Robert O. Paxton, author of The Anatomy of Fascism, lays out the following definition:
Fascism without Hitler
Minty_Fresh
Banned
Mobutu, had he not been so bent on kleptocracy, could have seen fascism as an ideology to follow. He was all about traditional African prestige and the cult of the leader. Savimba was the same way.
There are interesting alternate possibilities for this, though.
The OAS might have been more right wing authoritarian than anything, but there were doubtlessly Vichyist beliefs embedded in some of the officers who participated in it, particularly their feelings regarding the stab in the back by the French Left wing. I'm not saying an enclave French state that may have formed would have been fascistic, but there is reason to think its possible. The same can be said about the British Kenyan community, who were particularly extreme, but their prospects of power were even more limited.
As for any other African Fascist possibilities, perhaps if Marcus Garvey had gotten what he wanted and went to Liberia with a strong supporter group, he would have launched a Fascist coup.
Last edited:
European fascism, yes, but that doesn't preclude Africans from developing their own variety.
Certainly some key examples, although I wouldn't classify whites in Africa like the OAS, British Kenyans, or for that matter, certain elements of Apartheid South Africa as Afrofascist. That would more stem from European fascism rather than from an indigenous sort of fascism.
thorr97
Banned
Thon Taddeo,
Oh boy! This is gonna be good!
Your statement and post ignore quite a few basic facts and make a series of flawed assumptions in an attempt to sustain your incorrect assertion. Let me explain this in detail...
First, the originators of national socialism - Fascism and Nazism - were politically left wing from their outset and those political movements were as well.
As an individual, Mussolini was about as left wing a guy as there could be when he started the Fascist party in 1919. Throughout the first two decades of the last century Mussolini was a member in good standing of the Italian Socialist party. He was the Secretary of the party and was the publisher of its official newspaper, the Avanti. It was only when he became to vocal about Italian nationalism, due to his combat experience in the Great War in which he witnessed Italy's national humiliation firsthand, that the Italian Socialists expelled him from the party as that nationalism was viewed as incompatible with the "internationalist" goals of the Socialist movement of the day.
Mussolini then created the Fascist party which didn't abandon Socialism or his left wing political ideology in the least. Instead, it simply married a virulent nationalism to the basic Socialist principles of state supremacy over the individual and of the state's controlling every aspect of both society and the lives of the individuals within it.
In Germany, the National Socialist German Workers Party did the same thing. It fused basic left wing Socialist principles together with an extreme nationalist agenda. The NSDAP was different from the PNF in that it was explicitly anti-Semitic from its outset but, aside from that however, both were vehemently anti-capitalist in their demands for control over the economy and all economic activity within it. Looking at the Fascist's official economic policies and the Nazi's "25 Points" there's nothing either right wing or pro-Capitalist in them at all.
Second, are the actions of the Fascists and the Nazis once in power. Outlawing unions and replacing them with state controlled committees which forcibly brings both the workers and business owners together did not favor businesses at the expense of the workers. Instead, it brought the entire public sector under the control of the state. There's nothing right wing about that. No one would argue that Communism is a "right wing" ideology yet every Communist regime also eliminated independent unions and replaced them with state controlled committees.
The fact that the national socialists banned other left wing political parties and waged a near holy war against Communism in general also does not thereby make Fascism or Nazism thus inherently a "right wing" political ideology. Instead, it was just a competition for "the same market share" by a political group who's ideology differed but in degree from those other left wing political parties. For example, Solzhenitsyn described Communism and Nazism "as being as different as identical twins." Looking at the early history of the NSDAP you will find its original members were virulently left wing in their political views but deeply opposed to Communism due to its inherent links to Russia and thus to foreign control. That was thus a non-starter for such ardent nationalists as who found themselves in these nationalist socialist parties.
Lastly, there's the fact that assertion that "large businesses had no qualms about working with Hitler or Mussolini." That's a very convenient myth started post-war.
