the ruthless confiscation of all war profits,” “the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations,” “profit-sharing in large enterprises,” “extensive development of insurance for old-age,” and “land reform suitable to our national requirements”),[5] but the degree to which the Nazis supported this programme in later years has been questioned. Several attempts were made in the 1920s to change some of the program or replace it entirely. For instance, in 1924, Gottfried Feder proposed a new 39-point program that kept some of the old planks, replaced others and added many completely new ones.[6] Hitler refused to allow any discussion of the party programme after 1925, ostensibly on the grounds that no discussion was necessary because the programme was “inviolable” and did not need any changes. At the same time, however, Hitler never voiced public support for the programme and many historians argue that he was in fact privately opposed to it. Hitler did not mention any of the planks of the programme in his book, Mein Kampf, and only talked about it in passing as “the so-called programme of the movement”.[7]

Hitler’s views on economics, beyond his early belief that the economy was of secondary importance, are a matter of debate. On the one hand, he proclaimed in one of his speeches that “we are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system”,[8] but he was clear to point out that his interpretation of socialism “has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism,” saying that “Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.”[9] At a later time, Hitler said: “Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether… What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism.”[10] In private, Hitler also said that “I absolutely insist on protecting private property… we must encourage private initiative”.[11] On yet another occasion he qualified that statement by saying that the government should have the power to regulate the use of private property for the good of the nation.[12] Hitler clearly believed that the lack of a precise economic programme was one of the Nazi Party’s strengths, saying: “The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all.”[13] While not espousing a specific economic philosophy, Hitler employed anti-semitic themes to attack economic systems in other countries, associating ethnic Jews with both communism (“Jewish Bolsheviks”) and capitalism, both of which he opposed.[14][15] Hitler also believed that individuals within a nation battled with each other for survival, and that such ruthless competition was good for the health of the nation, because it promoted “superior individuals” to higher positions in society.[16]

This gave them a practical advantage over the USSR. The Nazis were not ideologically committed to the socialization or nationalization of the whole economy – nor to a free market, either – so the Nazi state simply interfered in/managed/nationalized the economy to whatever degree seemed good to them in any particular instance or sector.

[wildorchid]

@Mosier

wildorchid, you seem to have at a few misconceptions about what socialism means, and are factually wrong about at least one point of history. The Nazis were socialist to the same degree that Congo is a republic. They adopted socialism in their name because it was popular, not because they actually believed the ideology.

I call myself a socialist because I think we can create a better society. I am not at all opposed to the “sanctity and dignity of the individual.” As our societies evolved from hunter-gatherer tribes all the way to modern nations, we have developed more complex and effective forms of government. We learned pretty early on that the “every man for himself” style of organizing communities really sucks. We know that societies are more than just a collection of individuals, and that a cooperative effort is sometimes much more than the sum of its parts. Socialists realize that “Individualism” in the modern usage is just a code word for “the strong dominate the weak,” and isn’t actually about promoting the dignity and sanctity of an individual person. For example, if it is a “free market,” why are there so many rules and laws preventing organized labor? What could be more free than a market which doesn’t restrict people from negotiating with their employer? Yet somehow, the most powerful people have convinced quite a few of us that somehow a labor force that organizes and negotiates from a united position isn’t something that belongs in a free market. Why? It’s so the strong can continue to dominate the weak. Divide and conquer. The most powerful individuals in the world want nothing more than to divide the rest of humanity into “individuals,” because it makes it much easier to dominate them. That’s why American society is falling apart with income disparity and poverty levels and education levels way, way below what our wealth would predict.

that’s an interesting view…
In Lincolns ‘mudsill’ speech he addressed Americans self-reliance, and i believe up to 75% of the population was self-employed at that time. We are a far cry from that America now, and we could argue how much ‘better’ we are doing.

