New at Reason
Michael C. Moynihan reviews Götz Aly's controversial book Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State.
Comments to "New at Reason":
x,y | August 15, 2007, 12:47pm | #
stolid Prussian willing to subsume morality to a vague notion of duty, with those not of the Junker class simply terrorized into submission, too fearful to resistCompare this with Guiliani's freedom must succumb to authority.
Michael Pack | August 15, 2007, 1:01pm | #
I never use the terms left or right I prefer socialist and free market.That's the true clash of ideas.As an aside,Otto von Bismark brought the world social security.He believed if you made the population dependent on the goverment they would be eaiser to control.He's called right wing today.Rex Rhino | August 15, 2007, 1:13pm | #
Socialism erases all wrongs! It is why Roosevelt gets a free pass from the left on the whole Japanese concentration camps, censorship, and spying on the mail, firebombing civilians, supporting segragation, and bombing neutral countries.He can't be evil, he created 'Social Security' after all!!!
Syloson of Samos | August 15, 2007, 1:18pm | #
...Hitler’s Beneficiaries shifts the brunt of the blame back toward ordinary Germans.Given that there has been a whole wave of books since the 1990s which looked into the complicity of ordinary Germans it is probably more appropriate to say that this work is part of that wave.
The German home front, Aly claims, suffered less privation than its English and American counterparts.
The Nazis did not shift to full wartime economy until rather late into the war. In part this was because of the fears of another 1918 - that is the German population rising in mass revolt as a result of years of privation.
While underemphasized by modern historians...
Public works projects, etc. are discussed in works on the Nazi regime (at least the ones that I've read).
Anyway, it is safe to say that the Nazis kept their ear close to the ground when it came to the hearts and minds of the German populace. Plugging into popular desires and concerns was one of their chief means of maintaining power.
Ever talk to a German who was alive at the time? You usually get a creepy version of "yes, it was a terrible thing...but..."
Paul | August 15, 2007, 1:40pm | #
And while the material deprivation of Berliners may have been limited to the occasional interruption in the sausage supply, the “parasitic” hausfrau surely observed her city’s gradual reduction to rubble. It would be astonishing if, in the midst of this destruction, those in Germany gave much thought to taxes or pensions.This is a complicated subject, to be sure. But we see this in very small measures, every day in modern society. You can find a wretched, decaying neighborhood, crime ridden and desperate, and yet the citizens of that neighborhood will defend their welfare structure to the bitter end. Even in the face of evidence which shows that the welfare structure is responsible for the decay. I believe it comes from a reasonable mentality: "look around, this sucks, now you're going to take the one small thing I do have."
emilper | August 15, 2007, 1:45pm | #
"The Nazis did not shift to full wartime economy until rather late into the war. In part this was because of the fears of another 1918 - that is the German population rising in mass revolt as a result of years of privation."as far as I know, after 1933, the purchasing power of "German populace" decreased slowly until 1939 (the same as in Italy after 1922), then went down hard. While jobs and sausages might have been available, the jobs did not pay enough to buy the sausages, and the whole industry of surrogates (hydrogenated vegetable oil instead of butter, burnt fat plus salt as "soup cubes" etc. ) that now produces what we call "processed food" was developed during the late '30s to cater for the city dwellers not working for the government or a few privileged industies.
jh | August 15, 2007, 2:02pm | #
As the mass killings in Rwanda and Cambodia should demonstrate, a cash incentive is hardly a prerequisite.Michael Moynihan, the killings in Rwanda were mainly about the plunder -- specifically, stealing someone else's land, since the burgeoning population has shrunk average family farm plots down to the point where people couldn't get enough to eat.
ChrisO | August 15, 2007, 2:12pm | #
Geez, this thread comes "pre-Godwinized."Anyone searching for simple, all-encompassing theories about the Holocaust or Nazism is doomed to disappointment.
parse | August 15, 2007, 2:13pm | #
Socialism erases all wrongs! It is why Roosevelt gets a free pass from the leftIf that's the case, Rex, why doesn't Hitler get a free pass from the left?