The reality is that businesses in both Italy and Germany had little choice but to work with their new Fascist and National Socialist masters. As Sheldon Richman is the editor of "The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty at the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvingtonon-Hudson, N.Y." put it:
Businessmen - "Industrialists" being the then popular term for them - who opposed the new national socialist regimes in their countries found their businesses seized and their personal wealth stripped from by those regimes. And in the run up to national socialists taking control of those countries those "industrialists" were faced with the choice of attempting to exist in a country controlled either by radical left wing fanatics who wanted to declare the industrialists as enemies of the people, seize their businesses, and leave them hanging from lampposts or attempting to exist in a country controlled by radical left wing fanatics who wanted to declare the industrialists as enemies of the people, control their businesses, and leave them what profit they still could generate. That makes their cooperating with the fascists the lesser of two evils by far rather than a "no qualms" thing.
Hitler himself summed this up pretty directly:
That's not terribly "right wing" now is it?
Oh boy! This is gonna be good!
Your statement and post ignore quite a few basic facts and make a series of flawed assumptions in an attempt to sustain your incorrect assertion. Let me explain this in detail...
First, the originators of national socialism - Fascism and Nazism - were politically left wing from their outset and those political movements were as well.
As an individual, Mussolini was about as left wing a guy as there could be when he started the Fascist party in 1919. Throughout the first two decades of the last century Mussolini was a member in good standing of the Italian Socialist party. He was the Secretary of the party and was the publisher of its official newspaper, the Avanti. It was only when he became to vocal about Italian nationalism, due to his combat experience in the Great War in which he witnessed Italy's national humiliation firsthand, that the Italian Socialists expelled him from the party as that nationalism was viewed as incompatible with the "internationalist" goals of the Socialist movement of the day.
Mussolini then created the Fascist party which didn't abandon Socialism or his left wing political ideology in the least. Instead, it simply married a virulent nationalism to the basic Socialist principles of state supremacy over the individual and of the state's controlling every aspect of both society and the lives of the individuals within it.
In Germany, the National Socialist German Workers Party did the same thing. It fused basic left wing Socialist principles together with an extreme nationalist agenda. The NSDAP was different from the PNF in that it was explicitly anti-Semitic from its outset but, aside from that however, both were vehemently anti-capitalist in their demands for control over the economy and all economic activity within it. Looking at the Fascist's official economic policies and the Nazi's "25 Points" there's nothing either right wing or pro-Capitalist in them at all.
Second, are the actions of the Fascists and the Nazis once in power. Outlawing unions and replacing them with state controlled committees which forcibly brings both the workers and business owners together did not favor businesses at the expense of the workers. Instead, it brought the entire public sector under the control of the state. There's nothing right wing about that. No one would argue that Communism is a "right wing" ideology yet every Communist regime also eliminated independent unions and replaced them with state controlled committees.
The fact that the national socialists banned other left wing political parties and waged a near holy war against Communism in general also does not thereby make Fascism or Nazism thus inherently a "right wing" political ideology. Instead, it was just a competition for "the same market share" by a political group who's ideology differed but in degree from those other left wing political parties. For example, Solzhenitsyn described Communism and Nazism "as being as different as identical twins." Looking at the early history of the NSDAP you will find its original members were virulently left wing in their political views but deeply opposed to Communism due to its inherent links to Russia and thus to foreign control. That was thus a non-starter for such ardent nationalists as who found themselves in these nationalist socialist parties.
Lastly, there's the fact that assertion that "large businesses had no qualms about working with Hitler or Mussolini." That's a very convenient myth started post-war.
The reality is that businesses in both Italy and Germany had little choice but to work with their new Fascist and National Socialist masters. As Sheldon Richman is the editor of "The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty at the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvingtonon-Hudson, N.Y." put it:
Businessmen - "Industrialists" being the then popular term for them - who opposed the new national socialist regimes in their countries found their businesses seized and their personal wealth stripped from by those regimes. And in the run up to national socialists taking control of those countries those "industrialists" were faced with the choice of attempting to exist in a country controlled either by radical left wing fanatics who wanted to declare the industrialists as enemies of the people, seize their businesses, and leave them hanging from lampposts or attempting to exist in a country controlled by radical left wing fanatics who wanted to declare the industrialists as enemies of the people, control their businesses, and leave them what profit they still could generate. That makes their cooperating with the fascists the lesser of two evils by far rather than a "no qualms" thing.
