The historical record demonstrates that fascists loathed democratic capitalism. For Adolf Hitler, it was all about statism. Businesses that did not obey the state, paid severe consequences. It has been said that after the Russian Revolution, all Russian owners were shot; in Germany, all owners who disobeyed the Nazi state were shot.
To better understand Hitler and National Socialism, one might follow the example of Winston Churchill who believed it was important to read Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Given that other British leaders adopted appeasement as the National Socialists built their war machine in the 1930s, we can be thankful that Churchill took the time study the madness of Hitler’s socialism.
The early chapters of Mein Kampf: The Official 1939 Edition (Coda Books 2011) tells us much of Hitler’s version of socialism. When he wrote his book in 1924, Hitler wanted “German-Austria” to be restored to the “great German Motherland” even if it did not make economic sense (p.13). And certainly, shutting out the creativity and entrepreneurial spirit of Jewish citizens was no way to enhance economic growth.
Hitler’s understanding of economics was in one sense pre-industrial. He favored military exploitation. As was the case for tyrants before the industrial revolution, one stole wealth rather than create it.
The key to success and power was the “State official.” Even Hitler’s father believed that the State official represented a higher status than a religious leader (p.14). In Hitler’s case, it would be the Nazi official who followed the policies of the centralized and autocratic state.
When he wrote Mein Kampf, Hitler saw himself as a “precocious revolutionary in politics” who hated the bourgeois Austrian government (p.20, 33). His description of the working class appeared to echo Friedrich Engels: “Housing conditions were very bad at that time. The Vienna manual labourers lived in surroundings of appalling misery. I shudder even to-day when I think of the woeful dens in which people dwelt, the night shelters and the slums….” (p.27). He declared: “On innumerable occasions the bourgeoisie took a definite stand against even the most legitimate human demands of the working classes” (p.38).
Workers needed to respond to the greed of the capitalist: “So long as there are employers who attack social understanding and have wrong ideas of justice and fair play it is not only the right but also the duty of their employees – who are, after all, an integral part of our people – to protect the general interests against the greed and unreason of the individual” (p.39).
However, Hitler’s idea of socialism was not the revolutionary socialism of Karl Marx, Engels, and later Marxist leaders. Hitler saw the trade union movement as important, but he did not trust that Marxists would “respect and uphold” their original purpose, including “the defence of human rights.” Marxists took control of trade unions simply “to serve their own political ends” (p.39-40) These Hitler words are astonishing given the horror of the Nazis in denying human rights.
Hitler’s version of socialism was national socialist. Marxism competed with his socialism, a fact that made the revolutionary socialists Hitler’s enemies. But there was another reason he fought Marxism. In his twisted mind, most Marxists were Jews and there was no place for these people in his Germany.
The National Socialist Workers Party was run by dangerous elites. Their leader Hitler was the most dangerous of all. In time, his version of socialism would take-over or control all the organs of society. With its emphasis on economic freedom, free-market capitalism could not stand in big government Germany.
The Bayview Review 