Syloson of Samos | August 15, 2007, 2:15pm | #
empiler,While that may or may not be correct, production of items like hoisery and other civilian oriented products were not halted until relatively late in the war. Indeed, if true, the fact that the German government went to such measures demonstrates their desire to placate the homefront.
Paul | August 15, 2007, 2:17pm | #
If that's the case, Rex, why doesn't Hitler get a free pass from the left?'Cause he was a racist. The left is also traditionally confused about Hitler. The left considers pro-capitalist, individualist government minimalists as being "right wing". They've bought their own propaganda.
Oh, and I'm not trying to subverisvely suggest that the left is "like Hitler", but there are areas where ideology intersects. And I'm talking about the real left in this country. Not what we loosely call "liberals".
jtuf | August 15, 2007, 2:53pm | #
The average person doesn't even know that the Nazis were Socialists. The focus is on Hitler's racism not socialism, because racism ties into US taboos. Hitler attracted support from many different angles. Racism and anti-Semitism played on people's hate, jealousy, and desire to feel superior. Patriotism played on people's desire to be part of something larger than themselves. Wealth redistribution played on people's greed.Wealfare doesn't always lead strait to violence or genocide, but it sure helps. In politics, as in anarchy, people are more comfortable with someone beating up the innocent if the perpetrator throws them some cash.
Dan T. | August 15, 2007, 3:00pm | #
This is a complicated subject, to be sure. But we see this in very small measures, every day in modern society. You can find a wretched, decaying neighborhood, crime ridden and desperate, and yet the citizens of that neighborhood will defend their welfare structure to the bitter end. Even in the face of evidence which shows that the welfare structure is responsible for the decay. I believe it comes from a reasonable mentality: "look around, this sucks, now you're going to take the one small thing I do have."I think this is a good point, and it illustrates the true purpose of welfare - to make sure you don't have a large class of people with nothing to lose. Welfare is a necessary evil in a capitalist state.
trollus maximus | August 15, 2007, 3:00pm | #
I haven't read the article yet but I am going to pre-emptively invoke Godwins law.I'll retract it after I've read the article if it seems inappropriate.
Stephen the Goldberger | August 15, 2007, 3:03pm | #
Dan T's comment hits at exactly why welfare is so evil, it' designed merely to placate instead of to inspire. If anyone who actually supported welfare cared about the poor they'd realize it is little more than a bribe to shut up about the fact that they are failing. What these people need is opportunities. And the reason they don't have them is that we don't have a truly capitalist state, at least in my opinion.jtuf | August 15, 2007, 3:10pm | #
Stephen the Goldberger | August 15, 2007, 3:03pm | #Dan T's comment hits at exactly why welfare is so evil, it' designed merely to placate instead of to inspire. If anyone who actually supported welfare cared about the poor they'd realize it is little more than a bribe to shut up about the fact that they are failing. What these people need is opportunities. And the reason they don't have them is that we don't have a truly capitalist state, at least in my opinion.
This reminds me of the recent Hit and Run article about an African leader who criticized charity rock concerts. He wanted fair trade laws instead. Foriegn aid packages relieve the pressure so congress can decimate developing economies with farm subsidies.
trollus maximus | August 15, 2007, 3:15pm | #
Ok, I'll retract my godwin's law invocation. And I was vauge about whether it would have applied to the book author or the reviewer, but its a moot point now.Dan T. | August 15, 2007, 3:16pm | #
Dan T's comment hits at exactly why welfare is so evil, it' designed merely to placate instead of to inspire. If anyone who actually supported welfare cared about the poor they'd realize it is little more than a bribe to shut up about the fact that they are failing. What these people need is opportunities. And the reason they don't have them is that we don't have a truly capitalist state, at least in my opinion.Actually, I'd say it's a bribe to prevent the poor from rioting in the streets and hanging us from lampposts.