Hitler himself summed this up pretty directly:
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
That's not terribly "right wing" now is it?
I think it would be regarded as something like OTL Panarabism / Arabic Socialism / Arabic Nationalism: A fitting ideology for a developing economy, commanded by the top "engineers" who are creating a unified top down-"reformed" society. There would be critics from the democratic, liberal and centre-left side of things, who'll point out the lack of freedom, the suppression of the opposition and the sidelining (or expelling or out-and-out destruction) of minority groups. And then there would be defenders from both the left and the right. Conservatives will say that suppression against certain groups is necessary, and leftists will cheer the planned economy and some measures that might be falsely interpreted as 'progressive'. Take Gadhafi, for instance. Right-wing nostalgics now say he was okay because Arabs need an authoritarian leader to create order and stability, and that he was a good bouncer against migrants from Africa. Left-wingers say that the situation of women under him were better than under an Islamist regime. In a similar mood, some right-wingers would say that without fascism, the peoples of Europe would have beat the shit out of each other, while a substantial majority would have moved to Communism. Some left-wingers will denounce the human rights abuses, but will point out that the fascists took a strong stand against the evil imperialists, and hey, at least they also suppressed the religious.
In addition to my posting above: People might object that no left-winger would have announced sympathy for fascism, because Mussolini wiped out the Social Democrats and the Communists. However, Gamal Abdel-Nassar, Hafez al-Assad and Saddam Hussein also did exactly that, and all of them had their fair share of sympathisers.
Thanks for responding. I'll post a longer response tonight.
The Hitler quote is misattributed. The earliest attribution of that quote to Hitler was made by John Toland. In Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography (1976), Toland attributed the quotation to Hitler in a speech given on May 1, 1927. In actuality, the quote is from Gregor Strasser ("Thoughts about the Tasks of the Future", June 15, 1926.) , who was killed during the Night of the Long Knives. The Strasser brothers did advocate for social democratic reforms and did criticize capitalism (or rather, what they thought was capitalism). But their anti-capitalism was born form their anti-Antisemitism. The Strasser brothers identified financial capitalism with a Jewish conspiracy. The Strassers supported the expropriation of Jewish capitalists (and German capitalists, whom the Strassers believed were complicit in the Jewish conspiracy). Also, the Strassers had no plans to hand over control of the expropriated property to the workers or to the state. Rather, it'd be turned over to nationalist German capitalists.
Hitler later said he regretted using the term "socialist" in the party's name. (Turner, Henry A., German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler (Oxford University Press, 1985) p. 77.)
I doubt Fascism would take hold in Africa as the Fascist powers of Italy would still hold colonies. I assume in this no Hitler TL, Germany is under someone like Kurt von Schleicher. I see a rise in Fascism in South America but not Africa. I think Peronism would take a more Corporatist tone rather than a labor unionist one. Brazilian Integralism would hopefully take root, and Vargas would be removed by coup. Plinio Salgado would likely make Brazil more powerful and industrialized than Vargas did. I don't see a Europe with no second Great War, as it would have come eventually. I assume it would be, or the main event would be a Soviet-Fascist war. If there is no Hitler, and Mosley doesn't mess things up, the BUF could become a significant force in British politics. Perhaps entering Westminster during this Soviet-Fascist war, and pressuring to join the side against the Soviet Union. Britain could go Fascist, and France could also see a significant rise in Fascist politics though I doubt they'd have been able to take power on their own. By the 60s (let's say the Soviets more or less lose the war yet still survive and no U.S-Japan war until 1950, which only involved the U.S and Japan, where things happen pretty much OTL). I would see Integralism on the rise in the United States, Brazilian Integralism specifically.
