History and Economics

>>3098294
Depends on how you're defining things. At least when the Nazis first took power, most definitely, but they increasingly used simple coercion to keep the economy together, especially as the war dragged on, in a way that's more akin to stereotypes of Pharonic Egypt than a modern economy. You still had a money system and theoretical concepts of free enterprise, but you had rationing for everything that was the real scarcity mechanism, you had enormous amounts of slave labor in the economy, you generally weren't free to quit your job, etc. I'm honestly not sure what I'd call it.

>>3098294

capitalism is free market.

imagine if today, all the biggest companies got together with the government and made laws banning all their competitors and now they are the only suppliers. Thats what fascist economy is. Its not capitalistic at all

>>3098294
Not exactly. Like with most countries, there was a mix of private and public ownership. I think in the early days you could argue it was a capitalist mixed economy but by the late 30s the economy was more and more directed by the state for the benefit of the military.

Any more opinions?

>>3098294
nah they were socialism lite, they crushed the union's but on the flip side they implemented workers rights.
They were your basic Keynesian economic tax and spenders. It wouldn't have lasted

>>3098294
The only ones who really think like that are tankies and their mental gymnastics (capitalism in decay, logical consequence of capitalism, etc.).

I'm sure as others have pointed out the Reich had to rely on literal slave labor in order to sustain itself. Nazi Germany was destined to fall if even if they won the war. I'd wager that Nazi Germany would have collapsed a lot sooner compared to the Soviet Union because the the reich's economy just couldn't sustain itself in the long run.. Germany had to literally conquer other nations and loot the countries in order to sustain its economy. The strength through Joy was a bunch of bullshit.

>>3098294
No. First of all, capitalism (in a pure sense) is a free market system founded on voluntary exchange, non-aggression, and property rights (not the perversion that is present today in the form of corporatism -- that is NOT real capitalism). Nazi Germany had a bureaucracy, social programs, and corporatism.

>>3098294
Yes. Everyone had private wealth and companies received lucrative government contracts. They even killed and enslaved Jews in order to steal their wealth.

>>3099482
See >>3099430

>>3099489
>hurr durr. Capitalism is da free market.
I suggest you learn what words mean.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
>Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3]
Nothing to do with free market.
Also a good film on Nazi Germany and its economy.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials_(film)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_xMmD5DQY

The Nazis made death and violence into a commercial enterprise.

>>3098317
no. capitalism is a mode of production. "free market" doesnt even possible. go back to sraffa.

This book should be pinned and suggested for everyone to read before talking about Nazi economics.
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=E5F933133EE97652A5B73B19D7476BDC
If you download it, go to Chapter 4: The Regime and German Business for some insight. Hitler and large German firms like IG Farben and Krupp were in bed together before he even took power, with IG Farben alone donating 400,000 Reichsmarks to the National Socialist party for its campaign funds.
Private enterprise and government were intertwined through cartels that took government decrees and controlled prices, imports, and exports, and were able to bully other firms that were not in a cartel. This led to some inequality:
>The combination of rising domestic demand, an end to foreign competition, rising prices and relatively static wages created a context in which it was hard not to make healthy profits. Indeed, by 1934 the bonuses being paid to the boards of some firms were so spectacular that they were causing acute embarrassment to Hitler's government. In the light of the far more modest increase in workers' incomes, it seemed that the Communists and Social Democrats did indeed have a point. The Nazi regime was a 'dictatorship of the bosses'. Having regulated imports, exports, and domestic price-setting, the RWM therefore moved in the spring of 1934 to control the use of business profits. The distribution of profits to shareholders was not to exceed a rate of 6 percent of capital. This did not of course have any effect on underlying profitability. It simply mean that corporate accountants were encouraged to squirrel profits away in exaggerated depreciation and reserve bookings.

>>3099861
Many businessmen could take issue with some of the actions of the regime, like the centralizing of energy production, taking a large percentage of profits from an IG Farben synthetic oil plant, forcing coal mine owners to take out loans to fund an expansion of said plant, and arresting Hugo Junkers and expropriating his business due to the sole fact that he owned the largest aircraft production facility in Germany and Goering wanted it. But they supported the regime because of Hitler's promise to destroy trade unions, his disdain of unstable parliamentary democracy, and the lucrative rearmament deals he provided.