Communism, on the left, and Fascism, on the right, or specifically nazi-ism were presented as direct opposites, and bitter rivals and enemies (thus your divide and conquer).
When we look closer, though, we see that although they are different in some aspects, those are minor compared to the similarities: and what is not only similar, but identical is the total dis-regard for the importance, dignity, and sanctity of the individual below that of the State, which is all-imporatant; his/her beliefs, feelings, views, ect… are subsumed into what the State prescribes…
you are not allowed to have your own unique views on things if it goes against the ‘party line’. This all falls under the umbrella term ‘collectivism’. and, no, the nazis didn’t have ‘socialist’ in their compound name for no reason…
I lived with a German family in the early 80’s as an exchange student.
I heard many stories from the grandmother, Babu, who was in her 80’s at the time; i heard first hand what the atmosphere was like under Hitler… how ‘thought police’ would intimidate, and report people who didn’t go along with the party line in any manner. even singing a traditional german song (not even a political song); just a song your father may have sung while drinking at the bar could get you arrested and questioned… essentially intimidated into going along with the parties objectives for their ‘new age’ that they were ushering in. Sometimes we overlook how the nazis were very ‘progressive’ and promised a new way of life, and an entirely new phase of civilization (ie the =3rd Reich). ultimately a planetary regime…sound familiar??
In Communist China and USSR you got the same kind of collectivism, where political enemies were scape-goated, gulaged, and ‘re-educated’ into losing their individual beliefs, which are seen as standing in the way of the goals of the collective.|
here, the nazis are included under ‘collectivism’…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@wildorchid

that’s an interesting view…
In Lincolns ‘mudsill’ speech he addressed Americans self-reliance, and i believe up to 75% of the population was self-employed at that time. We are a far cry from that America now, and we could argue how much ‘better’ we are doing.

That is a result of industrial development-the majority of Americans were self-employed in 1860 because they were farmers or artisans. In material aspects, we are overwhelmingly better off than our great-great-grandparents of a century and a half ago-no longer do we engage in backbreaking labour from dawn to dusk, bury half of our children in infancy, and enjoy countless machines that would have been marvels to them ranging from televisions to the washing machine.

[Mosier]

@wildorchid

that’s an interesting view…
In Lincolns ‘mudsill’ speech he addressed Americans self-reliance, and i believe up to 75% of the population was self-employed at that time. We are a far cry from that America now, and we could argue how much ‘better’ we are doing.

Not really. Take your pick of just about any objective standard of measurement to see that we’re much better than we were in the 1860s.

Communism, on the left, and Fascism, on the right, or specifically nazi-ism were presented as direct opposites, and bitter rivals and enemies (thus your divide and conquer).

You are misrepresenting what I said. I never used the term “divide and conquer” to refer to any schism between communism and Fascism, or in any remotely similar way.

When we look closer, though, we see that although they are different in some aspects, those are minor compared to the similarities: and what is not only similar, but identical is the total dis-regard for the importance, dignity, and sanctity of the individual below that of the State, which is all-imporatant; his/her beliefs, feelings, views, ect… are subsumed into what the State prescribes…
you are not allowed to have your own unique views on things if it goes against the ‘party line’. This all falls under the umbrella term ‘collectivism’.

No, it doesn’t. It falls under the term “nationalism.” Do you really think that even the most liberal socialist places in the world today disregard the importance, dignity, and sanctity of the individual below that of the state? If so, you’re completely out of touch with reality.

and, no, the nazis didn’t have ‘socialist’ in their compound name for no reason…

Like I said, the Nazis were socialist to exactly the same degree as the Democratic Republic of Congo is a democratic republic. Did you not read the link I provided about how the Nazis murdered or imprisoned the socialist leadership within their party after Hitler’s election?

“Many stormtroopers believed in the socialist promise of National Socialism and expected the Nazi regime to take more radical economic action, such as breaking up the vast landed estates of the aristocracy. When the Nazi regime did not take such steps, those who expected an economic as well as a political revolution were disillusioned.”

Nazis promised a socialist revolution that never materialized. Socialists supported the Nazis because of these promises, which turned out to just be lies. Capitalists fared quite well under Nazi leadership.

Anyway, the whole Nazi rant is all just a red herring in the end. If you’ve decided to perceive the issue of socialism as a freedom vs. fascism struggle, there’s really no sense in actually having a discussion about it. The quickest way to end a political discussion is to call your opponents Nazis.

[BrainGlutton]

@wildorchid

Communism, on the left, and Fascism, on the right, or specifically nazi-ism were presented as direct opposites, and bitter rivals and enemies (thus your divide and conquer).
When we look closer, though, we see that although they are different in some aspects, those are minor compared to the similarities . . .

