It was the opposite. You might call it the state control of employees. They forced employees into 'unions' and controlled them so they had to follow employers instructions
I would not recommend it as a introductory book (nor a contemporary look as it's 12 years old), but once you're comfortable enough with Russian politics conceptually, I'd recommend Petrostate by Marshall I. Goldman. You can read the first few pages via Google.
It was very much a symbiotic relationship. The Nazi Regime "employed", so to speak, private entities into supporting the war economy, and in return those were rewarded with steady income, and often cheap, or free (slave)labor.
I actually think that makes it rather more important. It's a dangerous game when people think they can look at specific economic systems and identify good or evil from those terms. The denial by socialists that Nazism involved socialism is just blatant ideological loyalty.
The denial of Capitalists that Nazism was Capitalism is just blatant the ideological loyalty
Adam Smith drew some very general principles for what capitalism was and how it worked, but in terms of detail and manipulating policy to achieve ends, there was very little. That's what a lot of later economists were working on. After that, Keynes made no worse a job of explaining how the economy worked than a 1940s biologist would make an explanation of how the brain worked. Friedman made no worse a job of explaining how the economy worked than a 1970s biologist would make an explanation of how the brain works. And so on. Knowledge builds on knowledge. Theories replace theories, and everything is amended and argued over as it advances. No-one should be expecting Keynes or Friedman to provide best answers: they're decades out of date.
There's a whole lot of difference between "The Nazis were socialists" and "The Nazis utilised some socialistic policies [like Western capitalist democracies also do]".
Nazis weren't communists at all. Communism might be about that, socialism is just an economic system.
I didn't do that.
Usually cause it's followed with "...therefore the Nazi regime was left-wing."
Which itself is usually followed with "And therefore all left-wingers want to genocide everyone they disagree with", typically with the "and that's why they need to be cancelled/destroyed" connotation.
I know it's strange, but you're perfectly allowed to engage with arguments people are actually making instead of imaginary ones.
I was refering, in general, to arguments made by some right-wingers, including these forums, that are very much NOT imaginary.
It was also formed in response to attempts by socialist parties to overthrow the government during the war and do not forget that Hitler associated the communists with ethnic Jews (As bad as the connection he made was).
Oh, you mean the socialist parties?
You're the one that brought up the Nordic countries as an example of socialist countries and without any examples of how, why am I not allowed to say they aren't with no examples of how? Your next response, since you brought them up, is to elaborate on how you see them as socialist. And it is not because I don't know anything about those countries, I want to hear you yourself define it.
Oh, what a load of titanic bollocks.
Yeah, but that would take effort and I'm lazy. You argued that the government in power effectively making all economic decisions is therefore the opposite of socialism, and I could point out that isn't the opposite of socialism, and then you'd accuse me of confusing planned economies for socialism, and I'd point out you're the one overly narrowing definitions for your own purposes and in 20 posts you'd still never admit you said something wrong for purely ideological reasons... why bother?
A) Replying to comments not on this forum is imagining your own argument instead of the one actually presented.
It's kind of you to preface your post with a tl;dr.
It's an extremely broad term, but it's usually defined as an economic and political system that involves a high level of communal or worker control of industry (whether that be production in general, services, or utilities like rail, networking, infrastructure, mail etc). It also involves a commitment to flattening out wealth inequality as much as is practical, and providing a state-provided economic safety net (usually in the form of welfare).
Uhrm, yes, in part it was formed in response to a perceived threat from socialist parties, and figures like Liebknecht & Luxemburg. It was violently opposed to them.
Yes, the SPD & KPD were socialist parties. What's your point, exactly? The violent opposition of the Nazis to the socialists demonstrates my point.
I actually already elaborated on this. Widespread nationalisation, widespread public-sector employment, progressive tax systems aimed at wealth redistribution, broad unionisation and collective-bargaining, and a developed welfare state.
Ewoks seem more like anarchists to me.
Remember Saelune? She used the term willy nilly.
