There are a lot of interesting things to be said about economics and Nazism. A lot of drama and good history going on with the war debts and the havoc that that wreaked on monetary policy. The fundamentally Keynesian employment program of the Nazis raises stimulating questions. A third, more gruesome issue I've been interested in is the economic logic of the doctrine of Lebensraum to maintain the agrarian character of German society, and put off the concentration and proletarianization of the population. The analysis - as I understand it - is quite similar to Jefferson's attitude toward the western frontier. Obviously the execution and the racial beliefs underlying the Lebensraum idea are more macabre and offensive, but the logic - and the logic of overproductionism - is quite similar. Given the popularity of this sort of overproductionist thinking in the interwar period, I've always found that intriguing and have been a little curious about where Hitler derived those ideas.
Anyway, so I put a little thought into these ideas again, and came across this fascinating talk on Nazi economics by Hans Hoppe. He's impressively objective given his subject matter, and even draws a few parallels between Hitler's economics and Austrian economics. Enjoy the ever-intriguing (if no always embracable) Hans Hoppe*:
*Jonathan has a critique of Hoppe's views on an entirely different issue here. I largely agree with him and have actually blogged about it in the past - see my comment on Jonathan's post for that link.
Posts
I remember the economic reasons that led to Germany adopting Lebensbraum policy, but here's a thing.
ReplyDeleteThe only person to my knowledge who ever talked about Lebensbraum was that one fat Nazi official who had lots of fur coats and jewelry and who was later executed. Name started with a G, I think.
I haven't seen any proof that it was endorsed by any other NSDAP member, let alone Hitler.
But either way, the supposed economic reasons outlined by some are - price control of consumer goods, then price control of producer goods, interest rate controls, wage controls, tarriffs, policies about compulsory employment, and eventually policies demanding what is produced for whom and where and how much capital is to be allocated to whom. Thus leaving prices, wages, and interest rates as notional figures and everything allocated by Nazi bureaucracy. Leads to STATISTICALLY high employment and industrial output. But causes real wages to remain stagnant, marginal product to fall below wages, foreign goods more expensive, and capital running out. To maintain this unsustainable system, more foreign inputs are needed, but Germany has barriers to protect industry. Thus, conquest for resources only option.
It sounds quite plausible, and it may mean that even a man dedicated to peace and end to imperialism, Hugo Chavez, may be tempted to conquer abroad to maintain his totalitarian system which has caused shortages of all commodities and utilities, especially food. He has, in fact, been eyeing Dutch islands to the north.
That's interesting - I thought it was a major portion of Mein Kampf, and indeed the entire point of Generalplan Ost. That's how Tooze framed Generalplan Ost, at least. I'm not widely read on it, though, so I'm interested in any more info you have.
ReplyDeleteYou don't have to refute Nazi economic policy to me - for everything they did right there were two things they did wrong, and that's without even considering the more heinous issues that have nothing to do with economic policy. I'm not sure, though, that the employment effects were entirely statistical - but the standard of living is a different matter entirely. They were largely employed in producing munitions and outrageous synthetic fuel schemes.
Usually, it happens that once I start writing, I forget the point of what I was writing in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI am guessing I wrote down that part about the Nazi economic system, because I read the part about desire for agrarian living causing German expansion, and I thought it was also relevant that their economic system may have also been a reason for their expansionist policies.
I decided to check up on Lebensbraum to be sure. It's a pre-Hitler concept going back to various German Chancellors in both the Empire and Weimar. I was incorrect.
All that aside, have you ever noticed the silly tendency of certain pro-market people to label the 1930s German and Italian economic system as socialist? And then we have the counter-rhetoric from the usual anti-establishment crowd that Hitler and Mussolini were pro-business and hence capitalism is fascism or whatever.
It's all a rather strange debate. The system pioneered by Mussolini was not capitalism. And it was not socialism. And it was not a hybrid or a Third Way center between them. It was a rather strange, unique system that falls into a category of its own. There is a fine line between an interventionist capitalist nation like United States and the totalitarian economy of 1930s Germany and Italy.
"Corporatism" is a term that's often used, which is probably good.
ReplyDeleteI actually think the word "socialism" has taken on a far more narrow meaning than (1.) it used to have and (2.) it should. If it were used properly I wouldn't mind calling the fascists socialists - along with most social democracies, etc. It's not full ownership of the means of production, of course - but it is a socialization of the economy. I doubt it will ever regain that broader meaning - it will probably continue to be a vague synonym for communism. But in the 20s and 30s a wide variety of people called themselves "socialists" that wouldn't really be called "socialist" now.
A fine line or a bold line? I think that bold line is stable constitutional democracy. The risk of the UK or the US descending into serfdom for their interventionism was slim indeed precisely because the dividing line was quite strong.
Technically, Sweden 1937 onwards was also a corporatist state, even though it was a democracy, because it asked capital, labour, and agriculture to join hands into a single system with the government, with each influencing the laws and following laws set by the other.
ReplyDeleteUnlike the violent methods of Mussolini, Sweden's government achieved incorporation of the state, the capitalists, the workers, and the peasantry into a single super state without a fight.
While it's never fair to compare the gentle Swedes to the brutal Nazis, it shows that corporatism can be achieved otherwise. But while it was lucky that this corporatism happened in a country where people like to work things out, even with businesses, I can't imagine what would have happened with an experiment in corporatism in any other country. Various interest groups would have attempted to war with each other instead of understanding each other's point of view.