No. George Orwell put it best, in 1941:

Socialism is usually defined as “common ownership of the means of production”. Crudely: the State, representing the whole nation, owns everything, and everyone is a State employee. This does NOT mean that people are stripped of private possessions such as clothes and furniture, but it DOES mean that all productive goods, such as land, mines, ships and machinery, are the property of the State. The State is the sole large-scale producer. It is not certain that Socialism is in all ways superior to capitalism, but it is certain that, unlike capitalism, it can solve the problems of production and consumption. At normal times a capitalist economy can never consume all that it produces, so that there is always a wasted surplus (wheat burned in furnaces, herrings dumped back into the sea etc etc) and always unemployment. In time of war, on the other hand, it has difficulty in producing all that it needs, because nothing is produced unless someone sees his way to making a profit out of it. In a Socialist economy these problems do not exist. The State simply calculates what goods will be needed and does its best to produce them. Production is only limited by the amount of labour and raw materials. Money, for internal purposes, ceases to be a mysterious all-powerful thing and becomes a sort of coupon or ration-ticket, issued in sufficient quantities to buy up such consumption goods as may be available at the moment.

However, it has become clear in the last few years that “common ownership of the means of production” is not in itself a sufficient definition of Socialism. One must also add the following: approximate equality of incomes (it need be no more than approximate), political democracy, and abolition of all hereditary privilege, especially in education. These are simply the necessary safeguards against the reappearance of a class system. Centralised ownership has very little meaning unless the mass of the people are living roughly upon an equal level, and have some kind of control over the government. “The State” may come to mean no more than a self-elected political party, and oligarchy and privilege can return, based on power rather than on money.

But what then is Fascism?

Fascism, at any rate the German version, is a form of capitalism that borrows from Socialism just such features as will make it efficient for war purposes. Internally, Germany has a good deal in common with a Socialist state. Ownership has never been abolished, there are still capitalists and workers, and–this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathise with Fascism–generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution. But at the same time the State, which is simply the Nazi Party, is in control of everything. It controls investment, raw materials, rates of interest, working hours, wages. The factory owner still owns his factory, but he is for practical purposes reduced to the status of a manager. Everyone is in effect a State employee, though the salaries vary very greatly. The mere EFFICIENCY of such a system, the elimination of waste and obstruction, is obvious. In seven years it has built up the most powerful war machine the world has ever seen.

But the idea underlying Fascism is irreconcilably different from that which underlies Socialism. Socialism aims, ultimately, at a world-state of free and equal human beings. It takes the equality of human rights for granted. Nazism assumes just the opposite. The driving force behind the Nazi movement is the belief in human INEQUALITY, the superiority of Germans to all other races, the right of Germany to rule the world. Outside the German Reich it does not recognise any obligations. Eminent Nazi professors have “proved” over and over again that only Nordic man is fully human, have even mooted the idea that non Nordic peoples (such as ourselves) can interbreed with gorillas! Therefore, while a species of war-Socialism exists within the German state, its attitude towards conquered nations is frankly that of an exploiter. The function of the Czechs, Poles, French, etc is simply to produce such goods as Germany may need, and get in return just as little as will keep them from open rebellion. If we are conquered, our job will probably be to manufacture weapons for Hitler’s forthcoming wars with Russia and America. The Nazis aim, in effect, at setting up a kind of caste system, with four main castes corresponding rather closely to those of the Hindu religion. At the top comes the Nazi party, second come the mass of the German people, third come the conquered European populations. Fourth and last are to come the coloured peoples, the “semi-apes” as Hitler calls them, who are to be reduced quite openly to slavery.

[BrainGlutton]

@wildorchid

In Lincolns ‘mudsill’ speech he addressed Americans self-reliance, and i believe up to 75% of the population was self-employed at that time. We are a far cry from that America now, and we could argue how much ‘better’ we are doing.

But, that change has nothing to do with collectivism. It has to do with industrialization, almost entirely done on a free-market capitalist basis.

[Larry_Borgia]

It’s a false dichotomy, isn’t it? You’re an individual but you’re also part of a greater community. Why is it either or?

Also, I’m a little confused about what the OP is getting at. Is this something we should be gravely concerned about? If so, why? What are the consequences?

