Hitlers Views on Capitalism

Ich kann nicht die deutsche Sprache sprechen. Bitte Antwort auf englisch. Danke.

I'm interested in learning more about Hitler and have recently purchased a thick book on him by an author with a last name of Toland. But first, to lay it on the table, my feelings of Hitler are that he was an extreme idealist who shunned logic and facts on history, sociology, culture, and politics. And we all know what harm that caused. And to go a step further, I am an American who is very Republican in political views. Some of my relatives emigrated to the United States from Germany. They were made up of Rohrlack's and Mielke's, and they lived in Wisconsin and Chicago. My great grandparents were German-born, I believe. They were named Walter and Pauline Rohrlack.

Anyway, getting all that out of the way, it says here in this book that he was against Marxism and against Capitalism, trying to claim that the Jews at that time encouraged that, disregarding any facts that perhaps it was just coincidence and good organization on behalf of the Jews that they predominantly might have been very Marxist or very Capitalist.

The point. It makes a good case for Hitler's views against Marxist Communism, but doesn't make a good case for why Hitler was so adamantly against Capitalism. Does anyone have an idea what Hitler was feeling about Capitalism prior to WWII?

: adamantly against Capitalism. Does anyone have an idea what Hitler was : feeling about Capitalism prior to WWII?

Hitler, like the Nazi party, often had vague and even contradictory opinions and policies with regards to economic matters. Hitler never put as much effort into political economy as he did into geopolitics and race theory. I think that many people overemphasize Hitler's anti-communism and forget that he was just as dismissive/critical of capitalism. He just thought the communists were a bigger threat and happened to be sitting on land he wanted. But this was pre 'cold war', just because he hated the Soviets didn't meant he liked the US and Britain. It was not a mistake that the Nazis were the 'National SOCIALIST democratic workers party.' Hitler had several objections to classic capitalism. First of all, he fervently believed in the 'Fuhrer principle', which was basically that society should be run by an all-powerful dictator. The dictators powers extended to controlling the economy, if need be. The 'good of the people' (as determined by the fuhrer) outweighed classic ideas of individual property rights or laissez faire. Indeed, in Hitler's (warped) world view, capitalism had proven its failure by rewarding the 'wrong' people - Jews, degenerate plutocrats, etc. Capitalism taught greed and self interest. Hitler, just as much as early Soviet revolutionaries, was intent on creating a 'new man' who would be 'above' the mere acquisition of wealth. Secondly, on a political level, Hitler early in his career promised the common man that he (Hitler) would strip the criminal rich of their wealth, and that he would build a Germany where money no longer bought privilege. (Instead, of course, Nazi status would...). Of course, as things turned out, Hitler took a slightly altered course to power. Basically, he cut deals with the wealthy elite of Germany (basically, the 'conservatives' to get into power. Then, with the death of Rhoem and the elimination of the SA in a violent internal political struggle (aka 'the night of the long knives', all talk of the so-called 'Second Revolution' faded. Instead of implementing revolutionary economic changes, Hitler implemented what could be called 'authoratarian capitalism' and used it to try and build a war machine while maintaining acceptable standards of living for Germans.

This of course leads to many interesting questions to ponder. Did Hitler really believe in his 'second revolution' economically? Or was it just blather to gain support while he took power? If he had succeeded at war, would he have tried to implement such a revolution in economics? Hitler talked a lot of 'revolutionary' talk, but never implemented a lot of it. Was this because the war interfered or because he never intended to do it? It is a subject still discussed/debated amongst scholars of the subject.

In my experience, Toland is an entertaining writer but not a scholar. You might do better with Kershaw's recent and good two-volume biography.

My own opinion would be: Hitler had a visceral hatred and fear of communism. I doubt he had any feelings one way or another about capitalism. Toward capitalists he had a very simple approach: he let them go about their business, but expropriated their profits. (Jewish capitalists, of course, were quite another matter.)