The question is, does welfare prevent people from having opportunities or does it make up for the fact that not everybody is going to have an opportunity? I think that in a pure capitalist economy you are going to have a certain percentage of people who, no matter how hard they try, are not going to earn enough to make a living for themselves and their dependants. How should this be addressed?
joe | August 15, 2007, 3:21pm | #
It's important to remember that Hitler's "socialism" was "war socialism," a very old practice that has never respected left-right distinctions.It's all well and good to recognize that such a "socialism" goes transcends the left-right continuum - Bismarck is the correct exampole - so long as don't then double back on yourself and declare that adopting such measures demonstrates that the Nazis were leftist. The problem with this error is that it leads to another, more dangerous error: the inability to recognize totalitarianism when it puts on a conservative or capitalist (word chosen carefully, to distinguish from "free market") face.
And if the Nazis' welfare state doesn't gain much attention from historians, it's probably because it was little different from those of other states at the time.
It is why Roosevelt gets a free pass from the left on the whole Japanese concentration camps, censorship, and spying on the mail, firebombing civilians, supporting segragation, and bombing neutral countries.
Um, what? Rex, have you ever actually read anything written by a leftist?
Stephen the Goldberger | August 15, 2007, 3:28pm | #
"How should this be addressed?"private charity and religious institutions.
joe | August 15, 2007, 3:32pm | #
The hausfrau watching her city getting levelled is going to view that as a reason to support her government, and the incumbent regime, more.Did you live in this country in the Autumn of 2001, Mr. Moynihan?
Brett | August 15, 2007, 3:35pm | #
First of all, Godwin's law is bunk."Why were they so easily corruptible?"
I'm not surprised at all. Look at how postwar Americans have traded their traditional liberties for a mess of pottage.
The Greatest Generation was complicit in that, by the way. Their Depression childhoods can be compared to Weimar.
BG | August 15, 2007, 3:36pm | #
Dan T's comment hits at exactly why welfare is so evil, it' designed merely to placate instead of to inspire. If anyone who actually supported welfare cared about the poor they'd realize it is little more than a bribe to shut up about the fact that they are failing. What these people need is opportunities. And the reason they don't have them is that we don't have a truly capitalist state, at least in my opinion.How does the welfare state destroy opportunity?
I suppose you could argue that it has some effect since higher tax rates tend to reduce the incentive to start a business or expand productive capacity or such. But if taxes are set at appropriate levels and revenue is generated from sources that are less likely to discourage job creation; that effect can be made quite minimal compared to the beneficial effect to the poor of having augmented income (or an income). And a thrifty, entrepreneurial welfare recipient may be able to save enough of his or her welfare money to start a business or do something to be more able to lift him or her self out of poverty.
Maybe I misunderstood your comment, and you are really saying there are other things reducing opportunity and the welfare state makes it politically possible for those things to continue to exist. In that case, I'll wait until you clarify to comment further.
Dan T. | August 15, 2007, 3:40pm | #
"How should this be addressed?"private charity and religious institutions.
I agree, in theory. But I find it to be wishful thinking.
Rex Rhino | August 15, 2007, 3:42pm | #
Actually, I'd say it's a bribe to prevent the poor from rioting in the streets and hanging us from lampposts.Since the poor are vastly outnumbered by the middle class, I think it is very unlikely to see some sort of open class warfare in the U.S.. Usually the people using class warfare rhetoric in the U.S. try to convince the middle class that they are poor, not actually try to win over real people who live in poverty.
I think that in a pure capitalist economy you are going to have a certain percentage of people who, no matter how hard they try, are not going to earn enough to make a living for themselves and their dependants. How should this be addressed?In a capitalist society, the unemployed and poor make very poor consumers (you can't buy expensive stuff if you have no money), and so in a capitalist society there is no incentive to create a population completly dependent on
In a society where the political elite maintain power by redistributing resources to those in poverty, there is a huge economic incentive to keep people in poverty and dependent on handouts. Government social services aren't designed to alieviate poverty, they are designed to perpetuate and expand poverty, and thus create even more demand for Socialism Inc..