All free societies struggle to find a balance between freedom and order, safety and liberty. (Please don’t quote that silly Franklin saying, I’m convinced he was tipsy when he came up with it.) We can argue with the lines drawn in modern America–The current gun debate is only one such argument–but overall you can live a pretty decent life here. You can live a decent life in Western Europe too. The US has made different choices than many Western European countries, and we can argue about which societies’ choices are better, but both work reasonably well, though God knows there’s room for improvement.

We have a free market because it’s the best way to organize the economy, but we also have regulation to deal with externalities and address market failures. We also have government projects to deal with needs the free market won’t, like infrastructure and defense. (I would add health care, but of course that’s controversial.) These have to be paid for with taxes.

I realize this is boring high-school civics stuff but it’s the way things are. I’m utterly confused as to what practical real world problems the OP is warning us about.

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

:grumble: Been saving that one, have you?

Made it up on the spot, actually!

[Dissonance]

@wildorchid

Communism, on the left, and Fascism, on the right, or specifically nazi-ism were presented as direct opposites, and bitter rivals and enemies (thus your divide and conquer). When we look closer, though, we see that although they are different in some aspects, those are minor compared to the similarities:

So - they weren’t bitter rivals and enemies then, and didn’t fight each other to the death in the bloodiest war in history?

and, no, the nazis didn’t have ‘socialist’ in their compound name for no reason…
I lived with a German family in the early 80’s as an exchange student.

I imagine you also learned from your Germany family in the early 80’s about how democratic East Germany was. I mean Deutsche Demokratische Republik wouldn’t have had ‘democratic’ in their name for no reason.

[wildorchid]

@jayjay

It’s a balance that you need to maintain. Too much one way or the other messes everything up. No one wants to be the Borg, but most people can’t be the mountain man or frontiersman or voyageur, either. The vast majority of the population NEEDS civilization, which can’t really be maintained without SOME collectivism. There has to be a government to maintain the commons and infrastructure, and protect the rights of all against the will of the strong, and that government needs fuel to do its job, thus taxes.

Don’t forget that the traditional motto of the USA is a collectivist one…E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one.

I don’t think that upholding the American values of individuality and self-reliance means everyone has to be an island unto themselves… this assumption alone is collectivist thinking at work.
People can interact in a voluntary way, and do business with each other in a free market and be individualistic at the same time. individuality doesnt preclude community, or society, or economy.
Collectivism, on the other hand, precludes the importance of the individual altogether.
the individual can be easily sacrificed for the ‘greater good’ if thats what it takes, and he/she should be conditioned to happily sacrifice themselves, and their own interests, and the idea of having a good life for themselves and their family in deference to the good of the ‘collective’.
look at fabian socialism founder George Bernard Shaws quotes about ‘killing in a kindly manner’ those who can’t prove a purpose for their existence.
Notice how Karl Marxs daughter killer herself at the age of 66 because she figured that at that age she was no longer any good anymore, and had no purpose for the collective.
The message seems to be that living our lives for ourselves is to become a thing of the past. we should be mere automatons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBZsTf6oLfY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Marx

The sustainability movement, spearheaded by the UN is just rich with this brand of collectivist thought. (and the imposition of a Planetary Regime, or collectivist world gov’t) Humanity is talked about as an ‘Idol’ that is being ignorantly worshipped; we individual humans really arent that important seems to be the message?

My problem with this kind of collectivist thinking, besides its discarding of the idea of human dignity and individual rights is that it just doesnt work, (proven by history over and over again) and that it is actually representative of a fiction.

there is no such thing in reality as a ‘collective’ or a ‘greatest good’. it’s a fiction.
>>>Just try getting 5 people together to order a pizza and get everyone to agree on the toppings and then tell me we can arrive at a ‘greatest good’ for the population of the entire planet<<<
a set, or group of things only exists in the mind, and not in reality.
it is, after all, a set, or group of individuals in the final equation.
You can’t have the sum of the parts, without the parts themselves, but collectivism ignores this reality.

We can’t trash the individual and get anywhere, yet collectivism is still trying, and my concern is that this trend, despite its repeated failures in history is making a run at it in America at present; and ‘political correctness’ alone is a big symptom of it.
You have to start watching what you say in America nowadays. (which isnt that American). It’s starting to resemble nazi germany in this aspect…
you get scapegoated, and harrassed if you voice a view that runs counter to the official party line, and if you bring actual facts into it, you get really attacked,(collectivist base their views on emotions and band-wagon stupidity, it seems).
It used to be an American tradition to be free to say whatever you want, or to have any view you see fit to have without having to confront the Borg.