By the year 1990 I think the two Fascist states Italy (PNF) and Germany (DNVP-Plus Fascist party coalition) would still be in power and have managed to achieve Fascist ambitions of strong unified states, Musso is long dead and the party is more democratic, Germany is an Empire, yet still authoritarian with limited democracy. Britain would probably during the 60s have elected Oswald Mosley into power after a likely economic crash caused by world turmoil of which Britain mostly abstained from. We could see a Fascist Britain! Edward VIII is a possible King at this point, depending on butterflies etc. Thus Britain would adopt Mosley's proposals for a Fascist state. In 1990 the Fascist powers and France will likely begin to grant more autonomy to their colonies, without WWII and a weaker Soviet Union and (likely) defeated P.R.C African anti colonialism while still left leaning (at least outside of French colonies) hasn't had the same success as in OTL. Canada and Australia distance themselves from the New Fascist Britain, likely towards the United States. By 1990 I doubt the U.S would still have the two party system, likely the left wing Marxists will eventually form a third party along with an Integralist fourth party, situated with large bases likely in the Rust Belt and the West coast respectively. I doubt either would receive more than 15% of the vote, depending on how the U.S interacts with the rest of the world during the 30s 40s and 50s. It would be interesting how each perceives of the Civil Rights issue, I imagine both would be for Integration, which could hurt the Integralists in the short term but work in the long term. Of course there is no Vietnam war, or it is significantly different. I imagine with a Fascist Britain, France will align herself with the United States once again.
I understand I'm missing many important factors, I'm just trying to show something of what might look like in a no Hitler/Successful Fascist world. To see how a Fascist Britain would work, I recommend Mosley's 100 questions, most if not all of the antisemitism was National Socialist pandering to prevent them from splitting off, which they did try to do anyways with the Imperial League of National Socialists IIRC, so I imagine ITTL there would be much less of that. As in Italy, fascism in Britain (with no Hitler) would likely have had a significant Jewish base, if likely a smaller percentage than in Italy, before WWII.
By the year 1990 I think the two Fascist states Italy (PNF) and Germany (DNVP-Plus Fascist party coalition) would still be in power and have managed to achieve Fascist ambitions of strong unified states, Musso is long dead and the party is more democratic, Germany is an Empire, yet still authoritarian with limited democracy. Britain would probably during the 60s have elected Oswald Mosley into power after a likely economic crash caused by world turmoil of which Britain mostly abstained from. We could see a Fascist Britain! Edward VIII is a possible King at this point, depending on butterflies etc. Thus Britain would adopt Mosley's proposals for a Fascist state. In 1990 the Fascist powers and France will likely begin to grant more autonomy to their colonies, without WWII and a weaker Soviet Union and (likely) defeated P.R.C African anti colonialism while still left leaning (at least outside of French colonies) hasn't had the same success as in OTL. Canada and Australia distance themselves from the New Fascist Britain, likely towards the United States. By 1990 I doubt the U.S would still have the two party system, likely the left wing Marxists will eventually form a third party along with an Integralist fourth party, situated with large bases likely in the Rust Belt and the West coast respectively. I doubt either would receive more than 15% of the vote, depending on how the U.S interacts with the rest of the world during the 30s 40s and 50s. It would be interesting how each perceives of the Civil Rights issue, I imagine both would be for Integration, which could hurt the Integralists in the short term but work in the long term. Of course there is no Vietnam war, or it is significantly different. I imagine with a Fascist Britain, France will align herself with the United States once again.
I understand I'm missing many important factors, I'm just trying to show something of what might look like in a no Hitler/Successful Fascist world. To see how a Fascist Britain would work, I recommend Mosley's 100 questions, most if not all of the antisemitism was National Socialist pandering to prevent them from splitting off, which they did try to do anyways with the Imperial League of National Socialists IIRC, so I imagine ITTL there would be much less of that. As in Italy, fascism in Britain (with no Hitler) would likely have had a significant Jewish base, if likely a smaller percentage than in Italy, before WWII.
From what I've heard, you've got it backwards. The Strasserists did not like the Jews because of capitalism not the other way around. They would have had at least as much Social reform and welfare as current states in Europe that we see as Social Democratic, as soon as their economy recovered.
Having done a little more research you might be right. I found a pretty good paper that describes Otto Strasser's beliefs. He believed that capitalism and communism were both equally unpleasant extremes, and that both workers and capitalists should be united under a nationalist state. He opposed both the Kapp Putsch and the Bavarian soviet.