I don't know if anything can be done for the unemployable poor, other than give them what they need to survive. However, I would like to see an end to the government system that rewards politicians for keeping people in unescapable poverty.
de stijl | August 15, 2007, 3:51pm | #
The average person doesn't even know that the Nazis were Socialists.You know, the kind of socialists that banned trade unions the minute they got power.
Stephen the Goldberger | August 15, 2007, 3:52pm | #
My comment wasn't meant to say necessarily that welfare destroys opportunity (although i believe it does slightly as you argue), but that it is offered to the poor in place of opportunity.I think the ways opportunities are created in impoverished areas is by actually implementing protections of poor people's rights and their property so that they can play in the capitalist system. With the help of education they can develop their skills and better their lot in life.
Instead of this we have gov't policy designed to protect the few who are employed (minimum wage which decreases the total number of jobs) and pay off those who aren't as lucky (welfare). The end result is decreased social mobility and the creation of a distinct class system. I believe the situation you described of the entrepreneurial receipiant exists, but i think for the most part it's a case of a state allowance, and an incentive not to work.
It's like Superfly said "[Coke's] the only game the man would let us play."
Rex Rhino | August 15, 2007, 3:57pm | #
You know, the kind of socialists that banned trade unions the minute they got power.Castro banned labor unions. Mao banned labor unions. Lenin banned labor unions. They weren't socialist?
joe | August 15, 2007, 4:03pm | #
You know, the kind of socialists that banned trade unions the minute they got power.Totalitarians of the left and right always ban labor unions - real, independent labor unions, anyway.
Better would have been, "You know, the kind of socialist who proclaims that the private owner of a business is the fuhrer of that workplace, and has a natural right to the obedience of his employees."
de stijl | August 15, 2007, 4:18pm | #
Castro banned labor unions. Mao banned labor unions. Lenin banned labor unions.Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Syloson of Samos | August 15, 2007, 4:19pm | #
The holocaust of the Jews and other ethnic groups in Europe by the nazis is not a unique event in human history, though the "forces" behind such events may be unique. Comparing genocides - in other words - may be a way the social dynamics which lead to such extreme human activities.Rex Rhino | August 15, 2007, 4:19pm | #
Better would have been, "You know, the kind of socialist who proclaims that the private owner of a business is the fuhrer of that workplace, and has a natural right to the obedience of his employees."OK joe, so Hitler nationalized all industry under government control, created a national employment scheme, a national universal health care scheme, instituted strict price controls and wage quotas, and in general created an elaborate infrastructure of social benefits for the working class (excluding the Jews, who Hitler considered "paragons of Capitalism"... yet he wasn't "socialist".
Can you give me a clear objective definition of what a socialist is joe? Just because it is embarrasing to socialists that Hitler was a socialist and a racist warmongerer, doesn't make his economic policies any different that those of Castro or Chavez.
Syloson of Samos | August 15, 2007, 4:22pm | #
More specifically, compare the Roman genocide of the Dacians with that committed in WWII.Stephen the Goldberger | August 15, 2007, 4:23pm | #
Everyone knows the holocaust was caused by the ten homosexual jewish bankers that run the world from a bunker in geneva.Rex Rhino | August 15, 2007, 4:24pm | #
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.It is a matter of record. Castro banned labor unions. Mao banned labor unions. Lenin banned labor unions.
Claiming that there was anything resembling a labor union in the Soviet Union, Cuba, or China is pure fabrication. They don't exists, and they are explicitly banned by those governments from day 1.
de stijl | August 15, 2007, 4:31pm | #
It is a matter of record.Link
They were coopted, but they were not banned.
jtuf | August 15, 2007, 4:41pm | #
de stijl,Trade unions are just as free market as cartels or temp agencies that hires out workers. In their current incarnation, they tend to foccus more on financing politicians to get hand outs, but then again so do many corporations. That's why some capitalists complain about them. There's nothing anti-capitalist about collective bargening, but I can see how statists would feel threatened by any large, nongovernmental organization.