[Human_Action]

@wildorchid

Communism, on the left, and Fascism, on the right, or specifically nazi-ism were presented as direct opposites, and bitter rivals and enemies (thus your divide and conquer).
When we look closer, though, we see that although they are different in some aspects, those are minor compared to the similarities . . .

@BrainGlutton

No. George Orwell put it best, in 1941:

wildorchid is correct on this point. I see your Orwell, and raise with Ludwig von Mises,from Omnipotent Government, 1944:

The German and the Russian systems of socialism have in common the fact that the government has full control of the means of production. It decides what shall be produced and how. It allots to each individual a share of consumer’s goods for his consumption. These systems would not have to be called socialist if it were otherwise.

But there is a difference between the two systems—though it does not concern the essential features of socialism.

The Russian pattern of socialism is purely bureaucratic. All economic enterprises are departments of the government, like the administration of the army or the postal system. Every plant, shop, or farm stands in the same relation to the superior central organization as does a post office to the office of the postmaster general.

The German pattern differs from the Russian one in that it (seemingly and nominally) maintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices, wages, and markets. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs but only shop managers (Betriebsführer). These shop managers do the buying and selling, pay the workers, contract debts, and pay interest and amortization. There is no labor market; wages and salaries are fixed by the government. The government tells the shop managers what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees to whom and under what terms the capitalists must entrust their funds and where and at what wages laborers must work. Market exchange is only a sham. All the prices, wages, and interest rates are fixed by the central authority. They are prices, wages, and interest rates in appearance only; in reality they are merely determinations of quantity relations in the government’s orders. The government, not the consumers, directs production. This is socialism in the outward guise of capitalism. Some labels of capitalistic market economy are retained but they mean something entirely different from what they mean in a genuine market economy.

The execution of the pattern in each country is not so rigid as not to allow for some concessions to the other pattern. There are, in Germany too, plants and shops directly managed by government clerks; there is especially the national railroad system; there are the government’s coal mines and the national telegraph and telephone lines. Most of these institutions are remnants of the nationalization carried out by the previous governments under the regime of German militarism. In Russia, on the other hand, there are some seemingly independent shops and farms left. But these exceptions do not alter the general characteristics of the two systems.

[snip]

All civilizations have up to now been based on private ownership of the means of production. In the past civilization and private ownership have been linked together. If history could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization.

Governments have always looked askance at private property. Governments are never liberal from inclination. It is in the nature of the men handling the apparatus of compulsion and coercion to overrate its power to work, and to strive at subduing all spheres of human life to its immediate influence. Etatism is the occupational disease of rulers, warriors, and civil servants. Governments become liberal only when forced to by the citizens.

From time immemorial governments have been eager to interfere with the working of the market mechanism. Their endeavors have never attained the ends sought. People used to attribute these failures to the inefficacy of the measures applied and to the leniency of their enforcement. What was wanted, they thought, was more energy and more brutality; then success would be assured. Not until the eighteenth century did men begin to understand that interventionism is necessarily doomed to fail. The classical economists demonstrated that each constellation of the market has a corresponding price structure. Prices, wages, and interest rates are the result of the interplay of demand and supply. There are forces operating in the market which tend to restore this—natural—state if it is disturbed. Government decrees, instead of achieving the particular ends they seek, tend only to derange the working of the market and imperil the satisfaction of the needs of the consumers.

Communism and Nazism are far more alike than different. The trappings differ, but the essential heart is the same: interventionist etatism, and the subjugation of the people to the state. As to the Nazi caste system…is that unlike the “class enemies” of Communism? And note that the top of the Nazi and the Communist caste system is reserved for the Party, at the expense of all others.

@Dissonance

So - they weren’t bitter rivals and enemies then, and didn’t fight each other to the death in the bloodiest war in history?

They were rival factions of the same poisonous ideology.

To the OP, I have not observed the growth of socialism or collectivism in our mainstream culture. If anything, there’s a greater emphasis on group identity than a collective, national one.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Wages and salaries were not fixed by the government under Hitler. In fact, he abolished most of the Weimar-era wage and price controls (though numerous price controls were reimposed during the war, as they were in Allied states).