Gottfried said:
They supported some state intervention in the economy:
Gottfried said:
Gottfried said:
However, Otto Strasser apparently abandoned autarky and supported free trade. So Strasserism can characterized as a Social-Democratic corporatism for Germany. I think it might be similar to third-way ideologies like Peronism.
He also seemed to be less anti-Semitic than Hitler, at least by the 1940s. It's quite possible that his earlier beliefs were more anti-Semitic though, as many of his political positions changed as he got older.
Gottfried said:
Most of the results on Google are places like Stormfront, so finding info on his ideology isn't exactly easy. I'm probably on a list now.
I'd highly recommend that everyone check out Maverick's The Shadow of Montreux, which features fascism remaining as a political ideology well into the 20th century. Technically it still has Hitler coming to power, but he is overthrown after a war with Italy over Austria. Mussolini dominates the worldwide fascist movement until his death in the late 1950s. In that timeline, France as well as much of the third world goes fascist, and many different forms of the ideology are discussed.
I'll check that out. I've always thought Balbo was right, I imagine he'll be quite prominent.
tenthring
Banned
Fascism represented the interests of the lower middle class, petite bourgeois, and socially conservative rural peasants.
Socialism represented urban proletariate.
Both had support from intellectuals, though today you'll only find them on the left.
Elites, as always, remained pragmatic about maintaining their status as events flowed around them. Though of course they had their leanings and certain eccentricities.
And of course politicians use everyone.
Calling something left or right wing is going to be pretty hard. For one, policies are usually just interest group grab bags when they come out on the other side of the sausage making.
Socialism represented urban proletariate.
Both had support from intellectuals, though today you'll only find them on the left.
Elites, as always, remained pragmatic about maintaining their status as events flowed around them. Though of course they had their leanings and certain eccentricities.
And of course politicians use everyone.
Calling something left or right wing is going to be pretty hard. For one, policies are usually just interest group grab bags when they come out on the other side of the sausage making.
Your statement and post ignore quite a few basic facts and make a series of flawed assumptions in an attempt to sustain your incorrect assertion. Let me explain this in detail...
First, I will define what socialism is.
Socialism is a broad movement, with many different currents. It originated in the 19th century in response to the rise of capitalism and the industrial revolution. The goal of the socialists was and still is the abolition of capitalism. This would entail the end of all social classes and the end of the state.
Since the mid 19th century, there have been two main currents that can be identified: evolutionary socialists and revolutionary socialists. Evolutionary socialists (whose leading proponent was Eduard Bernstein) believed that capitalism could be reformed away and that socialism could be built within the system. Modern-day social democrats (who believe in reforming capitalism to make it more humane, but who do not support abolishing it) are arguably their descendants. Revolutionary socialists (people like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxembourg etc) instead believed that socialism could only be brought about by revolution. It is important to note that socialists of all stripes opposed imperialism and all forms of nationalism (though some, like Lenin, supported National liberation movements). This simplifies things a bit (for example, I ignore anarchism), but is a decent overview of socialism prior to the First World War.
Some sources on socialist ideology:
Principles of Communism - written by Engels, probably the world's first FAQ
Evolutionary Socialism - written by Bernstein
State and Revolution - written by Lenin, explains the Marxist conception of the state and class society
Kapitalism101 - good introduction to Marxist economics.
The Marxist Internet Archive has a very good encyclopedia about left-wing thought.
At the start of the war, the second international voted to oppose the war. And indeed almost all socialist organizations supported it. The Bolsheviks and the American Socialist Party being among the foremost opponents of the war.
But not all did. The German Social Democratic Party of Germany voted to join the war, which led to a split. The more radical revolutionary socialists opposed the war, and formed the Sparticist League. After the war, the SPD ceased all pretenses of being a revolutionary party, and supported the reform of capitalism.
Yes, Mussolini was a socialist before the war, but his thinking changed radically during the war. He ceased to believe in the class struggle and abandoned all pretenses of socialism:
Wikipedia said:
So to claim that Mussolini was somehow a socialist after the war is disingenuous at best.