Rex Rhino | August 15, 2007, 4:59pm | #
They were coopted, but they were not banned.The Nazis also operated a government controlled labor union called the "German Labour Front".
The Communist and Nazi had identical policies and rhetoric when it came to labor unions.
The Nazis operated an economy in a manner almost indetical to modern day Cuba. If the Nazis aren't socialists, than Cuba isn't socialist. If the Nazis are "capitalist", then Cuba is "capitalist".
jh | August 15, 2007, 6:14pm | #
From the Wikipedia entry de stijl linked to: "Unlike labor unions in the West, Soviet trade unions were, in fact, actually governmental organizations whose chief aim was not to represent workers but to further the goals of management, government, and the CPSU."Calling a government bureaucracy opposed to the interests of workers a trade union doesn't make it one, the same as labeling a steaming pile of horse manure "fine chocolate" doesn't make it so.
JBinMO | August 15, 2007, 6:49pm | #
"You know, the kind of socialists that banned trade unions the minute they got power.Castro banned labor unions. Mao banned labor unions. Lenin banned labor unions. They weren't socialist?"
They may have been socialists, but they were brutal dictators first, socalists second. They didn't like the trade unions for the same reason they didn't like any other orginazition, it could become a threat.
SIV | August 15, 2007, 7:25pm | #
Roosevelt gets a free pass for signing the Marihuana Tax Act too.BG | August 15, 2007, 7:38pm | #
My comment wasn't meant to say necessarily that welfare destroys opportunity (although i believe it does slightly as you argue), but that it is offered to the poor in place of opportunity.Ahh, I see what you mean now. You might be right about that.
To the extent that there are bad policies in place that reduce opportunities for the poor, I guess the best thing to do would be to correct those policies. However, I don't know that there would be more political pressure to do that if we didn't have a welfare state. We have plenty of calls for better education and crime-fighting today (though its not clear what kind of results we're getting). And whatever the arguments for or against a minimum wage (which you cite as decreasing the number of jobs) it was popular before we had a welfare state.
grumpy realist | August 15, 2007, 8:10pm | #
The problem with leaving welfare up to "charity" is that far too many of the private so-called charities have decidedly nasty strings attached to their "assistance."Such as religious conversion, for one. Which squicks out a lot of people.
Taktix® | August 15, 2007, 8:24pm | #
The problem with leaving welfare up to "charity" is that far too many of the private so-called charities have decidedly nasty strings attached to their "assistance."Not the best answer, but it beats the pants off of the current strings attached to welfare: The strings that are attached to everyone.
vanya | August 15, 2007, 8:43pm | #
It is why Roosevelt gets a free pass from the left on the whole Japanese concentration camps, censorship, and spying on the mail, firebombing civilians, supporting segragation, and bombing neutral countries.Of course. And the left ignores all those on the American right in the 1940s who were opposed to all of the above. Oh, wait. Nobody of note on the right was opposed to any of those actions. (Although there were Republicans who were more pro-integration than FDR, but those kind of Republicans are now called "liberals."). You can't judge FDR by the standards of 2007.
'K, Vanya. I also didn't like him in 1967. If you can believe the Chicago papers (someone "of note" on the right), opposing Roosevelt during his regime was a good way to be accused of treason, sometimes with a death penalty specification.
Kenobi | August 15, 2007, 11:15pm | #
private charity and religious institutions.I agree, in theory. But I find it to be wishful thinking.
I guess you don't know about the extensive network of mutual social welfare organizations called "Friendly Societies" that existed before the welfare state came in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_societies
Really, Dan T., if you're concerned about poor people not receiving charity, I suggest you talk to the average american about getting rid of gov't welfare and noting their reaction. Hint: it will probably be something like your reaction.
Now, if I didn't get that reaction every time I mentioned the idea to a non-libertarian type, I might be worried...
Gahan | August 15, 2007, 11:44pm | #
Look at all the people who gave their Bush tax cuts away to charity. I remember lefties thought they were making some kind of rebellious "in your face" statement against the conservative establishment, but it really just served to undermine the necessity of those taxes in the first place.