I think Hitler would have put the Catholic church well ahead of capitalism as a beast to be exorcised. He didn't in fact get around to tackling the church, and he probably never would have gotten around to capitalism.

all the best

Is this formulation correct? I've never seen the word 'democratic' applied to the Nazis' name for themselves before. It's always been National Socialist German Workers' Party (to use the English translation) in the versions I've seen heretofore. Have I missed something?

I don't think 'idealist' is a word I've ever heard applied to Hitler before. It's hard for me to think of anything at all about him that would merit such a characterization.

That he shunned logic and facts however seems true enough. He was always a bold gambler, risking all on a wild shot, and striking out for emotional reasons. That's one reason why, inspite of a superb army with many competent generals, he rarely listened to their advice. Sometimes his gambles won. Ultimately of course, they destroyed him and his country.

A perfect example of his lack of logic. He was capable of calling them communists and capitalists without the slightest concern for the contradiction.

Personally, I believe that Hitler was neither anti-communist nor anti-capitalist. What he was, was pro-Hitler. Had he the opportunity to be dictator of a communist state, I believe he would have jumped at it and been a leading communist. As it turned out, he had an opportunity to become dictator of a capitalist state. So he supported capitalism - in spite of his early statements against it.

Hitler didn't care much about government policy, as long as he was the one in charge. He left economic and most other policy to others. What he was interested in was working out his personal fantasies of dominance and power . He was a megalomaniac. He was full of sick hatred of all kinds of people - not just Jews, though they got his special attention.

I sense from your posting that you may have some attraction to this man and his movement. If so, I warn you that, whatever might look attractive on the top, there is a cesspool of mental illness, egomania, bigotry, hatred, and corruption underneath. I wouldn't go there if I were you.

No, you are correct. The German version is:

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei

which does translate to National Socialist German Worker's Party.

Mr. Forsberg might have confused it briefly with the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands or SPD.

That's correct. NSDAP. Perhaps the poster was translating the D as Democratic, when it stood for Deutsch or German.

all the best

There is one division that cuts across this one, and that is German or not-German. In the minds of the then grown generation of Germans, 'capitalism' was something they did in England, France and the USA. They also tended to not see 'capitalism' as a concept from economical analysis, but as a moral (exploitation or not) or political issue, like in 'In /England/ it is the rich /Rothschild/ family that runs the country, along with/served by the rich industry barons with similar interests/in their pockets. In Germany, luckily, we still have our Junkers ' (// for sundry variations...). Similary, communism was 'un-German'; 'National Character' was still seen as something real.

Interestingly, to analyze Hitler in relation to his stand for or against, his use to or endagering capitalism and/or communism would be an example of marxist inspired economic reading of society's historical and political dimensions. So I doubt that Hitler himself thought in these categories.

Hitler's 'political world view' was 'constructed' of three main currents: First there was Haushofer and the school of political geography ('natural' geographic/economic units, i.e. the Eurasian east-west axis as the largest natural economic unit; which it is). Second, there was some perhaps home-spun Spencerist view of 'Nations' or 'races' being involved in some 'Darwinian' 'struggle for survival'; interestingly, one main tenet here was that 'multiplying' 'races' were the 'strong' ones, in a 'Nietzschean' sense (I'll dispense with the 'bullshit'-markers from here on), and in actual fact, it was the slavic nations that exhibited the strongest growing tendency, so on this line of thinking, they were entitled to conquer. So, thirdly, Hitler really _needed_ the concept of racism to rank races according to worth in such a manner that even though neighbouring peoples seemed to gain a darwinistic victory, that was unfair and simply worng. It was only a good thing if a good nation, like the Germans did it, hence 'Lebensraum' was OK for the Germans, but not for i.e. Poles.

This of course is a very simplified explanation of what philosophical idealism stands for, but I think I have captured the meaning of the original poster. Who btw is not admiring Hitler, but criticizing him.

National Socialist GERMAN workers party, not 'democratic'.