Regarding Hitler's so-called socialism:
Gottfried said:
Economy of Nazi Germany said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany
Economy of Nazi Germany said:
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatinterviews1
Hitler later said he regretted using the term "socialist" in the party's name. (Turner, Henry A., German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler (Oxford University Press, 1985) p. 77.)
Hitler was never very much interested in economics; he was far more focused on racism and nationalism.
So it's quite clear that even if he used the term socialist, he can't be considered one. The 25 points ceased to be politically relevant by the mid 1920s. Although some of the points (regarding welfare etc. are social democratic, all the nationalism is right-wing).
Now that I've established that Hitler and Mussolini weren't ideological socialists, I'll move on to why there regimes were not socialist in any meaningful way.
Now I think I'll define capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system characterized by: capital accumulation, wage labor, commodity production, private ownership of the means of production and investing money. Free markets are not required. In fact, the state has almost always intervened in the capitalist economy. Social democracy, which is descended from evolutionary socialism, is not incompatible with capitalism.
When the Nazis seized power, they engaged in deficit spending and public works projects. This has nothing to do with socialism, and many other governments at the time were engaging in similar programs. Keynes' ideas are not at all incompatible with capitalism, and indeed Keynes hated Marx.
The Nazis also did some nationalization, but they also engaged in privatization, something with socialists and social democrats oppose.
AGAINST THE MAINSTREAM: NAZI PRIVATIZATION IN 1930S GERMANY said:
http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
Plenty of American businesses had no problem working with Nazi Germany
https://www.thenation.com/article/kodaks-nazi-connections/#sthash.Uyt47O5x.dpuf
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PhAxFw0GiP4C&pg=PA148&dq=chase+bank+nazi&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kodWUoGOCYPCtQaX2YH4Bg#v=onepage&q=chase bank nazi&f=false
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/07/world/chase-reviews-nazi-era-role.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/270849.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/...MW-dynasty-breaks-silence-over-Nazi-past.html
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hdQBTcscxyQC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=BMW+nazi+luftwaffe+engines&source=bl&ots=7QRxU4upyG&sig=XWSXFTxgYrhCDGf0ViFXrB4nzrU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=u5taUpceosrRBZCsgGg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=BMW nazi luftwaffe engines&f=false
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ls-step-grandchildren-are-hidden-billionaires
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/bayer-nazi-role-article-1.701925#ixzz2hE4H5dMk
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HjUTDX1iSPYC&pg=PA18&dq=bayer+nazi+gas&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YUdVUpXzGq2b0wXR34HICA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=bayer nazi gas&f=false
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=reaULlRvTgwC&pg=PA28&dq=inventor+of+aspirin+bayer+felix+hoffman+or+Arthur+Eichengrun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iElVUtKvOa2r0gXFvIDwBg&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=inventor of aspirin bayer felix hoffman or Arthur Eichengrun&f=false
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kractQ2Eiz0C&pg=PA99&dq=allianz+schmitt+policy+insuracne+nazu&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jKNaUtb8Nsqb0AWXx4DYBw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=allianz schmitt policy insuracne nazu&f=false
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3h6MVlpGYbYC&pg=PA117&dq=allianz+insurance+payouts+nazi&hl=en&sa=X&ei=caRaUuGNCuGc0AXN4YGACA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=allianz insurance payouts nazi&f=false
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vh7sx2xtjGEC&pg=PA196&dq=standard+oil+nazi&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KGZVUo2KJsWf0QX0v4DoBA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=standard oil nazi&f=false
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-used-slave-labour-in-Nazi-German-plants.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/mar/29/humanities.highereducation
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3832141.stm
So it seems that the industrialists, even industrialists in America had little problem working with the Nazis. Do you think that people like union-busting Henry Ford would really support a socialist regime?
Capitalists did very well in Nazi Germany.
Unfortunately, I don't know as much about Italy, so I'll try to do some more research.
Last edited:
Just to add to this RE Capitalism in nazi Germany; if anything from an economic perspective Nazism was the last resurgence of the Cartel system of imperial Germany, the system being brought back ironically against the interests of the middle class in many ways. As a result, businesses could often make serious demands economically to the point of IG Farben running their own concentration camp.
The sooner we get over the binary dichotomy of left and right, the sooner we can have more productive political conversations.